• Drive-Thru Wilderness? Wild Cumberland Island up for Grabs — By George Nickas
  
  
• Mount Hood Plan Appealed
  
  
• New Policy for Refuge Wilderness
  
  
• New BLM Wilderness Rules
  
  
• Crossing Boundaries with Chainsaws ( Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness)
  
  

Drive-Thru Wilderness? Wild Cumberland Up For Grabs

— By George Nickas

Every Wilderness will eventually have a management plan, but few are likely to have the dramatic long-term impact that will result from the Cumberland Island Wilderness Management Plan. Indeed, the decisions made in this plan could affect the way the National Park Service manages Wildernesses throughout much of the Wilderness System.

Cumberland Island is the largest undeveloped barrier island on the eastern seaboard. It is surprisingly remote and biologically rich, harboring the greatest diversity of biotic communities of any of Georgia’s coastal lands. A glorious beach of white sand marks the eastern shore, stretching the Island’s entire 17-mile length. Moving inland, the beach gives way to several rows of sand dune-communities, uplands filled with saw palmetto, and a forest of pines and massive live oaks, draped in Spanish-moss.

The forest ends at the western shore, a rich mosaic of salt marshes and tidal creeks that provide a highly productive estuarine nursery. Over 300 bird species rely on the Seashore at various times of the year including the federally listed piping plover and wood stork. American alligators are common, and Cumberland’s nesting population of threatened loggerhead sea turtles is one of the largest along the Georgia coast.

The Island narrowly escaped the large-scale development that besieged so many barrier islands when the federal government acquired most of the land and Congress designated it as the Cumberland Island National Seashore in 1972. In 1982, 8,800 acres were designated as the Cumberland Island Wilderness.

Another 11,700 acres were designated as potential wilderness, to be administered to protect Wilderness values until such time that non-federal lands are acquired and/or existing, non-conforming uses expire. In 1984 the Island was designated as an international Biosphere Reserve.

Yet all of these accolades and legal protections have not saved this Wilderness paradise from the devastating impacts of roads, motor vehicle use and management abuse. Three decades of failure to enforce Wilderness rules has left the Cumberland Island Wilderness laced with primitive roads that are regularly driven by Island residents, their guests and National Park Service (NPS) personnel. Park rangers routinely patrol the Wilderness in motor vehicles, Park Service vans carry visitors on sight-seeing tours through the Wilderness, and NPS employees conduct virtually all wildlife research and cultural resource management activities using motorized equipment and vehicles.

At the same time, almost nothing’s been done to protect the Wilderness from thousands of introduced feral hogs and horses that are wreaking havoc with the Island’s fragile ecology and threatening the existence of the area’s rare sea turtles.

All of this isn’t solely the doing of present day Park managers. Much of the blame falls on a prevailing attitude within the NPS and some Dept. of Interior officials that the Wilderness Act is merely a set of guidelines for managers to follow when it’s convenient and politically expedient to do so. At Cumberland, this attitude has been pushed to the limit; thus the recently released Draft Wilderness Management Plan could become a bellwether for Wilderness throughout the national parks.

Many of the current abuses of Wilderness policy can be traced to the Seashore’s establishment. As part of the deal when the federal government bought most of Island from residents, the residents reserved the right to remain on the land for a limited period of time (generally 25-40 years, or life-estates). These “retained rights” also allow the residents and their guests to use a few existing primitive vehicle routes to reach their homes or cabins. The residents don’t restrict their driving to accessing their residences, however, but drive most anywhere a vehicle can travel.

When Congress designated more than half the island as the Cumberland Island Wilderness or potential Wilderness in 1982, it mandated that motor vehicle use be limited to only that which is specifically enumerated in the “retained rights” documents. The law also required the NPS to conduct its management activities in a manner consistent with all other Wildernesses in the national wilderness system. Unfortunately, since establishment of the national seashore and Wilderness the NPS has failed to enforce the restrictions and thus the residents continue to drive wherever they wish. Rather than rein in the residents’ driving, the NPS has chosen to emulate it.

