RI
BU
TE
Lassen Volcanic National Park
DR
AF
T
-D
O
NO
T
DI
ST
Wilderness Stewardship
Core Elements
Brian Tarpinian
Wilderness Stewardship Fellow
National Park Service
December 2010
Executive summary
Lassen Volcanic National Park protects a spectacular assembly of volcanic peaks, active
hydrothermal features, alpine forests and meadows, and countless remote mountain lakes. In
1972, Congress designated 78,982 acres of the park as wilderness, one of the highest forms of
TE
protection for federal lands. The park’s resource management team has since proposed an
additional 13,151 acres for wilderness designation. In order to preserve these lands to the degree
BU
expected by the Wilderness Act, an evaluation of the current condition of the wilderness and a
RI
plan for monitoring long-term trends is critical.
ST
This document provides a current assessment of the character of Lassen Volcanic Wilderness.
Development of this document involved field surveys, analysis of park management policies and
DI
practices, and discussions with staff from Lassen Volcanic National Park, other national parks,
NO
develop a Wilderness Stewardship Plan.
T
and other federal agencies. Contained within this document are the core elements necessary to
First, the fundamental resources of Lassen Volcanic Wilderness are identified in a brief review
O
of relevant legislation and park management plans. Second, major management successes and
-D
major threats to the wilderness are detailed in a narrative description of the wilderness character.
Third, a proposed suite of indicators and measures forms the foundation of a new wilderness
T
character monitoring program. Fourth, the “Minimum Requirements Analysis” is organized into
AF
an updated form for use by administrators and researchers. Fifth, a list of planning needs guides
DR
future wilderness stewardship planning.
Table of contents
Basic wilderness information ........................................................................................................................................4
History of land status and legislation ........................................................................................................................4
Current land status.....................................................................................................................................................5
Park purpose, significance, and fundamental resources and values ..........................................................................5
TE
Relationship to other plans ........................................................................................................................................7
Narrative descriptions of the individual wilderness qualities ........................................................................................9
BU
Overview of Lassen Volcanic Wilderness character: ................................................................................................9
Description of the untrammeled quality: ................................................................................................................. 10
Description of the natural quality: ........................................................................................................................... 12
RI
Description of the undeveloped quality:.................................................................................................................. 16
Description of the opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation: ........................................... 19
DI
ST
Description of the cultural quality: .......................................................................................................................... 21
Wilderness character monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 23
T
Administrative guidance .............................................................................................................................................. 29
NO
Minimum Requirements Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 29
Leave No Trace ....................................................................................................................................................... 30
O
Wilderness planning needs .......................................................................................................................................... 31
-D
Trail maintenance .................................................................................................................................................... 31
Recreation management .......................................................................................................................................... 33
Interpretation ........................................................................................................................................................... 34
T
Research .................................................................................................................................................................. 35
AF
Equipment ............................................................................................................................................................... 36
Geospatial data and analysis ................................................................................................................................... 37
DR
Personnel ................................................................................................................................................................. 37
Interagency cooperation .......................................................................................................................................... 37
Appendices .................................................................................................................................................................. 39
Appendix A: Enabling proclamations and legislation ............................................................................................ 39
Appendix B: Current and proposed land status in Lassen Volcanic National Park................................................ 48
Appendix C: Methods for developing wilderness narrative, indicators, and measures .......................................... 49
Appendix D: Minimum Requirements Analysis form ........................................................................................... 52
Appendix E: Review of 2009-2010 research permits ............................................................................................. 56
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Basic wilderness information
History of land status and legislation
The preservation of Lassen Peak and the surrounding region dates back more than a
century. The lands have shifted between different federal authorities and have had several name
TE
changes, often with implications for land management.
In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt created Lassen Peak Forest Reserve from lands
BU
managed by the General Land Office of the Department of Interior. Later that year, authority
over the Forest Reserve was transferred to the newly formed Forest Service in the Department of
RI
Agriculture, and the area was renamed Lassen Peak National Forest. The Forest Reserve and
ST
National Forest land statuses allowed multiple uses such as timber harvesting.
The area eventually received some recognition for its unique volcanic resources,
DI
necessitating further protection. In 1906, President Roosevelt utilized the Antiquities Act to
T
create two national monuments from lands within the National Forest (Appendix A). Cinder
NO
Cone National Monument was named to protect a towering cinder cone volcano and surrounding
lava flows, totaling 5,120 acres. To the west, the 1,280-acre Lassen Peak National Monument
was named to protect the region’s highest volcanic peak. At the time, the President noted that
O
Lassen “marks the southern terminus of the long line of extinct volcanoes in the Cascade
-D
Range.” The reality that the volcano was still active was not known at the time.
Lassen Peak erupted in 1915, to the surprise of Californians and the nation. At the time,
T
it was the only active volcano in the continental United States. Congress responded by forming
AF
Lassen Volcanic National Park from the two national monuments and their surrounding lands in
the national forest (Appendix A). The park was to provide for recreation and preserve nature.
DR
Boundary adjustments have been made over the years; today the park comprises 106,372 acres.
Congress added further protection in 1972 by designating 78,982 acres of the national
park as Lassen Volcanic Wilderness (Appendix A). The debate over this designation was
significant for the wilderness preservation movement. When the National Park Service made its
wilderness recommendation available for public comment, it was only the third such proposal to
be reviewed. Thus, agency officials, politicians, conservationists, and other stakeholders debated
at length over the approach to planning wilderness areas in national parks. The final wilderness
4
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
boundary was a compromise between the smaller recommendation by the National Park Service
and the larger recommendation by the Sierra Club.
Current land status
Since 1972, there have been no adjustments to the wilderness boundary. There are,
however, two potential upcoming changes.
TE
The General Management Plan (GMP) Wilderness Study completed for Lassen Volcanic
National Park in February 2002 proposed to increase designated wilderness in the park by
BU
approximately 25,000 acres. Further evaluation by the park management team reduced the
proposal down to 13,151 acres. (Lands ultimately found to be suitable may be found on the map
RI
in Appendix B.) This proposal was formally transmitted through the Department of Interior in
ST
2010; the delay was due to oversight and not any controversy regarding the proposal. Upon
completion of the surname process, the proposal will be sent to Congress for consideration.
DI
Additionally, the Wilderness Land Trust seeks to donate an adjacent 79-acre parcel
known as the “Spencer Meadow tract #01-171” to the National Park Service. The NPS Pacific
NO
T
West Regional Office is continuing efforts to transfer the title of the parcel. Pending no
objection, the agency will incorporate this parcel into the national park. Furthermore, the agency
O
intends to annex wilderness designation status.
-D
Park purpose, significance, and fundamental resources and values
Congress established Lassen Volcanic National Park in 1916 “for recreation purposes by
the public and for the preservation from injury or spoliation of all timber, mineral deposits and
AF
T
natural curiosities or wonders within said park and their retention in their natural condition and…
[to] provide against the wanton destruction of the fish and game within said park and against
DR
their capture or destruction….”
Lassen Volcanic National Park is unique as the only park in the world where one can find
all four types of volcanoes that geologists recognize: plug dome volcanoes, shield volcanoes,
composite volcanoes (also known as stratovolcanoes), and cinder cones. This complex
geological makeup makes the park popular for geological research, and studies conducted at the
park have contributed to our greater understanding of seismology.
The park also boasts rich biological diversity due in part to its location at the intersection
of three biogeographical provinces: the Cascade Mountains, the Sierra Nevada, and the Great
5
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Basin. The park’s elevation gradient – from just below 6,000 feet to just over 10,000 feet – also
creates an interesting array of communities. Lower elevations are home to mixed conifer forests
of ponderosa pines, sugar pines, incense cedars, and white firs as well as abundant birds and
mammals; slightly higher elevations contain red fir forests and swaths of manzanita; and the
highest elevations harbor a subalpine community including mountain hemlock, whitebark pine,
marmots, and pikas.
TE
The cultural history of the Lassen region is equally notable. At least four Native
BU
American groups traditionally used the park during warmer months: the Atsugewi, Maidu, Yahi,
and Yana. Their artifacts can still be found in the park today. More recently, the region saw
RI
pioneers travel through the mountain passes on their way to points west. The Nobles Emigrant
a National Scenic Trail, also runs through the park.
ST
Trail, a National Historic Trail, protects one of the most popular routes. The Pacific Crest Trail,
DI
The park’s mission as stated in the Strategic Plan is “to conserve, preserve, and protect
Lassen Volcanic National Park and its geological, biological, and cultural resources for the
T
enjoyment, education, and inspiration of present and future generations.” As stated in the park’s
•
NO
General Management Plan, the goals associated with this mission are:
Natural, cultural, and wilderness resources and associated values are protected, restored,
•
-D
cultural context.
O
and maintained in good condition and managed within their broader ecosystem and
The park contributes to knowledge about cultural and natural resources and associated
values; management decisions about resources and visitors are based on adequate
AF
•
T
scholarly and scientific information.
Visitors safely enjoy and are satisfied with the availability, accessibility, diversity, and
DR
quality of park facilities, services, and recreational opportunities.
•
Park visitors and the general public understand and appreciate the preservation of parks
and their resources for this and future generations.
•
The park uses current and sustainable management practices, systems, and technologies
to accomplish its mission.
•
The park increases its managerial capabilities through initiatives and support from other
agencies, organizations, and individuals.
6
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Relationship to other plans
Six existing management plans for Lassen Volcanic National Park could influence or be
influenced by the forthcoming Wilderness Stewardship Plan. Ultimately, the Wilderness
Stewardship Plan should outline desired future conditions for the wilderness and strategies for
reaching those goals, while also helping to meet the objectives of other park management plans
when possible. Aspects of existing plans that are relevant to wilderness are described here.
The Wilderness and Backcountry Management Plan
TE
•
BU
There have been several iterations of wilderness and/or backcountry management plans
for Lassen Volcanic National Park. The most recent approved plan was completed on June 3,
RI
1994. This plan, however, focuses almost entirely on visitor use. In order to provide more a
comprehensive management strategy – including goals for wildlife, vegetation, historical
ST
resources, etc. – the new Wilderness Stewardship Plan will supersede all earlier wilderness
•
The General Management Plan
DI
and/or backcountry management plans.
T
Lassen Volcanic National Park’s General Management Plan (GMP) was completed with
NO
the signing of a Record of Decision on February 25, 2002 and a final printing of the document in
June 2003. Management goals for the wilderness will align well with the Wilderness
O
Stewardship Plan. The GMP lists a need for inventory and monitoring to “determine existing
-D
wilderness conditions, where problems exist, and what types of management actions are
needed.” The GMP also recommends some degree of ecological restoration, historic
preservation, and increased ranger patrol. These goals will be integrated into the Wilderness
AF
T
Stewardship Plan.
The GMP recommended the designation of approximately 25,000 additional acres for
DR
wilderness designation; since finalization of the GMP, this recommondation has been reduced to
13,151 acres. The Wilderness Stewardship Plan will advance the proposal for designating this
smaller, revised area as wilderness.
•
The Natural and Cultural Resource Management Plan
The Natural and Cultural Resource Management Plan (RMP) identifies a broad collection
of resource management objectives, virtually all of which are complementary to the protection of
wilderness. Such objectives include minimizing soil erosion on trails, protecting populations of
sensitive species, and inventorying archaeological resources. The potential for conflict between
7
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
the RMP and Wilderness Stewardship Plan arises when certain management activities are used to
achieve objectives in the RMP. For example, soil erosion can be minimized in a variety of ways,
some of which may be intrusive to wilderness character. Conversely, management prescriptions
in the forthcoming Wilderness Stewardship Plan may affect the ways in which park staff
approach natural and cultural resource issues.
