| |
Court Victory for Sierra Wildernesses!
—
By George Nickas
A federal
judge has given a boost to efforts to protect the John Muir and
Ansel Adams Wildernesses from damage caused by excessive and inappropriate
stock use by commercial pack outfits. In a series of rulings over
the past seven months arising from a lawsuit filed last April by
Wilderness Watch, High Sierra Hikers Association and Forest Service
Employees for Environmental Ethics, the Court determined that the
current level of commercial packstock use is resulting in substantial
damage to the area’s wilderness character. In her latest ruling,
federal district judge Elizabeth LaPorte ordered an immediate 20
percent reduction in packstock use as well as several other measures
designed to protect the Wildernesses pending completion of legally
required environmental studies.
The recent order came as a result of an earlier ruling that the
Forest Service had violated the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) by issuing “special use permits” to commercial
pack stations without first completing an analysis of the environmental
effects of the operations. In her decision, Judge LaPorte ordered
the agency to complete a cumulative impact analysis of the impacts
from pack stock operations. The analysis must be completed no later
than December 31, 2005 and “shall consider limits on numbers
of stock animals used by commercial pack outfits, limits on group
size (both number of people and number of stock both on and off
trail); trail suitability for various use types; and designation
of campsites for use by commercial pack stations.” The order
also requires the Forest Service to complete site-specific environmental
assessments (EA) for each commercial pack operation no later than
December 31, 2006.
In addition to the immediate 20 percent reduction in packstock use
the Court’s decision reduces maximum party size for overnight
trips to 12 people and 20 stock (reduced from 15 people and 25 stock);
speeds the phase in of new trailhead quotas to 2 years instead of
5 years; and prohibits the Forest Service from going ahead with
a proposal to grant an additional 3,000 service-day increase to
commercial packers.
“We are pleased that the court has ordered remedies to address
the damage resulting from the Forest Service’s failure to properly
regulate commercial uses,” stated George Nickas, executive
director of Wilderness Watch. “For many years, Forest Service
wilderness rangers and resource specialists have pointed out the
environmental problems associated with excessive commercial packstock
use in these areas. But the agency has been unwilling to scale back
that use to more appropriate levels.”
The issues raised in the lawsuit have been brewing for decades.
In the late 1970’s, and in order to limit the damage from high
use in these areas, the Forest Service implemented trailhead quotas
at many popular trailheads in the Sierra Nevada. The quotas were
to apply to general public use and commercial pack station use.
Over the years, however, the Forest Service saw fit to enforce the
limits on general public use but not on commercial use, even seeing
fit in some cases to increase the percentage of the quota that was
allocated to commercial users. This led to a grossly inequitable
allocation process. But more importantly, the pack station operations
were causing severe damage in the high country and along the trails,
and the high levels of packstock use allowed by the managers exacerbated
these problems. As the Inyo Forest Supervisor wrote in 1993 to then-Deputy
Regional Forester, Dale Bosworth, “... I will assure you as
I have [the pack stations] that if we take this through NEPA the
numbers will, in all likelihood, come out lower, and all of our
packers will be significantly impacted.”
Wilderness Watch wishes to acknowledge and thank our attorneys,
Julia Olsen from Wild Earth Advocates and Peter Frost, Western Environmental
Law Center for their untiring, extraordinary work in bringing this
lawsuit to fruition. We also want to acknowledge the incredible
generosity of the High Sierra Hikers Assn. and its members for the
financial commitment they made to the case. And we especially want
to thank Wilderness Watch Central Sierra Chapter leader, Gary Guenther
whose unrelenting commitment to protecting these Wildernesses has
brought the issues into the public light and without whose work
this important victory would not have been won.
Stepping Over the Line
—
By Scott Stouder
It
was an old pack trail. It didn’t appear on new Forest Service
maps and hadn’t been maintained in years.
But as my hunting partner and I turned off the river trail and started
up the mountain three days before Oregon’s 2001 first rifle
elk season, I noticed fresh cut windfalls. The steep path gets little
use anymore, but somebody had been up here recently.
“There’s been some trail clearing,” I mentioned.
“ The last time I rode this trail it was littered with downed
trees.
Wind was blowing the rain sideways and water dripped from the pine
trees as we continued to climb up the heavily timbered canyon. I
was thankful I didn’t have to dismount and cut windfalls with
the little collapsible saw in my saddlebag. I noticed more fresh
saw cuts and gave another silent thanks to whoever had done the
work. But within minutes I was given the opportunity to comment
personally.