Today, a backpacker in the Wilderness is as likely to encounter a motor vehicle as she is another hiker. Park rangers patrol the Wilderness in pickups rather than on foot. During the hunting season, rangers use government trucks to haul deer hunters’ kills to NPS-provided walk-in coolers. NPS cultural resource managers and private concessionaires bus tourists through the Wilderness on narrow, sandy lanes to view 20th century “historic” structures on the Island’s north end. NPS biologists drive the beach looking for turtles, birds, hogs, and raccoons, while NPS firefighting trucks prowl the forest waiting for lightening to strike. Island residents cruise the beach, drive over the dunes, and motor along the primitive routes through the forest.
Making matters worse, in 1999 the NPS, Island residents and several conservation groups enshrined this behavior in an “Agreement,” crafted by the residents’ association. The Agreement set the tone for the current management plan. It was brought to fruition in a series of private meetings masterminded by Dept. of Interior Asst. Secretary Don Barry, to appease a local Congressman who was threatening to hold up some of the Department’s funding. Among the most egregious aspects of the Agreement are provisions requiring the NPS to purchase 15-passenger vans to conduct sightseeing tours in the Wilderness; the commitment to maintain “Grand Avenue” as a permanent “historic road” through the Wilderness; and to spend several million taxpayer dollars to restore and maintain several structures (belonging to former Island residents) of dubious national historic significance.

The Task Ahead

Wilderness Watch is spearheading the effort to change the way the Cumberland Island Wilderness is managed. Working with the local Sierra Club group, Georgia Forest Watch, Defenders of Wild Cumberland and our Georgia Chapter, we’re raising public awareness of the Wilderness values that need to be preserved and what citizens can do to help. We’ve turned out a strong showing of Wilderness advocates at public hearings in Atlanta, and will be “on site” to inform Island visitors of the issues facing the Island. We must turn things around at Cumberland, not only to restore one of the most extraordinary Wildernesses in the southeastern U.S., but also to send a clear and unmistakable message to the NPS: The Wilderness Act is the law of the land, and it applies equally to all Wildernesses.

Here’s what YOU CAN DO to save Wild Cumberland!

We strongly urge all Wilderness advocates to send a letter to the NPS urging it to adopt a management plan that protects Wilderness values on Cumberland Island. Letters should be addressed to: Jerry Belson, Regional Director, NPS, 1924 Building, 100 Alabama St. SW, Atlanta, GA 30303. Your letters must be received by May 4, 2001. In your letter you might make the following points, urging the NPS to:

• Support Alternative 3 as it relates to “retained rights” holders driving in the Wilderness. This alternative limits driving only to that which is specifically allowed by law.
• End all commercial and NPS vehicle tours in the Wilderness and potential wilderness.
• Prohibit all vehicles on the so-called Cedar Dock, Whitney, Duck House and South Cut roads.
• Conduct all of its management activities on foot as is done in other Wildernesses.
• Not develop a public access dock on the Island’s north end. This would bring large groups of visitors to the most remote parts of the Wilderness and potential wilderness.
• Prohibit all vehicles from accessing the beach unless the operator has an explicit legal right for vehicle access (only 2 residents have such rights).
• Allow all currently used vehicle routes to revert to their natural condition, except for the bare minimum maintenance needed to allow legally required vehicle use. Grand Avenue should not be permanently maintained as a historic structure!
• Remove all feral hogs and horses from the Wilderness. If NPS chooses to maintain a small “wild” horse herd on the Island, it should be confined to the south (non-wilderness) end.
• Emphasize historic values (structures and interpretation) on the non-wilderness south half of the Island, where the most significant historic structures exist, and emphasize natural values on the Wilderness north half.

In January Wilderness Watch filed an administrative appeal challenging the Mt Hood National Forest’s new wilderness management plan. The plan represents a pilot test of the Forest Service’s new “wilderness recreation strategy” adopted by the agency last year without public comment or environmental analysis. If the Forest Service implements this plan, wilderness will no longer be wild on the Mt. Hood National Forest in Oregon. The plan will escalate crowding and damage wilderness qualities on nearly 85% of the wilderness trails and destinations that are popular with visitors.

The vast majority of visitors to the Mt. Hood, Salmon-Huckleberry, and Hatfield Wildernesses covered by the plan are day-use recreationists from the nearby Portland metropolitan area. In 1998, an earlier draft of the plan called for implementing a limited entry permit system to reduce congestion on wilderness trails and climbing routes. Strong local opposition led to the revised final plan that now allows unlimited encounters with other hikers along most trail corridors, and increased regulation at popular destinations such as wilderness lakes. People will be directed to picnic and camp only in designated sites, and volunteer “wilderness stewards” will be on hand to provide public education and monitor compliance.