Given that the most recent RMP for Lassen Volcanic National Park is more than a decade
TE
old (approved December 15, 1999), there is a possibility that updated natural and/or cultural
BU
resource stewardship strategies or plans will be written during the wilderness planning process.
If that is the case, managers should try to align the goals and methods in the plans.
The Weed Management Plan
RI
•
The park’s Weed Management Plan, completed in March 2008 and approved on June 17,
ST
2008, directly addresses impacts to wilderness. It notes that a “temporary change in wilderness
DI
character… will occur during weed management activities” but that “the removal of weed
species could also improve the wilderness experience.” This willingness to allow short-term
T
degradation of wilderness character in order to improve wilderness character in the longer-term
•
The Fire Management Plan
NO
is consistent with the approach of the forthcoming Wilderness Stewardship Plan.
O
Lassen Volcanic National Park’s Fire Management Plan (FMP), last revised in April
-D
2010, identifies nine broad fire management goals. Most of the objectives have the potential to
affect wilderness character. Generally, approaches such as using fire and fuels management to
“maintain desired fire regimes to the maximum extent practicable” conflict with the minimum
AF
T
requirement philosophy of wilderness. Furthermore, there is no suggested sunset date for any of
the fire management activities; the balance between short-term and long-term impacts described
DR
in other plans is not expressed in the FMP. This leaves potential for disagreement with the
Wilderness Stewardship Plan.
•
The Commercial Services Plan
There are very few commercial services offered in Lassen Volcanic National Park, and
all such sites are located outside of the wilderness. Therefore, the Commercial Services Plan
from January 2007 is largely irrelevant to wilderness stewardship planning at the park. Increased
visitor use at developed campgrounds could cause changes in animal behavior (such as begging
for food), but the Commercial Services Plan recommended measures to mitigate these effects.
8
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Narrative descriptions of the individual wilderness qualities
Overview of Lassen Volcanic Wilderness character:
Lassen Volcanic Wilderness is a spectacular assembly of volcanic peaks, active
TE
hydrothermal features, alpine forests and meadows, and countless remote mountain lakes.
Congress designated the area as “wilderness” in 1972 with passage of Public Law 92-510. This
BU
designation is one of the highest forms of protection given to federal lands. Additionally, an
agency proposal recommends expanding the size of the wilderness. Until a decision is made by
RI
Congress, these proposed lands are to be managed as if they were designated Wilderness.
ST
Along with all other units of the National Wilderness Preservation System, Congress has
directed that Lassen Volcanic Wilderness must be administered in such a way to preserve the
DI
“wilderness character” of the area. Guidance is provided in the Definition of Wilderness,
Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. The Act identifies qualities which apply to all
Untrammeled: wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human
O
control or manipulation;
Natural: wilderness ecosystems are substantially free from the effects of modern
civilization;
Undeveloped: wilderness retains its primeval character and influence, without
T
•
-D
•
NO
•
T
wilderness areas:
•
AF
permanent improvements or modern human occupation; and
Solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation: wilderness provides outstanding
DR
opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation.
Additionally, Lassen Volcanic Wilderness harbors cultural resources that are not captured by the
traditional four qualities of wilderness. These features can be summarized in a fifth quality:
•
Cultural: wilderness protects features of pre-historical and historical value.
9
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
As the federal agency charged with administration of Lassen Volcanic Wilderness, the
National Park Service must monitor and evaluate the condition of each of these qualities within
the wilderness. Through their actions, managers must strive to preserve a high degree of
wilderness character. This document serves as an overview of the current conditions of Lassen
Volcanic Wilderness. It seeks to improve future decision-making and assist the agency in
adhering to the Wilderness Act of 1964. By doing so, the character of Lassen Volcanic
TE
Wilderness can be restored and maintained at the exceptional level expected of the National
BU
Wilderness Preservation System.
ST
RI
Description of the untrammeled quality:
Natural processes have dramatically created and shaped some of the most notable
DI
features of Lassen Volcanic Wilderness – volcanic peaks, lava beds, craters, and blast zones.
The park is still an active volcanic region today, as bubbling mudpots and steaming fumaroles
T
demonstrate. The landscape is also sculpted by the huge volume of snow received each winter,
NO
which melts each summer and forms fast-moving perennial streams and debris-laden washes.
Thus, at broad scales, the wilderness “appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of
O
nature.”
-D
Closer examination of the environment, however, reveals that Lassen Volcanic
Wilderness has been and continues to be heavily modified by human actions. Ecological
T
conditions are manipulated by the National Park Service to increase visitor safety, facilitate
AF
research, and promote recreation. Some of these management actions aim to improve other
qualities of wilderness. This highlights the need for careful balance of the various wilderness
DR
qualities.
Wildland fire has been a significant force in shaping the ecosystems of the southern
Cascades. Fires within Lassen Volcanic Wilderness, however, are aggressively managed and
manipulated, degrading the untrammeled quality of the wilderness. Natural lightning-ignited
fires in the wilderness are essentially never allowed to burn without human intervention, due to
the potential risks to park buildings and adjacent National Forest lands. Instead, natural fires are
either restricted to specific areas or they are suppressed completely. The National Park Service
also prescribes controlled anthropogenic burns. Both of these strategies – suppression and
10
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
prescription – are forms of trammeling, thereby degrading the wilderness character. Moreover,
the park’s 2010 Wildland Fire Management Plan does not set a long-term goal for restoring
natural fuel loads and phasing out controlled burns. To improve the untrammeled quality of the
wilderness, the National Park Service should consider a long-term fire management strategy that
will gradually allow natural fires to return to the wilderness.
One of the most readily apparent forms of trammeling in Lassen Volcanic Wilderness is
TE
the practice of cutting trees and fallen logs to clear trails. Rather than allow natural
BU
decomposition processes to dominate, the National Park Service cuts the wood and rolls the
pieces into log piles on the sides of trails. These actions disrupt ecological processes in two main
RI
ways. First, the clean, straight, perpendicular cuts retard fungal and bacterial growth, slowing
the decomposition rate. Second, the log
ST
piles shield some debris from weathering
trails are marred by old, cut logs and log
NO
piles that have failed to naturally rot.
T
Consequently, many miles of wilderness
DI
actions, also slowing decomposition.
Visitors to the wilderness can expect to
O
see the untrammeled quality heavily
-D
degraded by this sort of trail maintenance
Cut logs scattered around a trail just north of Lower Twin Lake.
T
activity.
AF
The untrammeled quality of the wilderness is also degraded by a variety of research
activities that manipulate the behavior of native species. In particular, a number of scientists use
DR
baiting and luring methods. Containers of cat food are left out, and vegetation is dipped in
commercial scent lures. These activities alter the behavior of animals by attracting them to predetermined areas where researchers can find them. (Furthermore, in the case of cat food bait,
researchers feed the wildlife unnatural diets.) This sort of trammeling even occurs on much
smaller scales in the wilderness. Leaves twigs, and glass and metal objects are left to sit in
hydrothermal pools in order to encourage growth of thermophilic microbiota (which are then
collected for analysis). As Lassen Volcanic Wilderness is renowned for its hydrothermal
features, this thermophilic baiting method is a somewhat surprisingly common practice.
11
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
In order to increase recreation opportunities in the park, the National Park Service
stocked Lassen’s lakes with nonnative fish species for many decades. Although the practice was
gradually phased out and does not continue today, the effects of this management action remain.
Today, nearly all of the park’s major streams contain introduced brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis) and/or brown trout (Salmo trutta.) As these populations survive and reproduce, they
are essentially an extension of human trammeling of the wilderness. They alter the natural biotic
TE
community by preying on and competing with native species. Furthermore, simply their
BU
presence in the wilderness is a reminder of nearly a century-worth of trammeling. Though
removing the exotic species would entail trammeling in the short term, not removing them
RI
constitutes trammeling indefinitely.
Other nonnative species in the park have received management attention, and in some
ST
cases this has also resulted in trammeling of the wilderness. The park’s weed management
DI
program controls the spread of nonnative plant species in the park through a variety of methods.
These plants are typically removed manually (i.e. by hand-pulling) and some heavily impacted
T
areas have been treated with herbicides. Such treatment
NO
areas include designated wilderness (the lands around Snag
Lake) and proposed wilderness (Butte Lake and Warner
O
Valley). Although these weed management actions decrease
-D
the untrammeled quality of the wilderness, they
simultaneously improve the natural quality. In fact, the
park’s Weed Management Plan specifically states that a
T
short-term derogation of wilderness will be allowed in order
AF
to improve the long-term naturalness of the area. In this
DR
sense, careful pest management may be considered a
tolerable negative impact to the untrammeled quality.
Invasive bull thistle is removed by park staff.
Description of the natural quality:
Lassen Volcanic Wilderness harbors an exceptionally high diversity of life for its
relatively small geographic area. This is due in part to the subtle microenvironments created by
the elevation change across the wilderness – from about 5,600 feet along King’s Creek to nearly
12
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
10,000 feet on the slopes of Lassen Peak 1. Moreover, the wilderness lies at the intersection of
three broad biogeographical provinces: the Cascade Mountain Range to the north, the Sierra
Nevada to the south, and the Great Basin to
the east. These conditions allow the park to
house some 57 species of mammals, 215
species of birds, 15 species of reptiles and
TE
amphibians, and 779 species of plants.
BU
Undoubtedly, the wilderness is also home to a
diverse array of insects, fungi, and other life
RI
forms, but the agency has yet to conduct
surveys for those groups.
ST
Marsh marigold is native to Lassen Volcanic Wilderness.
DI
No federally-listed threatened or endangered species live in Lassen Volcanic National
T
Park. This suggests that the park’s native species are of healthy and sufficient population sizes,
NO
thereby increasing the natural quality of this wilderness. However, there are some species of
concern present in the park.
Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) have been observed in designated wilderness at
O
Snag Lake. The species was removed from the federal list of threatened and endangered species
-D
in 2007 after years of protection and a recovery. Today, Lassen Volcanic National Park
continues to monitor the species in the park. Continued presence of this native bird increases the
T
natural quality of the wilderness.
AF
At least four California state-listed rare species live in the wilderness: the American
DR
peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines anatum) and little willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii
brewsteri) are designated as endangered species, and the greater sandhill crane (Grus
canadensis) and Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) are designated as threatened.
One administratively-designated rare species lives in the wilderness – the California spotted owl
(Strix occidentalis occidentalis). Both the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
officially recognize the owl as a sensitive species. Owl pairs have been sighted in wilderness at
1
The lowest and highest points of Lassen Volcanic National Park (Warner Valley and the summit of Lassen Peak,
respectively) are outside of the designated wilderness area.
13
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Devil’s Kitchen and near Prospect Peak. In order to maintain the natural integrity of the
wilderness, these rare species must continue to receive attention and protection.
The wilderness is also home to a few unlisted, controversial species. Although these
species do not receive official federal, state, or agency protection, the National Park Service
should carefully monitor their populations to preserve the natural quality of the wilderness. In
particular, American pikas (Ochotona princeps) inhabit the high-elevation, rocky cliffs of the
TE
wilderness. Such habitat is at risk from global climate change, and some scientists have
BU
suggested that the pika may be one of the world’s first casualties of human-influenced climate
warming. In response to observed population changes in the Sierra Nevada region, the Center
RI
for Biological Diversity filed petitions with the California Fish and Game Commission and the
U.S. Department of Interior to have the species listed. Both petitions were denied. Politicized
ST
testimony and controversial legislative and administrative findings threaten the future of this
DI
species. Regardless of such official reports, the infamous temperature sensitivity of the pika
warrants observation in the park. A loss of the pika would degrade the natural quality of Lassen
T
Volcanic Wilderness.
