Long Path to Victory - After years of abuse, the Gila and Aldo Leopold Wildernesses gain a reprieve from illegal grazing.

— By Hilary Wood

The Forest Service in New Mexico has a long history with the Diamond Bar and Laney cattle companies. Owned by the Laney family, the companies once held federal grazing permits for 272 square miles of New Mexico’s Gila National Forest, including allotments within the Gila and Aldo Leopold Wildernesses. Under the Laney’s “care”, both of the Wilderness allotments suffered drastic overgrazing, resulting in severe riparian damage, defoliation, and the degradation of critical habitat for the federally endangered Gila trout and the federally threatened loach minnow, spikedace, and Mexican spotted owl. Visitors and rangers alike noted the massive degradation of these areas, though the Forest Service failed to take steps to address them

In 1996, the Laneys stopped paying their grazing fees and filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service claiming private property rights on the allotments. The district court rejected the Laney’s property claims and issued an order for the immediate removal of the cattle from the allotments. The Laneys appealed, but the court’s decision was upheld by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997. The court clearly stated that livestock grazing on federal lands is a privilege rather than a right, and may therefore be revoked at any time. The Laney’s were fined $55,000 for their trespass, which they paid with the help of a livestock industry fund.

Despite this ruling, the Laney’s failed to remove their cattle from the allotments until 2001, at which time they led them on a circuitous route along the Gila River in the Gila Wilderness, resulting in severe damage to the river banks and streamside vegetation. The Laney’s discouraged Forest Service intervention by threatening agency personnel, all the while becoming poster children for grazing advocates who resent grazing controls on publicly owned Wilderness and national forest land.

The allotments had yet to recover in June 2003 when the Laneys once again illegally released over 200 cattle into the Wildernesses. In response, an U.S. attorney for the State of New Mexico filed a motion asking the court to find the Laneys in contempt of the 1997 judgement. Concerned with the Forest Service’s failure to impound the cattle and the political atmosphere in Washington, Wilderness Watch and five other conservation organizations joined the case as interveners. Intervener status allows the coalition to submit briefs for the court’s consideration and, among other things, to challenge the settlement agreement or court decision.

On December 22, 2003, the court found the Laneys to be in contempt of the 1997 judgement and ordered the cattle’s immediate removal. Despite the wording of this ruling, the Forest Service moved to allow the Laney’s 30 days to remove their livestock, allowing the cattle to remain on overgrazed land longer than necessary. The ruling holds that if a trespass occurs in the future, the agency must give the Laneys a five-day warning before impounding the cattle and selling them.

In early February, the court assessed damages to the two Wildernesses at nearly $64,600. It has yet to be seen whether the Laneys comply with the court’s order to remove their cattle from the public’s land and pay the delineated damages. For the sake of the Gila and Aldo Leopold Wilderness, it is our hope that they do.

End of Innocence -
How politics killed the national celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act.

The road to Denver was paved with good intentions. Initial good intentions from the federal agencies entrusted with Wilderness management, and good intentions from the conservation groups and associated organizations who joined them to organize a national conference celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act. Though the planners came from disparate backgrounds, they shared a kernel of common reverence – reverence for one of America’s finest and most forward -thinking pieces of legislation, the Wilderness Act of 1964.

The coalition envisioned a three-day conference in Denver, Colorado focused on the stewardship of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Planned for October 2004, the conference was scheduled to begin with an examination of the ideological roots of Wilderness, move on to the present condition of the NWPS, and end with a in-depth look at the future of Wilderness in America. The conference presented a unique opportunity to engage Wilderness advocates, managers, and the general public in a celebration and examination of our Wilderness heritage, and to hear from renowned speakers who specialize in Wilderness issues. Yet more than anything else, the conference embodied a national recommitment to Wilderness, rallying Americans around our nation’s last wild lands and confronting the challenges that threaten them at the present and in the future.