As we rode around a ridge we came face-to-face with two hunters
donned in raincoats, chaps and wide-brimmed hats. The nearest looked
like a rabbit caught in the headlights as he tried to hide a chainsaw
behind his body. It was a futile attempt. It’s hard to disguise
a bright yellow chainsaw.
“Uh, nice little trail clearing tool you’ve got there,”
I said as we rode up. I didn’t know what else to say.
“Well... yeah,” the guy answered.
Embarrassed, we stood in the rain and looked at each other for a
few seconds. My horse wanted to head back to camp. So did I.
“Seen any elk?” the guy asked.
“Nope. Nope. No elk,” I answered. “We were just about
to turn around. I guess this is as good a place as any.”
My partner and I switched horse ends and started back.
“Hey. You didn’t see this did you?” The question
was accompanied by a conspiratorial chuckle.
“No. I didn’t see anything,” I answered quickly.
Then, almost as an afterthought, he said: “You’ll benefit
from this as much as we will.”
He was right. We’d benefit from it. I’d packed a lot of
elk meat off that mountain trail in the past, and in the next week
my partner and I would repeat the exercise.
As the chainsaw growled to life behind us that last statement hung
in the air. Then, like too many drinks of whiskey, it nestled in
my brain with a warm glow and begged for justification.
I ran with it.
“I guess a chainsaw up here really doesn’t hurt anything,”
I said. “You can’t hear it over 100 yards anyway. Especially
on a nasty day like this. Besides, if we’d rode up here the
day before, or after, we’d never have known.”
My partner didn’t answer. We finally outrode the saw’s
distant purr and continued in silence as the rain dripped off our
coats and hats.
I needed to clear the air.
“I guess it really doesn’t hurt anything,” I repeated.
What was so bad about using a chainsaw to clear some trail anyway?
“The Forest Service spends tens of thousands of dollars on
trailhead toilets and fancy horse corrals because they can drive
to them,” I grumbled. “But when it comes to clearing trails
with hand saws they whimper about not having enough money. The truth
is they’re just too damn lazy to walk away from their pickups.”
I’d found my stride and plunged ahead: “This trail hasn’t
seen a Forest Service crew in 10 years. It’d take a day to
clear it with a handsaw. With a chainsaw it can be cleared in a
couple of hours. Besides, there’s an airstrip a few hours walk
from here with airplanes roaring around at treetop level all the
time. What’s so different about using a chainsaw to clear some
trail? It’s not as if everybody’s doing it.”
“Isn’t using a chainsaw illegal in a Wilderness?”
My partner asked.
“Well, yeah... technically. “ I said.
What was I talking about? It’s not a technical point at all.
Under the 1964 Wilderness Act, using a motorized devise is absolutely
illegal. It’s also unethical. More important, it’s antithetical
to wilderness. Congress drew the line for non-motorized use in the
1964 Wilderness Act with the words: “where the earth and its
community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a
visitor who doesn’t remain.”
Unfortunately, that line keeps getting moved.
Today, airplanes and jetboats are common in many wildernesses, even
roads are maintained for a privileged few. A 1998 Congressional
Research Service Report titled: “Wilderness Laws, Prohibited
and Permitted Uses”, identifies a total of 17 Congressional
Acts since 1964 that provides motorized exceptions to the original
Act. From the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act to legalize
snowmobiles and motorized portages, to the California Wilderness
Act which allows motorized use for everything from cattle operations
to construction, the original Act has been hammered so often motorized
use is more the norm than the exception.
Bill Worf, the first Forest Service Wilderness program leader, says
this deterioration of wilderness integrity is “nothing short
of the defacto undesignation of wilderness.”
Worf, who now lives in Missoula, Montana and is retired from the
Forest Service, was responsible for writing agency regulations that
implemented the 1964 Wilderness Act. He says undermining the spirit
of the Act is inherent in the system.
“One of the things we had to face right off was this issue
of “cost-vs. -wilderness integrity,” he said.
At the time, Worf said, the Forest Service had an equipment development
division that designed specialized tools. The division wanted to
build a “quiet” chainsaw to clear wilderness trails. Worf
talked to congressmen like John Saylor and Hubert Humphrey who were
instrumental in the passage of the Wilderness Act.
“They pointed out that banning motorized use in Wildernesses
wasn’t about noise at all,” Worf said. “It was directed
at the ease with which we can impose ourselves on land.”
Craig Gherke, The Wilderness Society’s field representative
from Boise, Idaho points out that the 1964 Wilderness Act is not
the Berlin Wall or a cyclone fence, but a legal and ethical line.
“It was not passed as an obstacle to circumvent,” he said.