NO
The natural community of life in Lassen Volcanic Wilderness is incomplete. At least five
native species have been extirpated from the wilderness: the bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis),
O
grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), gray wolf (Canis lupus), Pacific fisher (Martes pennant
-D
pacifica), and California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus). Notably, four of the species are
mammalian carnivores, suggesting that the current predator-prey dynamics of the wilderness
ecosystem may not match natural conditions. The latter two are of special note: the fisher is a
T
candidate for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act, and the wolverine is already
AF
listed as a threatened species by the State of California. Reintroduction of these species would
DR
increase the natural quality of the wilderness. But due to the fairly small size of Lassen Volcanic
Wilderness, reintroduction of wide-ranging animals such as the grizzly bear and gray wolf may
not be possible. Reintroduction of the fisher and other species may be feasible, but the National
Park Service has not planned any such effort.
The natural species diversity of the wilderness is also threatened by a multitude of exotic
invasive (or potentially invasive) species. The National Park Service has identified 59 nonnative
plant species within or immediately adjacent to Lassen Volcanic National Park. In order to
combat this threat to wilderness character, the park’s resource management team has developed
14
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
an integrated pest management program. Vegetation ecologists descend on the wilderness each
summer to eradicate exotic plants either by hand-pulling or with herbicides. Although chemical
treatments could be considered a derogation of the natural quality, the National Park Service
mitigates this factor by carefully evaluating potential treatment sites and only using herbicides
where the risk of groundwater contamination is low. In particular, the Relative Aquifer
Vulnerability Evaluation (RAVE) model is used. This is a form of science-based decision-
TE
making that lessens the risk to the natural quality of the wilderness.
BU
The agency has not conducted a similar analysis of all invasive fauna, so those risks
remain unknown. There are at least four nonnative fish species present in the park from previous
RI
fish stocking programs. Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) were
once introduced for sport fishing and populations remain today in wilderness. Nonnative golden
ST
shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) and flathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) are also present,
DI
but the vector for their introduction is unclear. They may have been introduced to provide food
for the trout or they may have been introduced accidentally as escaped fishermen’s bait. These
T
introduced species degrade the natural quality of the wilderness. The fact that the National Park
NO
Service actually promotes these invasive species as wilderness resources (boasting “healthy
populations of trout” on park brochures and webpages) further harms the natural quality of the
O
wilderness.
-D
The naturalness of Lassen Volcanic Wilderness is also corrupted by interference with the
natural fire regime. For many decades, fire was suppressed on the lands that would ultimately
become Lassen Volcanic Wilderness. Consequently, today, some portions of the wilderness
T
have unnaturally high fuel loads, degrading the wilderness character. The National Park Service
AF
has the challenge of restoring fire to this landscape. Though park administration has introduced
DR
prescribed burning to some areas within wilderness, natural lightning-ignited fires are often
minimized or suppressed. When natural fire is prevented from moving across the landscape, the
wilderness character is harmed. Notably, fires are prevented from crossing into adjacent U.S.
Forest Service lands, even though these lands include designated and proposed wilderness.
Thus, the current fire management strategy degrades the wilderness character of Lassen Volcanic
Wilderness, as well as the adjacent Caribou Wilderness, Heart Lake Proposed Wilderness, and
Cattle Mountain Proposed Wilderness.
15
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
The natural quality of Lassen Volcanic Wilderness is also affected by the Main Park
Road, which bisects the wilderness into distinct eastern and western parcels. It is unclear to what
degree the loss of connectivity in this landscape has directly impacted the natural community.
Wildlife, including black-tailed deer (Odocoileus columbianus) and black bears (Ursus
americanus), have been hit and killed by motorists on the road. However, it seems unlikely that
any essential migration pathways have been disrupted. A proposal by the National Park Service
TE
will increase the size of both wilderness parcels by decreasing the non-wilderness buffer around
but it will also bring the designated wilderness closer to the road.
BU
the road. This may increase connectivity for some species or ecological processes in wilderness,
RI
Most of the physical resources in the wilderness bolster the natural quality. Lassen
Volcanic Wilderness, because it is located within a national park, is a Class I airshed. This status
ST
has strengthened protections against air pollution in the region, and air quality measurements
DI
taken just outside the wilderness near Manzanita Lake have consistently shown compliance with
EPA standards. In fact, in a 2009 resource assessment by the National Parks Conservation
T
Association, the organization rated Lassen Volcanic National Park’s air resources condition as an
NO
86 out of 100, putting it under the “good” category. (For comparison, nine of the other eleven
scored resources were ranked in the “fair” or “poor” categories.) Thus, the air resources at
O
Lassen Volcanic Wilderness should be a point of pride.
-D
Geological resources also augment the natural quality of Lassen Volcanic Wilderness.
The park is remarkable in that it contains, within a relatively small area, examples of all four
types of volcanoes that geologists recognize: plug dome volcanoes, shield volcanoes, composite
T
volcanoes (also known as stratovolcanoes), and cinder cones. This sort of geological diversity is
AF
particularly special when one considers that out of all of the national park’s major peaks, only
DR
one (Lassen Peak) is developed and located in the frontcountry. All of the others – including the
rugged summit of Brokeoff Mountain, the enormous Prospect Peak, and the ashy slopes of
Cinder Cone – are preserved in their natural state within wilderness.
Description of the undeveloped quality:
The undeveloped quality of Lassen Volcanic Wilderness is currently mediocre, with
some sorts of development entirely absent and others ubiquitous. Evaluation of this quality
16
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
demonstrates some of the greatest successes of the stewardship of this wilderness, but it also
highlights management actions in need of improvement.
Several buildings are located within the designated wilderness. Generally, wilderness
should remain undeveloped, but buildings that are recognized as cultural resources are permitted
in wilderness without diminishing the undeveloped quality. Lassen Volcanic Wilderness
currently contains a variety of permanent installations, both historic and non-historic. Historic
TE
structures are reviewed under the cultural quality; non-historic structures are reviewed here.
BU
Generally, the wilderness lacks permanent installations designed for facilitating
recreation, thereby increasing the undeveloped quality of the area. There are no developed
RI
campsites in the wilderness. There are also no developments related to outfitters, guides, or
other commercial services within the wilderness. Docks and boat launch areas are only located
ST
along non-wilderness lakeshores; none exist in designated wilderness. These conditions
DI
certainly allow visitors to see the wilderness’ primeval character. Furthermore, the National
Park Service has prohibited the use of motorized watercrafts throughout the national park – not
T
just the wilderness. All of these factors heighten the quality of undeveloped wilderness.
NO
There are several footbridges installed across streams in the wilderness, degrading the
undeveloped quality. A few bridges are simple, partially carved logs; most others are
O
constructed out of wooden planks; and a few bridges are constructed with modern materials like
-D
steel. All bridges degrade the undeveloped quality of the wilderness, especially modern
structures. A few of the bridges are necessary for safety reasons, however. In the area around
Devil’s Kitchen, active hydrothermal vents and streams of boiling water pose such significant
T
risks to visitors that bridges over those features must be considered essential.
AF
There are countless traces of prior habitation and travel in the wilderness. Debris left by
DR
former Civilian Conservation Corps workers are typically considered historic, and their existence
in wilderness does not lessen the wilderness character. Other debris from recent times – some
trails are littered with trash from recreationists – does degrade the undeveloped quality.
Unfortunately, it is not always easy to distinguish between historic and modern objects, so more
of the park needs to be surveyed for cultural resources. Eventually, the cultural resources should
be well-documented and modern elements should be removed.
Signage in the wilderness is generally limited to sites where navigation may be uncertain
and safety is a concern. Trails are marked with small aluminum circles, yellow circles, or red
17
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
diamonds that have been nailed to trees. Trail intersections are marked with navigational aids
showing directions and distances to features of the park. These sorts of installations generally
meet the “minimum tool” expectation for wilderness. Signs have also been installed in the
wilderness by other federal agencies. The United States
Geological Survey (USGS) has installed geodetic
markers at various locations throughout the wilderness.
TE
Additionally, tree markers installed by the United States
BU
Forest Service remain from when lands within Lassen
Volcanic Wilderness were managed by that agency.
RI
While USGS markers are typically expected to be
probably unnecessary today and should be removed to
DI
improve the wilderness character.
ST
permanent, the signs from the U.S. Forest Service are
T
The variety of trail markers sometimes confuses
hikers, who think that there is significance in the
different colors and shapes.
NO
Trail maintenance is one of the primary ways that the undeveloped quality is corrupted.
All logs that fall across trails are cut by park staff to clear the path for recreationists.
O
Furthermore, the cut logs are left on the sides of the trail or in large piles a few feet away (but
-D
frequently within sight of the trail). While such a practice may be warranted in the case of
extremely large trees (which may be difficult to step over), the agency cuts even small logs, only
a couple of inches in diameter. The result is that most wilderness trails located below the treeline
T
have hundreds of saw-cut logs, and a hiker can expect to walk past a saw-cut log every few steps,
AF
for miles. The logs are a constant reminder of modernization in the park, and their presence in
DR
wilderness severely degrades the undeveloped quality of the area.
Trail maintenance also disrupts the undeveloped quality of the wilderness when
motorized equipment is used. Chainsaw use is widespread and routine in Lassen Volcanic
Wilderness, often because trail crews are responsible for huge areas with limited staff in the short
summer season. Chainsaws and other mechanical or motorized tools are also used by fire
management staff in Lassen Volcanic Wilderness, and their work pressures are often similar.
Use of these tools degrades the wilderness character. On the other hand, the park’s vegetation
18
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
crew rarely uses mechanical tools (such as weed whackers) in the wilderness, favoring hand
tools instead. Such practices preserve the wilderness character.
Helicopters are also periodically flown over and into wilderness. Helicopters aid in fire
prescription and fire suppression. Additionally, helicopters are used to deliver amenities to park
staff stationed at remote locations in the wilderness, such as the historic fire lookout at Mount
Harkness. Helicopters are also used to service non-wilderness portions of the national park, but
TE
due to the serpentine boundary lines, such operations necessarily fly over the wilderness. Such
BU
obvious modern technology degrades the sense of undeveloped wilderness. Recognizing this,
park managers have tried to restrict the frequency of helicopter use when possible. For example,
RI
equipment is lifted into and out of the Harkness Lookout usually only twice per year, at the start
ST
and end of the summer season.
DI
Description of the opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation:
T
Lassen Volcanic Wilderness lies in the heart of a vast complex of protected public lands.
NO
The wilderness is, of course, within Lassen Volcanic National Park. Furthermore, the national
park is completely surrounded by Lassen National Forest, which connects in the south to Plumas
O
National Forest. North and northwest of Lassen are the Modoc, Shasta, and Trinity National
-D
Forests. Together these federal lands essentially create an enormous parkland buffer around
Lassen Volcanic Wilderness, helping to protect it from effects of modern civilization.
T
Consequently, there are fantastic opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of
AF
recreation in the Lassen Volcanic Wilderness.
There are over 150 miles of trails in Lassen Volcanic National Park, almost all of which
DR
can be found in designated or proposed wilderness. Visitors can choose from relatively short
hikes or longer multi-day backcountry treks. On longer journeys, especially in the larger, eastern
wilderness parcel, campers can expect solitude.
Visitors are also able to explore a portion of the Pacific Crest Trail, which runs 17 miles
north-south through the park (most of which is in designated or proposed wilderness). This trail
is remarkable as one of the first scenic trails in the National Trails System authorized by
Congress in 1968. “Thru-hiking” – traveling the trail’s entire 2,650 miles in one season – is a
goal of some dedicated outdoor enthusiasts.