Perhaps to the reader has already identified this as naive - more than just your basic, forgivable naivete, but a shared naivete on a political, intellectual, and possibly economic level. Set against the current political backdrop, it is easy to be cynical, easy to see the trap before it is sprung. However, wrapped up as we were in the vision of a meaningful conference, it was hard to remember that the Wilderness so beloved by the vast majority of Americans is also mired in the greed, ignorance, and rampant self-interest that so inspires political consideration of late. With the 2004 election looming like an unsettled front on the immediate horizon, how was a conference centered on the inherent value and myriad benefits of untrammeled land to survive? How much consideration had wildlife habitat, clean air and water, and the human need for solitude and freedom received by the current powers that be?

Heedless to these realities, the intrepid coalition forged ahead. Contracts were drawn up reserving the Denver Convention Center, contractors were hired to design an EXPO preceding the conference, and endless hours were spent hashing out the agenda, alerting the media and public, and securing financial backing. Though there were the usual disagreements, confusion, and misunderstandings among the coalition members, an overall commitment to the vision of the conference remained.

The warnings started toward the end of the year. Certain employees of the federal agencies voiced concerns about the proposed agenda, making decisions, deletions, and additions without the knowledge or agreement of their non-governmental partners. Integral agenda items were suddenly deemed to be too controversial for the conference, and were removed in favor of a more generalized schedule lacking any in-depth review of the NWPS. The tentative trust that had initially forged the original coalition suffered fractures, and a feeling of unease spread throughout the proceedings. The Interagency Wilderness Policy Council, comprised of high-level agency bureaucrats and the largest contributor of funds for the conference, proposed new coalition partners whose commitment to Wilderness is ambiguous at best, including Disney, General Motors, Starbucks, and the Ford Motor Company.

The final nail in the coffin came from on high; someone somewhere in the upper echelons of the administration issued an order that the conference be postponed until after the 2004 elections. This mandate showed a complete disregard for the contracts and commitments made by the planning coalition, as well as the hundreds of hours its members put in to assure the success of the celebration. It also destroyed any chance of a “coalition” conference based on the shared efforts and uncensored input of the federal agencies and non-governmental organizations – after 7 months of dedicated participation and often leadership, non-federal participants found themselves to be second-class citizens, muzzled and obsolete. Frustration and disillusionment was likewise felt by many within the agencies, who suffered their employer’s disregard for their hard work and passion for Wilderness.

Faced with the harsh reality of the conference, Wilderness Watch and the other non-governmental organizations resigned from the planning coalition. Unable to reschedule the conference within 2004, the remaining agency members cancelled the celebration all together.

Though the failure of the 40th anniversary celebration was a hard lesson for all involved, the real loser of this cancellation was Wilderness. What was supposed to be a recommitment to our last wild lands instead revealed the complete lack of commitment and respect the present administration has for America’s Wilderness. Fearing its less than stellar record on environmental issues, the administration could not allow an open and constructive review of the NWPS. This willful neglect of one of our nation’s most vital assets bodes ill for the longevity and protection of our shared Wilderness heritage.

Happily, Wilderness Watch and several other organizations are resurrecting the 40th anniversary conference. The gathering will celebrate Wilderness as well as taking an in-depth look at the past, present and future of our National Wilderness Preservation System. We are all excited to provide this opportunity for honest reflection and review. Please see the back cover of this newsletter for more information!

Missive from the Guzzler Wars - Hunting organizations seek to turn Wilderness into game parks

In September 2003, twenty hunting organizations signed a letter to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton seeking the creation of a departmental policy supporting artificial water developments in Wilderness. The organizations (including the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International, and the Pope and Young Club) claim that federal land managers are blocking the construction and maintenance of water developments (also called “guzzlers) that are “essential” to the survival of game species such as big horn sheep and mule deer. They claim that the agencies place the stewardship of Wilderness above the requirements of wildlife by prohibiting man-made structures.

Though the NRA’s concern for wildlife is touching, the letter presents a disingenuous overview of the guzzler debate. Wilderness Watch has been involved in this issue since the 1990s, issuing comments and writing numerous articles over the years. Far from a concern for stable wildlife populations, the organizations are driven by the desire for artificially augmented game populations for recreational hunting. To reach this goal they are willing to overlook the degradation of the public’s Wilderness lands, including the impacts from guzzler construction (often using backhoes and other heavy equipment), the creation of new roads to truck in water from distant sources, and the allowance of motorized use for a nonessential Wilderness purpose. In short, they advocate turning our remaining wild lands into manufactured game parks.