Wilderness Watch’s appeal argues that the plan sacrifices traditional wilderness qualities such as solitude, natural quiet, opportunities for unconfined recreation, a sense of remoteness from crowds and civilization, and chances to view wildlife. It asks the Forest Service’s Regional Forester to rescind the plan and prepare new management alternatives that protect against degradation of the area’s wilderness character. The High Sierra Hikers Association, Wild Wilderness, and Northwoods Wilderness Recovery signed on as interested parties to our appeal.

A similar appeal was filed by two retired career Forest Service employees, Bill Worf and Joe Higgins, who drew upon decades of wilderness management experience to criticize the plan’s failure to protect wilderness qualities. Two other retired Forest Service veterans later joined their appeal as interested parties.

Three recreation groups filed as interested parties on the side of the Forest Service: The Mountaineers, The American Alpine Club, and Oregon Equestrian Trails.

Bill Worf argued that the current plan “abandons the Forest Service’s long-standing policy of non-degradation for wilderness. The Mt. Hood, Salmon-Huckleberry, and Hatfield Wildernesses will now be managed as high-use recreation areas rather than as wilderness. It is unacceptable that people seeking wilderness qualities must now avoid 85% of the trail system and 100% of the most scenic alpine basins within the Mt. Hood Wilderness.”

Wilderness Watch charges that the new wilderness recreation strategy is contrary to federal law which stipulates that wilderness areas will remain unimpaired for use and enjoyment as wilderness - not merely as backcountry or as crowded recreational sites. A decision by the Regional Forester is expected later this spring.

In January the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) released a new draft policy that, if adopted, will guide management of all Wildernesses located on national wildlife refuges. Refuge Wilderness, covering 20.7 million acres across 70 Wildernesses, accounts for 20% of the entire National Wilderness Preservation System. The new policy is especially significant for Alaska, where 90% of all refuge Wilderness acreage is located.

The policy will also govern the inventory of all national wildlife refuges for potential new Wilderness and Wild & Scenic River recommendations. This inventory is already underway, and in Alaska could mean an additional 53 million acres proposed for Wilderness designation. The FWS is accepting public comment through April 19th, 2001.

Many aspects of the draft policy are outstanding. The FWS has become the first federal lands agency to title a policy “Wilderness stewardship” rather than “Wilderness management,” thereby connoting an air of respectful guardianship. Humility and restraint are identified as important qualities for wilderness managers to exercise — “Wilderness is a place of restraint, for managers as well as visitors.” The policy reminds managers that their actions convey messages to the public about behaviors and attitudes that are appropriate in wilderness.

The FWS also is the first agency to provide a lengthy discussion of what is meant by the concept “Wilderness character.” This is significant because protection of wilderness character is the overarching mandate of the Wilderness Act. The new policy states that “wilderness character, like personal character, is much more than a physical condition.... The character of wilderness is an unseen presence capable of refocusing our perception of nature and our relationship to it.”

Asking managers highly skilled in the biological sciences to also manage for intangible, symbolic qualities brings a new challenge to their traditional tasks of counting ducks, radio collaring mammals, and providing hunting and fishing opportunities! Nonetheless, the FWS has taken the bold step of declaring to both staff and the public that it intends to do just that by describing wilderness values as physical, psychological, symbolic, and spiritual.
The FWS will not support the naming of any more geographic features in wilderness to limit the imprint of human perception upon the landscape. This is significant for Alaska, where numerous peaks and streams have not yet been named, thereby preserving opportunities for a sense of exploration and discovery. Risk and self-reliance will be highlighted as interpretive themes, reminding the public that “where the wild has not been taken out of the wilderness, there are risks.”

Refuges will give highest priority to activities dependent upon wilderness and wildlife. Interpretive materials will emphasize the limitations of wilderness to accommodate high use. Aerial flightseeing by the public will be discouraged as incompatible with wilderness and a disturbance to wildlife. The policy could be improved by applying this same restriction to flightseeing by agency and other government personnel, whom are “frequent fliers” at low elevations over many refuge wildernesses.