19
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Additionally, the national park’s six largest lakes – Juniper, Snag, Butte, Horseshoe,
Lower Twin, and Upper Twin – are all within either designated or proposed wilderness. These
lakes provide outstanding opportunities for swimming in a remarkable remote, high elevation
setting. Campers may even find themselves swimming alone in one of the secluded wilderness
lakes.
The National Park Service has ensured that the kinds of recreation activities occurring in
TE
the wilderness are primitive. Popular activities in the wilderness include hiking, backpacking,
BU
horseback riding, snowshoeing, camping, swimming, and wildlife-viewing. Geocaching is a
newer form of recreation to occur in the wilderness. Park managers have ensured that visitors do
RI
not hide foreign items in the wilderness; instead, only virtual/digital “caches” can be located. All
of these activities strengthen this wilderness quality.
ST
Despite the remoteness of Lassen Volcanic National Park, some reminders of civilization
DI
are apparent while in the wilderness. Hikes up to some of the high wilderness peaks provide
broad views of landscapes below, and some of those lands are developed. This degrades the
T
sense of solitude. For example, from the summit of Brokeoff Mountain (in wilderness),
NO
Highway 89 and the trailhead parking lot (in non-wilderness) are both clearly visible. After
hiking three and a half strenuous miles and rising 2,500 feet in elevation, this is not much of a
O
reward for the wilderness visitor. However, such an issue is especially challenging for a
-D
wilderness renowned for its volcanic peaks and rolling topography. There may be little the
National Park Service can do to remedy these marred viewsheds.
Restrictions on the use of wilderness have lessened this quality somewhat. Large swaths
T
of designated and proposed wilderness are off-limits to overnight camping in order to prevent
AF
overuse of sensitive areas. Such areas include Hot Springs Creek and Devil’s Kitchen, the entire
DR
shoreline of Juniper Lake, and the region around Cinder Cone and Painted Dunes. Some of the
camping restrictions exist to protect visitors from dangerous hydrothermal features, and vice
versa, but the constraints also lessen the quality of unconfined recreation. Furthermore, the ½mile restricted zone around most park roads seems to conflict with the agency’s proposal to
expand the wilderness boundary toward the roads. If the wilderness proposal is ultimately
approved by Congress, then the overlap between wilderness and restrictions will increase, further
degrading the sense of unconfined exploration.
20
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Agency policy also prohibits campfires throughout the designated and proposed
wilderness. Stock use is limited to particular trails, and even then, only under particular trail
conditions. For example, when streams are deemed to be running to fast, horseback riding is
prohibited in portions of the wilderness. These limitations degrade the quality of primitive and
TE
unconfined recreation.
BU
Description of the cultural quality:
Lassen Volcanic Wilderness has both pre-historic and historic cultural value. The area
RI
contains evidence of hundreds of years of human occupation. These features comprise the fifth
ST
quality of the wilderness.
The Lassen area was not used year-round by Native Americans, due to the high
DI
elevations and harsh winter weather. However, at least four groups camped, hunted, and traded
in the warmer months in what would become Lassen Volcanic Wilderness: the Atsugewi, Maidu,
T
Yahi, and Yana. Their artifacts can be found in the wilderness today, including arrowheads and
NO
knives. The National Park Service instructs all visitors to leave all cultural artifacts they may
find. There have not been any reports of serious violations to this rule in recent years. In this
O
regard, the cultural quality of the wilderness is preserved.
-D
Lassen Volcanic Wilderness contains a portion of the Nobles Emigrant Trail, a National
Historic Trail. The origin of the trail dates back to the 1800s, when early pioneers passed
T
through the Cascades to settle California. This trail is federally protected today, via the National
AF
Trails System Act (P.L. 90-543). Furthermore, educational groups stage reenactments along the
trail and provide “living history” programs at campgrounds. The preservation and continued use
DR
of this trail increase the cultural quality of Lassen Volcanic Wilderness.
The ranger station at Horseshoe Lake, constructed in 1934, is of cultural importance and
is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Additional installations near the ranger
station have not been deemed cultural resources, however, and they degrade the cultural quality
of the wilderness. Such structures include a picnic table, several benches, two restrooms, various
outdoor storage sheds, and seven separate log piles (to be used by park staff for a wood stove).
The presence of these developments at a historic site harms the cultural quality of the wilderness.
21
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
The Mount Harkness fire lookout (and accompanying outhouse and cistern) is also of
historic significance. It is included on the List of Classified Structures, an agency listing that
protects the lookout tower in perpetuity. The National Park Service may propose to add the
lookout to the National Register as well, giving it further protection. Other installations near the
fire lookout are of questionable historic value. At the summit of Mount Harkness lie three
rubber tires that have been painted bright orange. They previously served as a landing site for
TE
helicopters. Their presence degrades the
BU
wilderness character. Modern
developments at the summit of Mount
RI
Harkness are inappropriate under the
existing wilderness designation and the
ST
cultural resource designation. Existing
communications and safety, however)
NO
and a weather monitoring station. These
T
repeater (deemed critical for
DI
modern installations include a radio
structures are especially conspicuous due
O
to their shiny, metal surfaces and summit location.
The lookout at the summit of Mount Harkness.
-D
The cabin at Lower Twin Lake, constructed in 1934, is of uncertain cultural resource
value. The park General Management Plan refers to the cabin as a “historic” structure, and it is
T
included on the agency’s List of Classified Structures. However, its cultural significance level
AF
(local, state, or national, for example) has never been evaluated, and it has never been named on
DR
the National Register of Historic Places. A firm cultural resources analysis is needed to assist in
determining the appropriateness of this structure in designated wilderness.
The lack of cultural resource assessment for the Twin Lakes Patrol Cabin is not atypical
for Lassen Volcanic Wilderness. In fact, a large portion of the wilderness has never been
evaluated, and some prior assessments have not been revisited in a few decades. There is a
substantial need for more information on the cultural quality of Lassen Volcanic Wilderness so
that historic sites can be documented before their degradation or loss. This information gap
presents one of the greatest harms to the cultural quality of the wilderness.
22
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Wilderness character monitoring
In order to detect long-term trends in the wilderness resource, and to gauge the success of
resource management strategies, a rigorous monitoring program for Lassen Volcanic Wilderness
is needed. The approach will follow the national strategy for wilderness character monitoring
that was developed by an interagency team and described in Keeping It Wild: An Interagency
TE
Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness Character Across the National Wilderness
Preservation System.
BU
The monitoring approach suggested in Keeping It Wild pulls key language from the
Wilderness Act to identify the four main qualities of wilderness character (e.g. the natural
RI
quality), then between two and four indicators for each quality (e.g. biophysical processes), and
ST
at least one measure for each indicator (e.g. departure from the natural fire regime.) The
complete suite of measures can then be used to summarize general long-term trends in the
DI
wilderness resource.
T
Some recommendations in Keeping It Wild need to be adjusted for park-specific
NO
concerns, needs, and abilities. For example, some suggested measures are more relevant to the
multiple-use land management agencies rather than the National Park Service. Other measures
are exceedingly broad in scope, and they may be too difficult for managers at Lassen Volcanic
O
National Park to study. The park’s resource management team reviewed the measures described
-D
in Keeping It Wild as well as additional options from the Klamath Network Inventory &
Monitoring Program and ongoing park research studies, and then developed the following list of
T
potential measures for use in Lassen Volcanic Wilderness. This list may be revised during the
AF
development of the Wilderness Stewardship Plan. The final suite of measures is likely to be a
DR
shorter list so that no single park division or employee is excessively burdened.
23
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Untrammeled quality
Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation
New: Will require one annual hike by
backcountry volunteer, park ranger, or natural
resources specialist
FMO, Jon Arnold, or Louise Johnson?
FMO, Jon Arnold, or Louise Johnson?
Estimation by Rangers?
1-9. Number of illegal species takings, per
year
Estimation by Rangers?
-D
FT
3
New: Compilation of administrative and
research activity reports
1-8. Number of illegal campfires, per year
DR
A
2
BU
TR
I
1-5. Number of visible saw-cut logs on trails
(for given length of chosen trails) 3
1-6. Percent of naturally-ignited fires that
are manipulated within the boundaries of the
wilderness, per year
1-7. Percent of wilderness receiving a
prescribed burn, per year
Actions not authorized by
the National Park Service
that manipulate the
biophysical environment
TE
Data sources
Janet Coles (polygons depicting gross area per
year, as calculated in GIS)
New: Compilation of administrative and
research activity reports
New: Compilation of administrative and
research activity reports
DI
S
Actions authorized by the
National Park Service that
manipulate the biophysical
environment
Measure
1-1. Number of acres treated for invasive
plant species, per year
1-2. Number of animals collared, banded, or
tagged per year
1-3. Number of sites where organisms were
baited, per year 2
1-4. Number of native and non-native
animals removed from the wilderness, per
year
NO
T
What are the trends in
actions that control or
manipulate the “earth and its
community of life” inside
wilderness?
Indicator
O
Monitoring question
Examples: bird calls played, scent lures placed, food left out, leaves/tubes to bait algae, etc.
Trails still need to be chosen. The Cluster Lakes Loop is one logical choice.
24
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Natural quality
Indicator
Measure
Data sources
2-1. Number of native species listed as
sensitive, threatened, or endangered
What are the trends in
terrestrial, aquatic, and
atmospheric natural
resources inside wilderness?
TR
I
NO
T
2-4. Number of non-native fish species
present
O
2-5. Infection rate of native whitebark pine by
non-native white pine blister rust
2-6. Number of days per year the ambient
ozone is out of compliance 5
2-7. Average annual haziness (in deciviews)
2-8. Quality of lake water
2-9. Snowpack at Lake Helen
-D
Physical resources
2-10. Departure from natural fire regimes,
averaged over the wilderness
FT
Biophysical processes
New: Jon Arnold?
Air quality measurements by Nancy
Nordensten
IMPROVE site at LAVO
Klamath Network devising protocol now
Existing park data source
Existing Fire Management GIS data
DR
A
What are the trends in
terrestrial, aquatic, and
atmospheric natural
processes inside wilderness?
DI
S
Biological resources
2-2. Number of native animal species 4 present
in 1972 (year of wilderness designation) and
since extirpated or driven to extinction
2-3. Number of non-native plant species
present
Total count of each species listed on either
Federal T&E, BLM Sensitive, USFS
Sensitive, California State, or California
Native Plant Society
Agency reports from 1970s, combined with
wildlife biologist expertise (Nancy Nordensten
& Mike Magnuson) for current year
General vegetation ecology expertise will be
used for estimate (Janet Coles)
Uncertain: Assume that all fish species
previously stocked in lakes continue to live in
those lakes until eradication actions are taken?
Or try to survey lakes (by pairing with duck
surveys by Nancy Nordensten and SCA
crews?)
BU
Monitoring question
TE
Wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization
4
5
Native plants, fungi, and microorganisms will not be counted due to a lack of information and difficulty locating them.
Use EPA compliance threshold. (But be aware that the EPA may change this threshold. Also, note that California has a stricter threshold which will not be used.)
25
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Undeveloped quality
Inholdings
3-4. Area of inholdings
Use of motor vehicles,
motorized equipment, or
mechanical transport
3-5. Number of helicopter flights over
designated wilderness, per year (disaggregate
by emergency and non-emergency)
3-6. Number of occasions per year that
mechanized tool use was allowed in
wilderness (disaggregate by emergency and
non-emergency)
3-7. Number of uses of motor vehicles,
motorized equipment, or mechanical
transport not authorized by the National Park
Service, per year
New?