“It was passed as a line to honor the land.”
The hunter with the saw that day had stepped over that line. And,
by not pointing that out, and further, by conspiring to keep it
a secret, I’d stepped over the same line.
The excuses I ginned up were just that, excuses.
The Forest Service doesn’t have the millions they once had
when they wallowed in timber revenue. Some wilderness trails are
going away. Power tools are easier and cheaper to use than hand
tools. And certaintly the definition of “minimum impact”
can be twisted so that using them sounds “right.” But
stepping over lines because it’s the easy thing to do is never
right. That first step makes the next step a little easier. And
the step after that easier still. The concept of wilderness has
to be kept true to itself or its reality will eventually be gone.
And all we’ll be left with is excuses.
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Spared Helicopter Incursions
A
successful administrative appeal by Wilderness Watch has spared
the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness (SBW) from the impacts of helicopters
and other motorized equipment to maintain the Holloway Lake Dam.
The lake and dam sit at the top of the Sweeney Creek drainage about
6 miles deep in the SBW. The successful appeal not only protected
the Wilderness from the planned motorized incursions, but it also
sowed the seeds for limiting helicopter use on other dams in the
Wilderness.
The original dam-repair plan approved by the Forest Service called
for slip lining the dam’s 30-ft. long metal outlet pipe with
ductile iron pipe, and patching several spots on the face of the
rock-and-mortar dam with new grout. The agency’s decision would
have allowed the local irrigation company to use a helicopter to
ferry about 5,000 lbs. of material and equipment to the dam. According
to the decision signed by acting district ranger Stanley Underwood,
“[D]ue to the weight of the pipe, the impact that moving the
rest of the materials by mules would have on the Wilderness, and
the lack of trail from Duffy to Holloway Lake, the only safe, feasible,
and least damaging alternative is to use a helicopter and electric
drill.” Underwood based his decision on numerous erroneous
claims, for instance that heavy iron pipe was required, that there
was not a trail for the last mile to the dam, and that the existing
trail would require extensive upgrading to accommodate packstock
use.
Wilderness Watch, together with Friends of the Clearwater, appealed
the decision in late-July 2001. As part of the required appeal-resolution
process, we asked that the responsible Forest Service officials
meet with us on-site for a hike into the dam, where the decision’s
many claims could be tested on the ground.
The new district ranger, Jeanne Higgins, agreed with our request
and brought several staff members along on the trip. An engineer
from the Regional Office also joined with us. On our trek we walked
a well-worn trail all the way to the dam. So much for the argument
that there wasn’t trail access! It also became clear that the
iron pipe was not needed to slip line the existing outlet pipe,
and that instead lighter weight plastic pipe would work. This eliminated
any reason for the helicopter and it also reduced the payload by
2,000 lbs., significantly reducing the number of pack trips that
would be needed. Since everyone agreed that the trail to the dam
should not be upgraded, Wilderness Watch and Friends of the Clearwater
offered our services to haul all materials by backpack or packstock
to the dam. That offer proved unnecessary, as on the hike out we
inspected each location where the Forest Service initially claimed
trail improvements would be needed and determined that in each case
the packstring could pass without any trail work whatsoever.
In late-September, the irrigation company loaded up a packstring,
headed up the trail and completed all the maintenance and repairs
without using any motorized equipment. It was a solid victory for
protecting Wilderness values and for showing that necessary projects
could be done the wilderness way. Many thanks to Gary Macfarlane
and Friends of the Clearwater for their hard work and cooperation
in sparing the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness from unnecessary motorized
use.
Helicopter
will not get air time in Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness
—
By Hilary Wood
Due to objections raised in an appeal by Wilderness Watch, the Forest
Service has withdrawn its plan to use a helicopter to remove a submerged
plane from Fish Lake in Oregon’s Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness.
Wilderness Watch challenged the original proposal in November, stating
that the use of mechanized equipment is forbidden in Wilderness,
except in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons
in the area, or when necessary to meet minimum requirements for
administration of the wilderness resource. Though we do not oppose
the removal of the plane by backpack or packstock, we argued that
the agency’s reasons for airlifting the wreckage did not trigger
either of the Wilderness Act’s exceptions for motorized use.
The Agency defended its actions, stating that the decision to use
a helicopter was made in light of “a very compelling request
by [Douglas] County to restore a piece of aviation history for public
display.” The proposal to remove the plane originated with
Floyd Felt, an 80-year-old World War II veteran. An aviation enthusiast,
Felt aimed to salvage the Globe Swift aircraft to place it on public
display. When asked by Portland Oregonian about his reasons for
wanting the plane, Felt stated that “It’s nothing but
something to do, something to think about...so people can see what
a plane looks like after it’s been underwater all these years.”