Despite superb language eloquently portraying the spirit of wilderness, some aspects of the policy remain troubling. The policy allows leeway for managers to manipulate habitat with tools that include chemicals and prescribed fire, among others, for purposes of restoring biological conditions and wilderness character previously impacted by human influence. Although intentional manipulations may be called for when critical to protecting a threatened or endangered species or other indigenous species whose survival is seriously at risk, such actions are far more questionable when human influence is imposed upon wilderness simply to alleviate past signs of human influence. Restoration of pristine conditions after wilderness designation is not required by the Wilderness Act, but the law does intend that natural processes be allowed to operate in an untrammeled manner, free of undue human interference.

Another issue is that the FWS has adopted the principle that “wildlife comes first” — and some managers interpret this to mean that wilderness is a secondary concern. Some refuge managers think wildlife and wilderness are incompatible because many traditional wildlife management techniques involve motor vehicles, aircraft, mechanized equipment, structures such as artificial water sources, and manipulations of habitat and species populations. The final policy should clarify that wilderness overlays and encompasses wildlife, that wildlife is one of many valuable components of wilderness character, but protection of other qualities of wilderness character must also receive priority within wilderness.

A third major concern with the draft policy relates to motorized transportation within wildernesses in Alaska. The policy says that motorized boats, snowmobiles, and airplane landings are routinely allowed for general public access within Alaska’s wilderness. However, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) is more restrictive than this, allowing motorboats, snowmachines, and airplanes for transportation in Alaska wilderness “for traditional activities,” subject to regulation. The FWS needs to provide a stringent definition for “traditional activities,” that is based on subsistence-oriented, traditional, rural way of life in Alaska, not recreation.

In addition, the policy could be strengthened by encouraging refuge managers in Alaska to establish motor-free zones and prohibit airplane landings on tundra, where scarring easily occurs. Landings should be restricted to snow, water, and gravel bars, which most bush pilots are well-equipped to handle.

Also, the policy should require managers to complete a “Needs Assessment” before authorizing commercial services, as required by the Wilderness Act. Public use should receive priority over commercial use.

Overall, the FWS’ new draft wilderness stewardship policy moves the agency a giant leap forward in terms of wilderness guardianship. If the best aspects are not deleted in the final policy, and a few important safeguards are added, then the agency will have a strong tool for preserving the “wild” in our national wildlife refuge wildernesses.

In January BLM’s new national wilderness management regulations went into effect. The final regulations modify an earlier draft released for comment in 1996. Oddly, the new rule states that “regulations are for the guidance and instruction of the public, not BLM personnel.” Since regulations bind agency actions with the weight of law, this is a very strange statement indeed!

Certain revisions suggested by Wilderness Watch were incorporated into the final regulation, including limiting the emergency use of motor vehicles to the protection of health or safety of people within the area, rather than allowing motorized entry to protect property or people located outside the wilderness.

In response to the final regulation, Wilderness Watch prepared a detailed petition that was co-signed by 22 other conservation groups requesting BLM to amend four specific points which we believe do not comply with the Wilderness Act. These points address scientific research methods in wilderness, overly expansive discretionary measures for weeds and non-native invasive plants, access to inholdings, and the need for stronger emphasis on exchange of lands to acquire private or state inholdings in wilderness.

The section governing access to inholdings is especially disturbing, and represents a significant departure from language that was in the draft regulations. The Wilderness Act allows for “adequate access” or exchange of land to acquire inholdings. In contrast, the new regulations allow BLM to approve the kind and degree of access route and mode of travel that a landowner enjoyed prior to wilderness designation. BLM even admits that the rule in many cases effectively ratifies the inholder’s original choice of route and travel method. For many desert wildernesses, access to inholdings was primarily by motor vehicle on old jeep tracks or up desert washes and across open, parched basins. BLM’s new policy essentially creates a de facto right out of prior existing behavior, and appears to eliminate serious consideration of alternative routes or modes of travel that may not have been previously “enjoyed” but that could substantially lower the impacts to the wilderness resource.

The final management regulation postpones a decision on whether permanent fixed anchors for rockclimbing will be allowed in wilderness, pending the outcome of the Forest Service’s rulemaking on this issue. The new regulation also fails to address commercial services in wilderness, claiming that the local BLM planning process is adequate for handling this issue. Furthermore, the regulation argues that it is not necessary to specifically define “temporary or permanent structures” although many commercial outfitters seek to construct such structures within wilderness. It therefore remains unclear whether caches, outfitter corrals, or tent platforms will be allowed or banned within BLM-administered wilderness.