New: Combination of maintenance data,
research permits data, and ranger data?
New?
New: GIS does not exist, so look to deeds
instead?
TR
I
BU
3-1. Number of buildings
3-2. Number of other permanent
installations 6
3-3. Length of fire breaks (in miles)
New? Look to ranger reports.
DI
S
-D
FT
DR
A
6
Data sources
Non-recreational
structures, installations,
and developments
O
What are the trends in
mechanization inside
wilderness?
Measure
NO
T
What are the trends in nonrecreational development
inside wilderness?
Indicator
TE
Wilderness retains its primeval character and influence, and is essentially without permanent improvement or modern human occupation
Monitoring question
Total count of signs, fences, radio repeaters, etc.
26
New: Compilation of administrative and
research reports
Uncertain: Ranger reports do not currently
capture most snowmobile or dirt bike
infractions; use soundscape monitoring
instead?
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation quality
BU
Wilderness permit database (Ryan McKelvey)
New: would require time from RM or
Rangers
New: Use BLM methodology and calculate
via GIS
New: still need to buy Sky Quality Meter
TR
I
Remoteness from
occupied and modified
areas outside the
wilderness
Data Sources
4-1. Number of overnight visitors per acre of
designated wilderness per year
4-2. Average seasonal (summer and winter)
visitor encounter rate on chosen trail(s)
4-3. Area of wilderness affected by travel
routes inside the wilderness
4-4. Average night sky visibility
New: still need to buy microphones
Facilities that decrease
self-reliant recreation
4-6. Number of bridges
New: There is no total count, so a crew is
needed to walk all 150 miles to provide a
baseline number. Updates each year would be
based on reports from trail maintenance crew
(as to whether they add or remove bridges)
Management restrictions
on visitor behavior
4-7. Percent of wilderness where overnight
camping is prohibited
Resource Management GIS
DI
S
4-5. Average nighttime decibel level (or other
similar measure)
DR
A
FT
-D
O
What are the trends in
outstanding opportunities for
primitive and unconfined
recreation inside wilderness?
Remoteness from sights
and sounds of people
outside the wilderness
Measure
NO
T
What are the trends in
outstanding opportunities for
solitude inside wilderness?
Indicator
TE
Wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation
Monitoring question
27
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Wilderness protects features of pre-historical and historical value
New: Pair RM expertise (Louise Johnson or
Mary Gerbic?) with GIS data
BU
5-1. Percent of wilderness for which a cultural
resources assessment has not been completed
5-2. Percent of eligible structures not listed on
the National Register of Historic Places or the
NPS List of Classified Structures
5-3. Percent of listed structures or features
that are no longer used in their historical
context
RM expertise (Louise Johnson or Mary
Gerbic?)
RM expertise (Louise Johnson?)
Actions that harm
cultural resources
5-4. Percent of listed structures that are
damaged or vandalized, per year
New: Will require survey
DR
A
FT
-D
O
NO
T
What are the trends in cultural
resources degradation inside
wilderness?
Actions taken (or not
taken) by the National
Park Service to protect
cultural resources
Data Sources
TR
I
What are the trends in cultural
resources protection inside
wilderness?
Measure 7
Indicator
DI
S
Monitoring question
TE
Cultural quality
7
Wording of the indicators for this quality is awkward, but written this way for comparable interpretation: for all indicators, high numbers are “bad” and low numbers are “good.”
28
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Administrative guidance
Minimum Requirements Analysis
Lassen Volcanic National Park will apply the minimum requirement concept to all
administrative and research activities that have the potential to affect wilderness character. The
wilderness character and must guide all management actions in wilderness.
TE
application of the minimum requirement concept is intended to minimize negative impacts on
BU
Wilderness managers may authorize the generally prohibited activities or uses listed in
Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act only if: (1) they are deemed necessary to meet the minimum
RI
requirements for the administration of the area and (2) where those methods are determined to be
ST
the minimum tool or activity for the project. The process of authorizing such activities will be
documented on a Minimum Requirements Analysis (MRA) form. The use of motorized
DI
equipment and the establishment of management facilities are specifically prohibited when other
reasonable alternatives are available. The minimum requirement process will not be used to
NO
T
permit roads or commercial enterprises within wilderness unless these are authorized by specific
legislation.
Lassen Volcanic National Park will use two kinds of MRA forms – one for NPS
O
employees proposing administrative action, and another for outside researchers. The two forms
-D
are equally rigorous, and applicants will be held to the same standard. However, the forms differ
DR
AF
T
in their instructions, language, and use of jargon. See forms in Appendix D.
29
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Leave No Trace
Leave No Trace (LNT) is a program designed to assist outdoor recreationists in making
decisions that maintain personal safety and minimize degradation to natural and cultural
resources. It is the standard philosophy and method (both domestically and internationally), and
it is already actively promoted by the U.S. Forest Service, especially in wilderness administered
TE
by the agency.
Lassen Volcanic National Park will begin LNT education in the park and in the
BU
wilderness. This can be accomplished by providing educational literature at entrance booths and
visitor centers; by printing the LNT principles on trailhead signs; and by direct outreach to
RI
visitors, researchers, and park employees alike. All users of the wilderness should be strongly
ST
encouraged to follow the LNT ethic.
Leave No Trace is generally broken down into seven principles:
DI
1. Plan Ahead and Prepare
T
2. Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces
NO
3. Dispose of Waste Properly
4. Leave What You Find
5. Minimize Campfire Impacts
O
6. Respect Wildlife
DR
AF
T
-D
7. Be Considerate of Other Visitors
30
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Wilderness planning needs
Trail maintenance
At trailheads leading into wilderness, the trailhead signs should mention this fact. More
detailed signage will educate park visitors, heightening the interpretive experience. Furthermore,
TE
it is a critical point at which to warn visitors of the specialized regulations that pertain to
designated wilderness. (Note that some trailheads do not have any meaningful signage currently.
BU
The roadside trailhead to Terrace Lake, Shadow Lake, and Cliff Lake – all in wilderness –
displays only an arrow.)
RI
Lassen Volcanic National Park has over 150 miles of trails, most of which are in
ST
wilderness or proposed wilderness. Some of these trails are redundant. That is, some pairs of
trails follow each other in parallel only a short distance apart. Such trail networks are a
DI
detriment to the wilderness character because they require unnecessary cutting, clearing,
disturbance, and mechanical tool use. Staff from Resource Management, Trail Maintenance, and
NO
T
Interpretation should work together to prioritize trails based on their popularity and resource
condition. High priority trails (popular and with degraded wilderness character) should be
rehabilitated and then left open for recreation. Low priority trails (unpopular and redundant)
O
should be left fallow so that the wilderness character can be restored.
-D
Log piles from previous trail maintenance should be removed, dispersed, or burned in
DR
AF
T
order to decrease the obvious appearance of human manipulation of the environment.
A pile of logs on the Pacific Crest Trail, just north of Boiling Springs Lake
31
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Bridges are a form of development and they decrease self-reliant recreation. Therefore,
managers should question the placement of most bridges in wilderness. Where water flow is
only seasonal, occasional, or shallow, bridges should be removed and recreationists should be
expected to cross by stone or log. Where water flow is fast, deep, and/or continuous, bridges
may be appropriate. Bridges over dangerous hydrothermal features, such as Devil’s Kitchen, are
-D
O
NO
T
DI
ST
RI
BU
TE
necessary for safety reasons.
A bridge over Hot Springs Creek
T
Outdated signs on tree trunks should be removed. Wherever possible, GPS points should
AF
be used to mark locations of interest. Installations should only be left on tree trunks when
absolutely necessary and when it is the minimum tool. Monuments that have deteriorated
DR
beyond recognition mar the wilderness character without serving a use.
Bearing tree monuments may be necessary for land surveys, but some have deteriorated.
32
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
The Trail Maintenance Standards (last updated March 6, 2009) will eventually need to be
adjusted as the new Wilderness Stewardship Plan is written. The “Wilderness” subsection of the
current standard operating procedures is only two sentences long, stating that chainsaw use will
be allowed in wilderness and vehicle use will not. This policy is too simplistic, and the
indiscriminate use of chainsaws is in conflict with wilderness stewardship principles. Instead,
TE
trail maintenance crews should be held to the same MRA standards as other park divisions.
Recreation management
BU
Horseback riding through the mountains of California is a tradition dating back to the
earliest white explorers of the American West. In one sense, it may even be so valued that it is a
ST
concerns that wilderness managers must address.
RI
cultural resource of western parklands. However, stock use also presents a variety of ecological
DI
At Lassen Volcanic Wilderness, stream bank erosion has occurred at crossings that lack
bridges for horses. Where appropriate, bridges should be installed. In most cases, however,
T
stock use should be prohibited so that the undeveloped and natural qualities of the wilderness can
NO
be preserved.
The National Park Service has limited stock use to certain trails in the wilderness. These
O
regulations have been described in nearly every wilderness/backcountry management plan and
policy statement for the last few decades. However, stock animals have been taken on paths
-D
where their use is prohibited. The National Park Service should increase communication with
Drakesbad Guest Ranch (the concessioner that is the source of most stock use in the wilderness)
T
in order to clarify which trails are hiker-only. Rangers should focus their attention to
AF
ecologically sensitive areas with a history of disturbance by stock use. When horseback riders
DR
are in violation of park rules, citations should be issued and every case should be reported. This
will assist the Resource Management staff in monitoring trends. (Currently, the lack of relevant
data hinders informed management of stock use in the wilderness.) Loop trails in the Warner
Valley region that currently allow stock use should be re-evaluated for the appropriateness of this
activity. In some places, horseback riders should be encouraged to take “out-and-back” paths to
minimize wilderness degradation.
Finally, managers should increase outreach and education efforts to stock users regarding
environmentally conscious practices. Since stock animals cannot themselves follow Leave No
33
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Trace principles, the National Park Service should urge stock users to take measures that will
decrease the negative impacts of their animals on the wilderness. For example, stock animals
should not be fed non-native foods before entering the wilderness in order to decrease the chance
of exotic plant introductions. Certified weed seed free feed is available commercially, and it
should be fed to the animals at least three days in advance of any wilderness trip. Animals
should travel in single file and avoid steep slopes and soft ground in order to minimize damage
TE
to trails. Recommendations such as these could be described in park literature, and backcountry
BU
rangers could help encourage these principles upon meeting stock users in the field.
RI
Interpretation
The National Park Service should find new and creative ways to inform visitors of the
ST
special natural and cultural resources in Lassen Volcanic Wilderness. One excellent publication
DI
that can serve as an example is the “Cinder Cone Nature Trail” brochure currently available at
the Butte Lake campground and parking lot. This brochure describes geological features along a
T
trail leading into wilderness, and then alerts the visitor as to the location of the wilderness
NO
boundary. A description of Cinder Cone and the Fantastic Lava Beds is both informative and
evocative. Visitors are encouraged to “help preserve the beauty and character of the cone and
O
cinder fields by staying on the trails.” This type of ethic should be instilled in visitors other
-D
regions of the wilderness, especially the more popular sites.
Lassen Volcanic National Park should begin using online social media to reach new
audiences. The Resource Management and Interpretation divisions should work together to
AF
T
create Web pages devoted to news and information about the park, with periodic posts about the
wilderness specifically. By increasing online “fans” or “friends” on Web sites like
DR
www.facebook.com and www.youtube.com, Lassen Volcanic National Park would have a builtin base of wilderness enthusiasts so that future public outreach would be easier and stronger. For
example, when management plans are updated or when the wilderness proposal reaches
Congress, announcements to social media Web pages could arouse support for park initiatives.