Unfortunately for Felt and the Forest Service, the Wilderness Act
does not allow for the use of motorized equipment to satisfy one’s
curiosity or because its use is more convenient.
The aircraft at the heart of the controversy was first produced
in 1946 and is neither rare nor unique. Over 1,500 were manufactured
of which hundreds are still flying. In the winter of 1949, the plane
made an emergency landing on the ice of Fish Lake. For unknown reasons,
the craft was burned and allowed to fall through the ice.
In January, the Forest Service learned that past unauthorized attempts
by Felt to remove the plane have broken it into several pieces and
forced it into the lake’s deeper regions, where it now lies
invisibly under 100 feet of water. The agency has committed to use
packstock to remove the wreckage should it try to lift the plane
in the future.
Major Mt Hood Win!
—
By George Nickas
Wilderness Watch enjoyed a huge victory when the Forest Service
decided to withdraw its new wilderness management plan for the Mt.
Hood, Salmon-Huckleberry, and Hatfield Wildernesses in Oregon. Wilderness
Watch had appealed the plan last year (see Wilderness Watcher, March
2001). The significance of the victory extends far beyond Mt. Hood.
The Mt. Hood plan was intended to be the Forest Service’s pilot
test of the agency’s new national “wilderness recreation
strategy.” That strategy, developed without public input, would
have allowed the Forest Service to turn its back on its responsibility
to preserve outstanding opportunities for solitude and prevent crowding
in wilderness. The new strategy called for creating zones in wilderness
that would be managed as high-use recreation areas rather than as
wilderness. At Mt Hood, those zones would have made unlimited encounters
with other people on trails and popular climbing areas the acceptable
new norm. Volunteer wilderness stewards would have been on-site
at popular destinations such as lakes to “educate” users
and to mitigate impacts. According to the Mt Hood plan, large portions
of the wilderness would now be managed for “inspiration”
but not for natural quiet, solitude or unconfined recreation.
The Mt. Hood plan has been watched from the highest levels within
the Forest Service, so the plan’s withdrawal sends a strong
signal throughout the agency that the wilderness recreation strategy
is fatally flawed. We’re hopeful that the message will have
a chilling affect on other national forests that are gearing up
to adopt the same strategy for managing wilderness.
Battle for the Beach Continues
—
By TinaMarie Ekker
Off-road
vehicle (ORV) enthusiasts have mounted a battle to open up wilderness
to motorized recreation. The unlikely battle ground is a 2.5 mile
stretch of beach inside the Brigantine Wilderness in New Jersey.
The last issue of Wilderness Watcher reported that although the
wilderness was designated in 1975, the FWS looked the other way
for twenty-five years while ORV’s continued driving through
wilderness on the Holgate beach. In spring 2001 the FWS announced
its intention to finally begin enforcing the Wilderness Act by banning
motor vehicles.
Located within the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, Holgate
is the only stretch of wilderness beach in New Jersey. More than
two dozen other beaches in the state allow motor vehicles to share
the sand with sunbathers and sand castles. The Brigantine Wilderness
provides a rare sanctuary where people can stroll along the ocean’s
edge without dodging big-tired machines.
In August the refuge posted signs at the wilderness boundary announcing
that motor vehicles are prohibited. Those signs quickly came down,
with an explanation that the closure would be postponed until spring
2002, when the new comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for the
refuge is expected to be signed.
Meanwhile, a firestorm of opposition had ignited. In March 2001,
Representative Jim Saxton (R-NJ) introduced legislation (H.R. 896)
to remove the Holgate beach from the wilderness. Local and national
motorized recreation groups such as the New Jersey Beach Buggy Association
and the Blue Ribbon Coalition have persuaded many local townships
to support Saxton’s legislation. Wilderness Watch has joined
with the Sierra Club, National Audubon Society, The Wilderness Society
and the National Wildlife Refuge Association to assure that this
beach remains protected as wilderness.
Surf anglers and ORV enthusiasts stridently insist that walking
2.5 miles is an undue hardship that will effectively eliminate their
opportunity for surf fishing at the tip of the peninsula. They argue
that beach-driving is a time-honored tradition. Fishing without
motorized off-road vehicles is a much older time-honored tradition
in America, and protection of wilderness is a time-honored American
tradition that is backed by law. The law should be upheld, and the
beach within the Brigantine Wilderness should remain disturbed only
by the sound of sea breezes and human feet making tracks in the
wet sand.
|