The rule indicated that state agencies may not use motor vehicles to track wildlife, although this is a common occurrence in some places. The rule reaffirms that American Indians may use wilderness for traditional religious purposes, but stipulates that motorized equipment or mechanical transportation will not be allowed for such purposes. Whether to temporarily close a portion of an area to the general public to protect religious privacy is left up to the local BLM manager.

The regulation itself is silent concerning prescribed fire, but the accompanying preamble indicates that prescribed fire may be allowed under a section of the rule that authorizes “officers, employees, agencies, or agents of the Federal, State, and local governments to occupy and use wilderness areas to carry out the purposes of the Wilderness Act or other Federal statutes.”

The new wilderness management regulations will affect the 6 million acres of designated wilderness that is overseen by the BLM, as well as any new BLM wilderness designated in the future.

On July 4th, 1999 a tremendous windstorm blew across the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) and Superior National Forest in Minnesota. Hurricane-force winds were estimated up to 140 mph resulting in tree blowdowns across 478,000 acres of the forest.

Thousands of people were camped in the BWCAW during that holiday weekend when the storm hit. Many sustained injuries from the falling trees. Fortunately, no fatalities occurred.

Soon after, in a departure from normal wilderness management policy, the Regional Forester in Milwaukee gave permission to use chainsaws in the wilderness until the end of 2000 to re-open campsites, trails, and portages - but “only where the use of non-motorized and non-mechanized equipment would be unsafe.”

At that point Wilderness Watch became involved. Chainsaws safer than hand tools? Wilderness Watch argued that hand tools would not only be much safer, but were necessary to follow the intent of the Wilderness Act. The storm was a natural event in wilderness and the human safety emergency was over. However, pressure was tremendous to make the BWCAW - one of the most heavily used wildernesses in the U.S. - fully accessible again.

In the middle of July 1999 Forest Service crews armed with chainsaws and Regional Office permission went to work in the wilderness. In some areas with few wind impacts crews used mostly hand tools. However, in the main blowdown area, chainsaws were used for almost all of the work. Wilderness Watchers monitoring this area could find little if any hand tool work. They did find blatant examples of how the Regional stipulation “only for the safety of the crew” was ignored. There was widespread overcutting at campsites - trees bucked up unnecessarily, furniture constructed, firewood cut and stacked, small standing saplings limbed, trees felled for no reason, even chainsaw graffiti on trees. Wilderness Watch photos documented this work and examples were sent to the Regional Forester.

This unnecessary and abundant chainsaw use allowed crews to open most of the storm-damaged campsites and portages in just a few weeks. Providing easy recreational access is not required by the Wilderness Act, nor do blocked trails and campsites represent an emergency situation demanding use of motorized equipment for immediate clearance. Wilderness Watch sent several letters to the Regional Forester expressing concern and informing him that Wilderness Watchers in Minnesota were watching.

The concerns raised by Wilderness Watch contributed to a change in Forest Service direction for the 2000 season. Additional guidelines for chainsaw use were developed that now required photo and written justification of need and length of time used. Any chainsaw use at campsites or portages needed to be pre-approved.

In summer 2000, most storm recovery work in the BWCAW was well documented and done with hand tools. Of the 14 trail crews, 9 were able to complete their work without any mechanized equipment and four other crews kept their power saw use to less than 15 minutes total. This was very different from the 1999 season when crews went into the BWCAW with the attitude “why use hand tools when it is quicker with a power saw?”

This very point was addressed by Bill Worf, Wilderness Watch Board President, in an October 1999 letter to Robert Jacobs, Region 9 Regional Forester. “The volumes of Congressional Records accumulated during the eight years of debate leading to passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act show that motorized equipment is prohibited primarily because it greatly increases the ease and efficiency with which man can impose his will on nature. Esthetic considerations of sight, sound, smoke and smell were secondary.”

As was evident in the BWCAW storm recovery, the use of mechanized equipment can very quickly spiral out of control. The questionable use of safety issues by managing agencies can have the effect of circumventing the intent of the Wilderness Act and pose a serious threat to wilderness values.