This strategy is already successfully employed elsewhere. Guadalupe Mountains National Park
has a facebook page that advertises trail openings, weather conditions, special events, ranger
programs, and “this day in history” sorts of information tid-bits. The Bureau of Land
Management posts videos to youtube showing wildlife, waterfalls, volunteer projects, and youth
34
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
programs in some of the conservation areas in the National Landscape Conservation System. In
order to utilize this strategy at Lassen Volcanic National Park, IT firewalls will need to be
adjusted so that park managers are allowed to access these sites from government computers.
Research
Managers at Lassen Volcanic Wilderness first introduced the Minimum Requirements
TE
Analysis form to researchers in 2008; thus, projects taking place in 2009 were the first to be
BU
conducted under official MRA guidelines. Since then, of the researchers working in designated
or proposed wilderness, the vast majority have
RI
completed the MRA form. However, a noticeable
have been issued permits without completing the
DI
MRA. Additionally, a few researchers have been
ST
minority of wilderness researchers – about 15% –
issued permits without having to name all of their
T
study locations, meaning that some may have gone on
NO
to work in wilderness without ever completing the
MRA. (For a detailed review of the 2009-2010
O
research projects, see Appendix E.) Going forward,
-D
the National Park Service should require all
researchers to explicitly state their desired study sites,
and all researchers working in designated or proposed
AF
T
wilderness must complete an MRA form before
receiving a research permit.
DR
Boiling Springs Lake is a popular research site.
The National Park Service should continue to publicize research needs to encourage
projects that can benefit the administration of the wilderness. Lassen Volcanic National Park’s
research needs are currently posted online at the NPS Research Permit and Reporting System
(http://science.nature.nps.gov). The most recent update from June 2010 lists the following
priorities:
•
Dating of significant geological features.
•
Mapping of thermal features in park thermal areas.
35
Lassen Volcanic National Park
•
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Create a repository of thermal feature data for LAVO. Develop a thermal feature
numbering system and a thermal feature database.
•
Monitor volcanic and thermal activity.
Although these are listed as priorities for the national park generally, they also apply to resources
located in the wilderness. One way to increase awareness of these needs would be to contact
research institutions known for these kinds of studies. Notably, all of the priorities fall within the
TE
geosciences field, and several California institutions are known for this sort of research. UC
BU
Berkeley is often considered the nation’s best geosciences school, and it is located just four hours
from the park. UC Los Angeles, UC San Diego, California Institute of Technology, and
ST
outreach to these schools may help close the research gap.
RI
University of Washington are other renowned Pacific region geosciences schools. Active
DI
Equipment
Soundscape monitoring will require technical equipment and expertise. In the fall of
T
2010, Nancy Nordensten, LAVO Biologist, submitted a request for soundscape management
NO
funding via the Servicewide Comprehensive Call. If funds are provided for the purchase of
microphones, then LAVO will work with the NPS Natural Sounds Program to train staff and
O
implement soundscape monitoring protocol.
-D
Night sky monitoring will also require technical equipment. Such equipment is relatively
inexpensive. As of yet, however, there are no plans to fit night sky monitoring into the LAVO
T
budget. (One example sensor is the Sky Quality Meter by Unihedron for $135.)
AF
GPS navigators should be provided to all park rangers on patrol. This will allow rangers
to know for certain when they are within the boundaries of the wilderness. Currently, when
DR
rangers report resource violations, they only name the general vicinity of the violation. (“Juniper
Lake Beach” and “Brokeoff Trail” are examples from case reports.) But afterward, it is
sometimes impossible to know whether the violation occurred in wilderness. (For example, the
southern side of Juniper Lake is wilderness, but the northern side is not. The trail to Brokeoff
Mountain begins in non-wilderness and then heads into wilderness.) Reliable wilderness
character monitoring requires more precise reporting of locations of violations.
36
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Geospatial data and analysis
Geospatial data for Lassen Volcanic National Park suffer from the lack of a dedicated
staff person to meet the park’s GIS data management needs. Critical information – such as the
park boundary, the wilderness boundary, and the proposed wilderness boundary – may not be
accurate (as evidenced by comparing these maps to each other and to maps data from the U.S.
Forest Service.) Since several of the recommended measures for wilderness character involve
TE
calculating areas in a geographic information system, inaccuracies in these datasets will skew
BU
results of the wilderness monitoring program. Ideally, these files should be corrected before
baseline calculations are made; changes made to GIS data after monitoring begins will lead to
RI
inconsistent calculations.
ST
Personnel
DI
Wilderness Rangers (non-conscripted) are needed to patrol trails and campsites. They
would check for wilderness permits, campsite and other violations, and encourage the Leave No
T
Trace ethic. Wilderness Rangers would carry a container of some sort to hold garbage picked up
NO
along the trails and around the lakes. All wilderness personnel should be trained in first aid and
capable of making initial contact with all injuries and illnesses. They would be familiar enough
O
with the wilderness to assume initial leadership in search and rescue activities and would request
-D
additional help when needed.
Cultural resources of Lassen Volcanic Wilderness are largely unstudied due to the lack of
T
a permanent staff in the park’s cultural resources program. The park has plans to hire a historic
AF
architect, however. In the longer term, the National Park Service should strive to expand the
DR
cultural resources program by hiring additional staff.
Interagency cooperation
The U.S. Forest Service is a necessary partner in the preservation of Lassen Volcanic
Wilderness. The boundaries the wilderness, national park, and national forest within the Lassen
region are largely based on township and range borders rather than natural features. Because the
administrative divisions do not match the reality of the environments the agencies are charged
with managing, the National Park Service and Forest Service must work cooperatively.
37
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
The U.S. Forest Service plans to update the Land and Resource Management Plan for
Lassen National Forest. This plan will likely address the Caribou Wilderness, which is adjacent
to Lassen Volcanic Wilderness. Since management actions on the Caribou Wilderness side will
have implications on the Lassen Volcanic Wilderness side, the National Park Service should
collaborate with the Forest Service on future updated resource plans.
The Forest Service has proposed to extend the Caribou Wilderness boundary eastward,
TE
which would expand the size of the existing NPS-FS wilderness complex. Furthermore, there
BU
are two additional proposed wilderness areas that, if designated by Congress, will abut Lassen
Volcanic Wilderness to the south and west. Because this has the potential to alter land
RI
management practices along the shared boundary, the National Park Service should periodically
DR
AF
T
-D
O
NO
T
DI
ST
consult with the Forest Service regarding any planned changes.
Wilderness proposals are located to the east, south, and west of Lassen Volcanic Wilderness.
38
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Appendices
DR
AF
T
-D
O
NO
T
DI
ST
RI
BU
TE
Appendix A: Enabling proclamations and legislation
39
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
DR
AF
T
-D
O
NO
T
DI
ST
RI
BU
TE
Lassen Volcanic National Park
40
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
DR
AF
T
-D
O
NO
T
DI
ST
RI
BU
TE
Lassen Volcanic National Park
41
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
DR
AF
T
-D
O
NO
T
DI
ST
RI
BU
TE
Lassen Volcanic National Park
42
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
DR
AF
T
-D
O
NO
T
DI
ST
RI
BU
TE
Lassen Volcanic National Park
43
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
DR
AF
T
-D
O
NO
T
DI
ST
RI
BU
TE
Lassen Volcanic National Park
44
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
DR
AF
T
-D
O
NO
T
DI
ST
RI
BU
TE
Lassen Volcanic National Park
45
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
DR
AF
T
-D
O
NO
T
DI
ST
RI
BU
TE
Lassen Volcanic National Park
46
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
DR
AF
T
-D
O
NO
T
DI
ST
RI
BU
TE
Lassen Volcanic National Park
47
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
DR
AF
T
-D
O
NO
T
DI
ST
RI
BU
TE
Appendix B: Current and proposed land status in Lassen Volcanic National Park
48
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Appendix C: Methods for developing wilderness narrative, indicators, and measures
Method for developing the narrative:
The descriptions of the five qualities of Lassen Volcanic Wilderness are based on a
variety of surveys and studies of the wilderness during the summer and fall of 2010. Brian
Tarpinian, a temporary wilderness stewardship fellow for the park, examined the condition of the
TE
wilderness by hiking and camping in most of the major regions of the wilderness. Study areas
included: volcanic summits (Brokeoff Mountain, Mount Harkness, and Cinder Cone); lower
BU
elevation lakes and meadows (Terrace Lake, Shadow Lake, Cliff Lake, the “cluster lakes” loop,
King’s Creek and Falls, and Grassy Creek); active hydrothermal features (Bumpass Hell, Cold
RI
Boiling Lake, Devil’s Kitchen, Boiling Springs Lake, and Terminal Geyser); and historic
ST
landscapes (Twin Lakes, Horseshoe Lake, and the Nobles Emigrant Trail). Photographs and GIS
data collected during the hikes helped inform the descriptions of wilderness qualities. All hikes
DI
were completed between July and November. Thus, notably, no wilderness field surveys were
T
conducted after snow had closed the main park road, potentially limiting the narrative’s scope.
NO
Park management documents were also used to discern the administrative policies and
practices affecting wilderness character. These included the General Management Plan,
Resource Management Plan, Weed Management Plan, and Fire Management Plan. Specialists
O
from each park division were consulted individually for comments on their impressions of
-D
wilderness character, including members of resource management, fire management, trail
maintenance, interpretation, and protection. Due to an especially busy summer field season
T
(with a late road opening that condensed work plans, and then major renovations to the Lassen
AF
Peak trail), it was not feasible to hold a park-wide meeting to discuss wilderness character. In
DR
the future, a group discussion may help expose additional thoughts that could improve the
descriptions of the qualities of Lassen Volcanic Wilderness.
Legislative documents helped reveal the impetus for the designation of the national park
and the wilderness. Enabling legislation was valuable for identifying the features important to
Congress at the time of designation. Transcripts of public hearings were even more valuable for
discerning the resources most important to the public. The resource management division owns
a hard copy of the official report of proceedings from the first proposal for wilderness
designation at Lassen Volcanic National Park (held on September 27, 1966, in Red Bluff,
49
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
California.) Testimony in this transcript, including comments from the Sierra Club, the
Wilderness Society, and university professors, helped enlighten the wilderness quality
descriptions.
Ongoing research practices in the wilderness were evaluated for their potential impacts to
wilderness character. Administrative research studies are described in documents like the annual
summary of resource management activities. Academic and other research activities are detailed
TE
in the park’s hard copy filing system for research permit applications, Minimum Requirements
BU
Analysis (MRA), and Investigator’s Annual Reports (IARs). All research studies from 2009 and
2010 were considered in the writing of the wilderness character narrative.
RI
To understand the effects of unauthorized activities on wilderness character, law
enforcement case reports were similarly investigated, via the park’s hard copy filing system. All
ST
reports from 2009 (the most recent complete year of data) were read and considered for the
DI
narrative. This involved reading the report’s entry on the annual summary spreadsheet; finding
the location of the incident (usually described as a major park feature such as “Upper Twin
T
Lakes”); determining whether that location is in designated wilderness, proposed wilderness, or
NO
non-wilderness; and then, for incidents in designated/proposed wilderness, reading the entire
case file to determine the violations. Most often, there were no case files because rangers gave
O
only verbal warnings to the violators. In those instances, abbreviations listed in the summary
-D
spreadsheet were sometimes sufficient (such as “CMPFIRVO” for a campfire violation.) Due to
very little ranger presence in the wilderness, however, almost all reported incidents were from
the frontcountry and wilderness-relevant case reports are scant. Thus, it was difficult to
T
objectively evaluate certain aspects of wilderness character, such as vandalism and poaching. In
AF
the future, increased ranger patrols or other forms of monitoring may help provide more
DR
information for the wilderness character narrative.