In addition, guzzler projects suffer from a fatal flaw. In the naturally arid Wildernesses of the southwest, wildlife numbers are balanced by the amount of forage and water available. Though guzzler proponents seem to understand the importance of the latter requirement, they have dropped the ball when it comes to the former - past guzzler projects have resulted in large animal die-offs from lack of forage. If the organizations truly want to see a stable increase in game populations, they will have to truck in forage as well as water, perhaps building giant feed troughs for “wild” bighorn sheep and deer.

The letter ends with a statement that “We have found nothing in federal law that suggests water developments and the motorized means to maintain them are prohibited on federal lands, regardless of designation.” In response we would suggest they read the Wilderness Act’s prohibition of motorized use, structures, and installations except in instances regarding the health and safety of persons in the area or except as necessary to meet the minimum requirements for protecting the area as Wilderness. The self-serving and shortsighted incentive for guzzler construction and maintenance fails to meet these requirements.

Luckily, Secretary Gale Norton did not express support for the creation of a departmental policy in favor of guzzlers. We are pleased that she identified the sharp divide between special interest and the interest of Wilderness – wildlife included – and denied the groups’ petition.

Renewable Energy or Wilderness - Hydropower project proposed for Glacier Bay Wilderness, AK.

— By TinaMarie Ekker

The Gustavus Electric Company wants to build a small hydropower project on the Kahtaheena
River within Alaska’s Glacier Bay Wilderness. The electricity would be sold to the community of Gustavus as a cleaner replacement for the diesel-generated electricity the town currently relies upon. If approved, 700-1200 acres of the park and Glacier Bay Wilderness will be undesignated around the project site and transferred to the state of Alaska in exchange for parcels of State land elsewhere in the region.

This would be the first time, nationwide, that any Wilderness or national park lands are undesignated to accommodate a new commercial enterprise. Such a precedent-setting action would jeopardize the permanence of both the National Wilderness Preservation System and the National Park System.

Congress authorized the land exchange for what is called the Falls Creek project in 1998 as a rider attached on an appropriations bill by Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK). However, the legislation lists several conditions that first must be met: Gustavus Electric Company must obtain a license for the project from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); the project must be able to be accomplished in an economically feasible manner; the lands exchanged must be of equal value; and an environmental analysis must demonstrate that the project won’t adversely impact the purposes and values of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, as constituted after the land exchange is complete. This tricky language means that impacts to the park and Wilderness will be analyzed after the land exchange, when the project area is no longer within the park or Wilderness.

Gustavus Electric Company has obtained the required license; now it is up to the National Park Service (NPS) and FERC to determine if the other conditions have been met. These two agencies have jointly released a draft EIS analyzing that question. If all conditions are met, then the NPS will have no choice but to proceed with the land exchange, removing the Falls Creek area from national park and wilderness protection.

A road, powerline, and small diversion dam would be constructed in this currently pristine area. As State land, other commercial development along the proposed access road could occur.

In detailed comments, Wilderness Watch pointed out that hydropower is unlikely to reduce residents’ electric bills and will not completely eliminate the need for continued reliance on diesel-generated electricity.

Furthermore, the State lands NPS would acquire through exchange are of lesser scientific value than the federal lands near Falls Creek. As glaciers from the last Ice Age retreat along southeast Alaska’s rugged coastline, short, young trees are beginning to claim the lower elevations. However, a few rare pockets hold mature, multi-canopied forests, revealing a geologic story of where and when glaciers first began withdrawing. One of these unique pockets is along the Kahtaheena River, where the hydropower project is proposed.

Residents are torn between wanting to protect existing wilderness qualities near their community, and wanting a less-polluting form of electricity. With new energy technologies becoming increasingly available, it may be possible to accomplish both in the not too distant future. In weighing costs and benefits, hopefully the NPS will decide that the cost of losing Wilderness is too high to make the hydropower project economically feasible.