50
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Method for developing the monitoring plan:
The major threats to wilderness character became evident during the development of the narrative. Each of these threats is
TE
addressed by at least one measure in the recommended monitoring plan. Potential measures that were considered but not ultimately
BU
chosen are summarized below. (Note that the list of recommended measures is still under review. Additional measures may be
dropped.)
Low relevance
to assessing
wilderness
character
Notes
TR
I
Reason why measure was dropped
Data not
available /
quality of
available data
poor
Insufficient
conceptual
development
of measure
Low relevance
to this
wilderness
DI
S
Dropped measure
Untrammeled Quality
Number of actions (authorized and
unauthorized) that manipulate pathogens,
soil, or water
NO
T
X
Number of lakes stocked with fish
X
Actions that manipulate animals, plants,
or fire will be measured.
X
LAVO no longer stocks lakes. Fish
from former stocking events will be
measured for the natural quality.
Natural Quality
X
-D
Livestock are prohibited in LAVO.
Extirpated animals will be counted.
X
X
X
X
FT
Magnitude of global climate change
X
X
O
AUMs of livestock use inside wilderness
Number of extirpated native species (all)
Change in community composition
Acid deposition
Extent of human-caused streambank erosion
Extent of soil disturbance or loss
X
X
X
Pathways for movement of exotic species
into wilderness
Area/magnitude of landscape fragmentation
Measuring snowpack at Lake Helen may
address this topic.
DR
A
X
X
Solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation Quality
Number of campsites
Number of recreation facilities (authorized
and unauthorized) that decrease self-reliance
X
X
51
There are no designated campsites.
Number of bridges will be measured.
Other features (like horse tie-ups) will
not be measured.
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Appendix D: Minimum Requirements Analysis form
TE
Lassen Volcanic Wilderness is an area within Lassen Volcanic National Park that receives an
even higher degree of protection, under acts passed by the U.S. Congress. As the administrator
of the wilderness, the National Park Service strives to preserve the wilderness character and
leave the wilderness unimpaired.
ST
RI
BU
Proposed activities that may damage the wilderness character must be reviewed, and potential
benefits and costs must be compared. Furthermore, land managers and scientific researchers
alike must exercise restraint when taking actions in the wilderness; alternative approaches should
be compared in order to identify ways to avoid or minimize harm to natural and cultural
resources.
NO
T
DI
The following worksheets serve as a guide during the planning process of administrative and
research activities in Lassen Volcanic Wilderness. Please answer the following questions in
regards to your proposed actions.
T
-D
O
Prepared by: Name of project leader or principal investigator
Project title: Title of proposed action or research project
Start date: Anticipated start date for field activity in wilderness
End date: Anticipated end date for field activity in wilderness
Briefly describe the situation that may prompt action.
DR
A.
AF
STEP 1: Determine if any action is necessary.
This step should be used to explain the background of the situation – a native species is
in decline, an invasive species is present, a cabin is deteriorating, a navigational sign is
broken, etc.
This step should not be used to justify the use of particular methods or tools.
Good: “There is a lack of information on thermophilic Archaea.”
Bad: “We need to use a remotely-controlled vessel to collect samples of Archaea.”
52
Lassen Volcanic National Park
B.
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Is action necessary within Lassen Volcanic Wilderness?
Yes: □
No: □
Explain:
TE
This step should consider options outside of wilderness.
ST
RI
BU
Situations for which an action might be necessary within wilderness include: special
provisions regarding valid existing rights (such as for owners of private inholdings);
requirements of other legislation (such as the Endangered Species Act); requirements
from NPS policies or management plans; or agreements with tribal, state, or local
governments or other federal agencies.
T
DI
Good: “This research will focus on an endemic species that lives only in Lassen
Volcanic Wilderness.”
Bad: “This research will focus on Boiling Springs Lake, and Boiling Springs Lake is in
wilderness.”
NO
C.
Is the action necessary in order to preserve one or more of the qualities of
wilderness character?
T
-D
O
1. Untrammeled: Wilderness is unhindered and free from modern human control or
manipulation.
Yes: □
No: □
Explain:
DR
AF
2. Undeveloped: Wilderness lacks modern structures, installations, or human
occupation.
Yes: □
No: □
Explain:
3. Natural: Wilderness ecosystems are substantially free from the effects of modern
civilization.
Yes: □
No: □
Explain:
4. Opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation
Yes: □
No: □
53
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Explain:
5. Cultural: Wilderness protects features of pre-historical and historical value.
Yes: □
No: □
Explain:
TE
This step should consider impacts to the wilderness character. For example, treatment of
invasive species would improve the natural quality of the wilderness, and therefore, the
action may be justified.
ST
RI
BU
If action is necessary, proceed to Step 2 to determine the minimum activity.
Develop a list of at least three alternatives which meet the objective of the proposed
action. Include ways to reduce or mitigate the impacts of each alternative.
NO
T
A.
DI
STEP 2: Determine the minimum activity.
O
Summarize the proposed action. Include descriptions of all proposed activities that
may be prohibited under Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964, such as the
installation of any structure or the use of motor vehicles or mechanical tools.
AF
T
-D
A good description will include: transportation method to the study sites; a complete list
of the study sites; tools to be used; the type and number of all temporary and permanent
installations; the anticipated duration of any installations; the type and number of all
samples to be collected; method of collection (e.g. baits, traps, nets); and group size of
the research team.
DR
Incomplete or vague descriptions may be rejected.
Alternative #1 – No Action
(What would be the consequences to the wilderness or to the park if this action is
not taken?)
Alternative #2 –
Alternative #3 –
Alternative #4 – (optional)
54
Lassen Volcanic National Park
B.
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Mark the proposed locations on the attached map.
To assist researchers in the selection of study sites, LAVO will provide an image file of
the park zones (wilderness, proposed wilderness, and non-wilderness.)
Please provide LAVO with GPS locations or a map of your proposed study sites.
RI
BU
TE
Where would the proposed action take place? Check all that apply.
 Non-wilderness
 Wilderness
 Proposed wilderness
 Winter backcountry
DI
STEP 2 Decision: What is the minimum activity?
ST
[LAVO will verify the land status of the sites.]
NO
T
Describe the rationale for selecting this alternative:
-D
O
[Map attached on separate page]
______________
Date
Recommended: ________________________________________
Louise Johnson
Chief of Natural Resources Management
Wilderness Manager
______________
Date
Approved: ____________________________________________
Darlene Koontz
Superintendent
______________
Date
AF
Prepared by: ___________________________________________
Name and Title
DR
T
Approvals:
55
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Appendix E: Review of 2009-2010 research permits
Between January 1, 2009 and September 30, 2010, LAVO authorized 48 research
permits. Research focused heavily on natural resources, with almost all studies focusing on
biology. Almost all of the research activities included work in designated or proposed
TE
wilderness. Of the scientists working in wilderness, about 85% used the MRA process.
DR
AF
T
-D
O
NO
T
DI
ST
RI
BU
Topic of research:
•
34 in biological sciences
o 10 about plants
o 9 about microbiota
o 4 about mammals
o 4 about birds
o 3 about amphibians
o 2 about insects
o 1 about reptiles
o 1 about fish
•
9 in physical sciences
o 8 in geology
o 1 in climatology
•
1 in social sciences (recreation)
•
4 in interdisciplinary studies
o 2 on fire ecology
o 1 on air pollution and plants
o 1 on water pollution and invertebrates
Location of research:
•
39 in wilderness and/or proposed wilderness
•
5 in non-wilderness only
•
4 in unknown land status (researchers did not name sites at time of application)
Completion of Minimum Requirements Analysis:
•
Wilderness research:
o 33 filled out MRA
o 6 named sites in wilderness, but did not fill out MRA 8
•
Non-wilderness research:
o 5 not required to fill out MRA
•
Uncertain locations:
o 4 did not name sites or gave unclear descriptions, and so did not get asked to do MRA 9
8
Missing MRAs:
Clynne was authorized to collect rocks “parkwide” with a focus on “Cinder Cone, Chaos Crags, and Lassen Peak.” Such sites include designated
wilderness. Evans was authorized to collect gases and produce a film in Little Hot Springs Valley (proposed wilderness) and other vaguely
named sites likely in proposed/designated wilderness. Ferguson was authorized to capture, mark, and release lizards on Raker Peak (designated
wilderness.) Lunde was authorized to collect and dissect nearly 200 frogs, toads, and salamanders at the unnamed pond east of Feather Lake
(designated wilderness), ponds in Dersch Meadows (likely in proposed wilderness), and other sites. Taylor was authorized to use chainsaws to
remove partial cuts from 260 trees and to remove cores from 600 trees across the entire eastern parcel of designated wilderness (“between the
caribou wilderness on the east and summit lake on the west.”) Note also that Ingebritsen proposed two different activities, one in designated
wilderness and one in proposed wilderness, but he only filled out an MRA for the activity in designated wilderness.
9
Uncertain locations:
Berry gave unclear site descriptions: “streams… in the vicinity of hot springs/thermal features at Sulfur [sic] Works and Bumpass Hell” “1-2
miles” from roads. Such areas are likely in proposed wilderness. Hutten asked to conduct research without naming any specific sites (“at
present unknown.”) Oline gave unclear site descriptions: “in the area of… Sunflower Flat” and “near Anklin Meadows/Old Boundary Spring”
may be in proposed wilderness. Putirka does not name site locations but states, “Our initial work will focus on the Chaos Crags,” which is in
wilderness.
56
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
General patterns in the permits
Most forms of prohibited activities in wilderness are rarely requested or authorized.
•
No wilderness researchers built temporary roads.
•
No wilderness researchers used helicopters or other aircraft.
•
Only 2 of 39 wilderness researchers used motorized vehicles (ROVs on Boiling
TE
1)
Springs Lake.)
Only 1 of 39 wilderness researchers used mechanical tools (chainsaws.)
BU
•
This finding should be considered, generally, to be a success. The relative absence of
RI
modern motorized and mechanical transportation and equipment has maintained the wilderness
ST
character. When researchers needed to travel on water, they typically used non-motorized craft.
DI
(For example, Dinger and Schreck each carried in inflatable boats to use on lakes.) This sort of
non-motorized vehicle use increases the wilderness character.
T
The two occasions of motorized vehicle use appear to be justified. The two scientists
NO
(Stedman and Wolfe) that used remotely-operated vehicles to measure the temperature of Boiling
Springs Lake did complete MRAs. Stedman provided four alternatives (including the no action
alternative) that helped demonstrate the need to use the ROV. He described how a manned
O
canoe would be unsafe on the boiling lake, how using handlines to move the vessel across the
-D
lake could be unsafe and could degrade the shoreline, and how the electric motor was safest for
the researchers and the resources. Wolfe provided three alternatives (including the no action
T
alternative) that demonstrated how a camouflaged ROV would be less disruptive to the resource
AF
and to the visitor experience.
DR
However, one example of modern tool use should be questioned. Taylor used chainsaws
to cut the stems of green leaf manzanita, a small shrub with stem and twig diameters of only a
few inches. Smaller handheld saws probably would have been the minimum tool, but since he
was not required to complete an MRA, this is difficult to discern. In all, he used chainsaws to
cut 260 individual plants – a considerable action.
One prohibited use of wilderness does seem to be fairly common: structures or
installations.
57
Lassen Volcanic National Park
•
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
At least 14 of 39 wilderness researchers left installations (“modern
improvements”) in the wilderness. Nearly all of them explicitly stated that they
would remove the installations at the completion of their studies. Additional
researchers vaguely described a need to leave flagging or other site markers
without providing details.
This trend might be considered an example of “the tyranny of small decisions.” That is,
TE
each researcher asked to install a seemingly small number of structures, and the National Park
BU
Service allowed this to occur, but the total number of structures installed by all researchers is
quite large. In the end, the wilderness has experienced more development than any one permit
RI
application would suggest. Because many researchers did not provide the total number of
proposed installations, it is impossible to quantify the development in the wilderness. Given the
ST
numbers provided, though, at least 299 structures were installed for research purposes between
DI
2009 and 2010. Some of these structures were removed after the field season, many are to
remain for a few years, and some are essentially permanent. (Foss was authorized to install 20
T
markers for 100 years.) All of these structures degrade the wilderness character, and therefore,
NO
LAVO should begin to consider the accumulative effect of many small installations when
Collection is heavily favored over observation in the field.
•
-D
2)
O
reviewing future research permit applications.
A botanist named alternative activities of photography, seed collection and
germination, or collection of entire plants. He ultimately chose to collect entire
AF
T
plants out of personal preference and desire to keep plants in the herbarium near
his office.
A botanist asked to collect plant parts to bring to his laboratory because he is
DR
•
unable to discriminate between two species of pines in the field (despite the
existence of field guides that provide several methods of doing so.)
•
Another botanist was authorized to remove entire plant specimens (including root
systems) and bring them to his laboratory for identification.
•
Some biological studies involve killing organisms; almost all biological studies
involve removing organisms from the wilderness.
58
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
The Wilderness Act does not explicitly state that collection of animals, plants, rocks or
other materials is prohibited in wilderness. However, such practices are prohibited within
National Parks, which is why researchers must obtain permission to collect specimens in NPS
wilderness areas. Moreover, collection of samples does disrupt the naturalness of wilderness,
and depending on the methods of collection (such as traps, lures, collars, etc.), such activities
collection of natural and cultural resources should be carefully scrutinized.
TE
may also constitute trammeling of the wilderness. For these reasons, permits that authorize
BU
In Lassen Volcanic Wilderness, the majority of recent research projects have focused on
biological sciences, and the majority of these studies have involved removing specimens from
RI
the wilderness. Collection permits have been authorized for the taking of just a few specimens
per study to nearly one thousand. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine how many
ST
samples have been removed from the wilderness because virtually every researcher provided
DI
only a numerical range of intended samples – rather than the minimum requirement. Therefore,
it is clear that with essentially every collection permit authorized by LAVO, more than the
T
minimum requirement is taken from the wilderness. (If 20 samples are sufficient, for example, a
NO
permit should not be authorized for “20 to 40” samples.) Removal of materials from the
wilderness degrades the wilderness character, and removal of more than the minimum necessary
O
for the administration of the area degrades the wilderness character much faster and more
3)
-D
drastically.
There is frequent failure to identify the minimum required action. This is true
T
among collection permits, but also other forms of scientific study. In some cases, researchers
AF
were authorized to conduct research without any upper limit on the number of sites or samples to
DR
be taken:
•
“We would like to sample as many of these springs as permissible.”
•
A geologist stated that she will collect at least 200 mL of sediment per site.
In other cases, researchers were authorized to take more samples than the minimum
necessary to accomplish their studies:
•
A biologist stated that he will collect and dissect up to 184 individuals.
•
A biologist stated that she will collect and release up to 215 individuals.
59
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
The Wilderness Act explicitly states that actions in wilderness must be limited to the
minimum activity necessary. Therefore, researchers asking for “as much as possible” should be
encouraged to reverse their thinking. LAVO should set specific, narrow, upper and lower
bounds to resource degradation in the name of research. When scientists are authorized to do
research without an upper limit on the number of sites or samples, as in several 2009-2010
Researchers almost never provide more than one action alternative. This makes it
very difficult for LAVO staff to discern the minimum requirement.
BU
4)
TE
permits, the wilderness character is at great risk.
5 researchers exempt from the MRA (working in non-wilderness only)
•
9 researchers missing the entire MRA
•
6 researchers began the MRA but did not describe alternatives
•
13 researchers listed only one action alternative
•
11 researchers listed two action alternatives
•
4 researchers listed three action alternatives
T
DI
ST
RI
•
NO
Minimum Requirements Analysis requires at least two action alternatives.
Overwhelmingly, this has not been the case among LAVO researchers. Given the above
O
numbers,
35% of the applicants correctly filled out the MRA form (15 of 43), while
•
44% filled it out incorrectly (19 of 43), and
•
21% did not fill it out at all (9 of 43).
T
-D
•
AF
With missing or incomplete forms, LAVO reviewers cannot distinguish which research
projects are necessary and which research methods are the minimum required. While the burden
DR
should fall on the researchers to provide more complete information, LAVO should also refrain
from authorizing research in wilderness to applicants that do not completely fill out the
Minimum Requirements Analysis.
4)
The quality of listed action alternatives is sometimes poor. Alternatives often list only
variations in time or number of tools, rather than a different approach.
•
A biologist suggested limiting time spent in the wilderness to less than an hour.
60
Lassen Volcanic National Park
•
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
A geologist suggested using only one shovel and one hammer, rather than a few
of each.
One goal of the Minimum Requirements Analysis is to identify new, alternative methods
of research that increase preservation of the resource. But most of the MRA forms completed by
researchers do not propose alternative methods, failing to take advantage of the purpose of the
analysis. For example, a team of researchers sharing a shovel does not degrade the wilderness
TE
any less than a team of researchers with multiple shovels if the number of holes to be dug is the
BU
same. Such an “alternative” is not worth considering, and it defeats the purpose of the MRA.
Overwhelmingly, the completed MRA forms during 2009 and 2010 listed these sorts of
ST
Researchers have a narrow view of impacts to the wilderness resource.
•
“Clipping three needles off each tree will have no impact on the trees.”
•
Some researchers hide permanent installations behind rocks, as if visitor
DI
5)
RI
alternatives. Thus, even the 35% success rate in filling out the forms is deceptively high.
T
experience is the only wilderness resource.
NO
Scientists and LAVO reviewers alike should consider more broadly the potential impacts
to the wilderness. With more in-depth analysis, it may become apparent that certain research
O
activities are inappropriate or not the minimum necessary. For example, hiding a permanent
-D
research installation behind a rock only mitigates the impact to the experience of visitors who
pass by the area after installation is complete. Visitors that witness the installation, however, are
impacted as the “opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation” are lost.
AF
T
Moreover, any development in wilderness is explicitly prohibited by the Wilderness Act, and so
proposals for permanent research installations should be weighed against more than just visitor
DR
experience. Keeping lands undeveloped was the primary intent behind the Wilderness Act,
evident in the opening text of the law: “In order to assure that an increasing population,
accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify
all areas within the United States... there is hereby established a National Wilderness
Preservation System….” A development somewhat hidden from visitors is still a prohibited use
of wilderness. A proposal and its alternatives, therefore, should address more than just visitor
experience.
61
Lassen Volcanic National Park
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Furthermore, effects on the natural ecosystem are considered narrowly. Plants are
routinely clipped, animals are captured and released, and rocks are removed from the wilderness
completely. These actions are allowed because they only affect the ecology in negligible ways.
All of these actions constitute trammeling, however. Whether the actions drastically alter natural
processes is one important consideration, but it is not the only consideration. Any human
Different researchers are authorized to do similar actions, compounding impacts to
BU
6)
TE
manipulation of the environment should be minimized in wilderness.
wilderness.
Several different researchers have installed permanent temperature probes at
RI
•
Boiling Springs Lake (rather than sharing the information.)
Two different researchers studying pikas are authorized to leave monuments at
ST
•
•
DI
their sites (compounding the issue of development in the wilderness.)
Three different researchers seek to map the vegetation of essentially the entire
T
wilderness.
NO
When different scientists are studying the same thing without sharing information with
each other, more than the minimum activity is occurring in wilderness. Unfortunately, even
A biologist listed an alternative of contacting other researchers about their work,
-D
•
O
when researchers admit that their work duplicates the work of others, this alternative is not used:
but then she rejected it as time-consuming.
The actions of two different research teams may not degrade wilderness character much
AF
T
more than a single team. The crucial issue, though, is that the trend of duplicating research is
going seemingly unchecked. As these studies of the wilderness continue, and as additional teams
DR
of scientists begin work in the wilderness, this problem may grow. LAVO has an opportunity to
take preventative measures now by consolidating similar research projects before the wilderness
is degraded.
7)
Wilderness research topics do not match park management goals.
•
19% of research projects focused on microorganisms, making it the second-most
popular topic after plants.
62
Lassen Volcanic National Park
•
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Only 4% of research projects addressed fire ecology, despite the fact that this has
been recognized as a significant management issue for the park.
•
No research included aspects of archaeology or history. In fact, only one research
project related to any sort of social science topic.
The National Park Service should direct the sorts of research occurring at LAVO – rather
than allowing scientists to conduct studies on whatever they like. If proposed research projects
TE
do not assist in the administration of the wilderness, they should typically be rejected. (The
BU
Wilderness Act states, “except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the
administration of the area” there should be no development or degradation of the wilderness.)
RI
Potentially valuable studies of the wilderness are not being conducted while probably useless
ST
studies (in an administrative sense) have been authorized to develop and alter the wilderness.
Provide image file (such as .jpg) and GIS file (.shp and/or .kmz) depicting boundaries of
T
•
DI
Recommendations for review of future permit applications
•
NO
wilderness, proposed wilderness, and non-wilderness to every applicant.
Require that all applicants mark their proposed study sites on a map of the national park. Do
not authorize research until this is completed.
Require the primary investigator of each proposed study in wilderness to pass the “Minimum
O
•
-D
Requirements Analysis” certification by the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training
Center. Have the applicants provide a copy of their certificate along with the MRA for their
Encourage shorter and more relevant answers to the questions on the MRA. (For example,
AF
•
T
study.
DR
the question “Describe the proposed action” is typically answered by lengthy descriptions of
the history of the field of study. Instead, an answer should provide a description of the
proposed research method and tools.)
•
Increase outreach to west coast universities and research institutions, explaining the
management priorities of the park. Such outreach could appear on the www.nps.gov/lavo
Website. (For example, encourage more research on archaeology or invasive plants, rather
than the current focus on bacteria and Archaea.)
63
Lassen Volcanic National Park
•
Wilderness Stewardship Core Elements
Insist on correction of inaccuracies in permit applications before authorizing research,
especially in relation to the description of land status. (For example, statements describing
areas “considered to be wilderness” and “designated as wilderness by the NPS” suggest that
the applicants do not know that wilderness is a legal category created by the U.S. Congress.)
Such inaccuracies call into question the researchers’ understanding of wilderness, Leave No
Trace, and even the public lands system more generally.
During review of applications, focus on the numbers and suggest alternatives that impact
TE
•
BU
fewer features. (For example, Hellmuth proposed collecting and dissecting 100 frogs per
year for three years. Alternatives could be: (1) no action, (2) collect and release, (3) collect
RI
and dissect 100 frogs for one year, (4) collect and dissect fewer than 100 frogs per year for
three years, or (5) as proposed. But she did not list any other action alternatives.)
Reject all applications that list fewer than three alternatives (the no action alternative and two
ST
•
DI
action alternatives.) Furthermore, an action alternative that describes working in nonwilderness only should not be counted as an action alternative. Supposedly, the necessity of
T
working in wilderness is demonstrated by Step 4 – can the action be met outside of
NO
wilderness. If the answer in Step 4 was no, then this “alternative” should not be revisited
during the selection of alternatives. Doing so simply fills space to make the application
DR
AF
T
-D
O
appear to offer alternatives, when really the alternative is impossible.
64