Wilderness Undammed - Despite Forest Supervisor's insistence on backhoes and helicopters, the Canyon Lake dam is breached using primitive tools

There is something about the irrigation dams in Montana’s Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness (SBW) that the local Forest Service loves. We cannot pinpoint the origins of this emotion, or what prompts it to continue, but there is little doubt that these dams lie close to the heart of the agency – they are beloved.

This love could be extended to the use of motorized equipment in Wilderness, though we suspect this is merely a means to an end; namely that the importance of keeping these antiquated dams trumps all other concerns, including the protection of wilderness character and wise use of public tax dollars. Fortunately, this blind devotion may not be enough to save the Canyon Lake dam, which was temporarily breached this summer using primitive means.

As reported in our May 2003 Wilderness Watcher, there are two earthen dams in the Canyon Creek drainage: the Canyon and Wyant Lake dams. Built by primitive means for irrigation purposes before the Selway-Bitterroot was a designated Wilderness, the dams are currently managed by the Canyon Creek Irrigation District (CCID). During the congressional debate over the SBW bill in 1964, the Secretary of Agriculture assured Congress that the 17 irrigation dams in the SBW would be maintained and accessed using non-motorized means. However, starting in 1996 the Forest Service has allowed the CCID to gain motorized access into the SBW for maintenance purposes on the Canyon dam.

In 2002, the Forest Service released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) concerning the CCID’s petition to reconstruct the Canyon dam and breach the Wyant dam. Wilderness Watch and its members submitted comments opposing the use of motorized equipment, arguing that non-motorized equipment was more appropriate and economical. Despite this input, the Forest Service’s preferred alternative allowed for the maximum use of motorized equipment. In fact, the DEIS failed to even include a non-motorized alternative for review, despite the agency’s legal mandate to protect wilderness character.

The DEIS noted that attempting the project without motorized equipment was infeasible, claiming that a new trail would have to be built to accommodate stock (though this was not an issue when the dams were initially built or when they received repair in 1996) and that it would take 6 to 7 years to complete the project at extreme cost. By contrast, the agency’s preferred alternative would cost a “mere” 1.1 million and would be completed within a year.

Bitterroot Forest Supervisor, Dave Bull released his decision in June. The decision authorized the CCID to use heavy equipment in the Wilderness and to use helicopters for airlifting materials and equipment to the site. In short, supervisor Bull supported the alternative that called for the maximum level of motorized use. He also requested and received permission from the Chief of the Forest Service to immediately start the project and to waive any opportunity for the public to appeal.

While Bull and the Forest Service ignored Wilderness Watch’s suggestions, the CCID apparently did not. Working with a wilderness ranger / primitive skills expert and the company’s engineers, the water users developed a hand-tools only approach to breaching the Canyon dam. It hired a local mule-packer to haul equipment and supplies to the site, which he did using the existing trail. The Montana Conservation Corps was hired to do the on-site work. A dedicated wilderness ranger helped set-up the project and trained the Corps in primitive tools use. It became apparent that the non-mechanized approach, far from being more expensive and time consuming, was in fact quicker, cheaper, and far less damaging to the area’s wilderness character than the Forest Service’s choice.

In the end, the dam was breached in seven weeks, not the seven years the DEIS claimed. The cost to the CCID was approximately $100,000, about one-quarter what the motorized option was expected to cost. There was no need for a new trail, and the impact to the wilderness was a tiny fraction of what the Forest Service had approved.

Sadly, the only public response of the Forest Service was that this success shouldn’t be viewed as a precedent for dealing with other irrigation dams in the SBW. Rather than build on the success of this project, the leadership team on the Bitterroot Forest remains steadfast in its opposition to administering the 1.3 million-acre SBW as Wilderness.

The future of the Canyon Lake Dam is uncertain. The CCID has a right to reconstruct the dam if it so chooses. Regardless of the ultimate conclusion of the project, the breaching of the dam this summer can only be considered a resounding success for Wilderness. The project proved that major work on dams in Wilderness can be done with primitive skills, sparing the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness an enormous motorized intrusion.

— By Joe Fontaine

Joe Fontaine was the past President of the national Sierra Club. He is currently the President of Wilderness Watch, a member of the Public Team for Forest Service Wilderness Management, and the Vice President of Project Clean Air.

An often-overlooked part of Wilderness is the sky. Most wilderness visitors are aware of air pollution, especially when it reduces visibility and the view of distant landscapes. And most people are conscious of clouds that enhance clear blue skies and the magnificent sunsets and sunrises all of us treasure. But how many people make the effort to experience and enjoy the Wilderness of the night sky?

Many people hit the sack before it even gets dark because they are exhausted from the day’s hike or it is cold and the only warm place is in the sleeping bag inside the tent. Those that linger around a campfire stare into the fire and lose their night vision. Some folks get a glimpse of the stars when they answer nature’s call in the middle of the night, but how many linger to look up at the sky?

When the moon is out the stars are harder to see but moonlight provides an eerie beauty as it lights up mountain peaks and reflects across bodies of water. On moonless nights the stars are in their glory. In the summer when most people visit the Wilderness, the Milky Way is overhead. The summer stars and constellations are brighter than you could ever imagine if you usually view them through the hazy light-polluted skies in urban areas. The Milky Way, our home galaxy, is really a complex of bright star clouds and dark lanes of interstellar dust that obscure the stars behind them. The brightest part of the Milky Way Galaxy is the nucleus located to the south in the constellation Sagittarius. Even other galaxies like the Andromeda Nebula, over two million light years away, are visible to the naked eye under dark Wilderness skies. Take a look next time you get the chance.

However light pollution, increasing over time, is threatening the Wilderness of the nighttime sky. In California for example, there is virtually no place in Death Valley National Park and the surrounding Wilderness where light pollution from Las Vegas does not degrade the night sky. In the southern end of Death Valley the light pollution reaches halfway to the zenith. Under clear skies with no light pollution, stars near the horizon seem nearly as bright as stars overhead. This sight is difficult to find within a 100-mile radius of Los Angeles, where a prevalent hazy glow affords an obvious reminder of that urban paradise. Even lights in small communities around the margins of Wilderness have an impact. Especially bad are those mercury vapor lights that expatriates from the city think they need to protect themselves from the wild bears and snakes.

But there are things that can be done. The National Park Service has recognized the problem of light pollution by identifying dark skies as a resource and keeping nighttime lighting to a minimum. Even when you are staying in a campground outside of Wilderness you don’t need a bright security light to find your way to the facilities. You would be surprised how well you can see in the dark without a flashlight. Try it sometime.
A group of amateur and professional astronomers organized the International Dark Sky Association (IDSA, www.darksky.org) to reduce light pollution nationwide. Members have worked with the city of Tucson to replace mercury vapor lights with more energy efficient sodium vapor lights that produce much less sky glow in a more narrow part of the spectrum. Tucson is saving millions of dollars every year with more efficient lighting, a tactic that has been repeated in many cities across the nation.

IDSA also provides education concerning other ways you can cut down on light pollution. Outdoor lighting can be covered with hoods and directed downward where it is needed, not up into the sky. Placing less reflective pavement under the lights makes a big difference. Why do used car lots need to leave their lights on all night turning night into day? Lighting for advertising can be turned off after evening hours and save money in the process.

As shown above, reducing light pollution is not as daunting is it initially might seem. There are simple steps that one can take to directly address this issue, steps that can help restore the ancient splendor of our night sky. One thing is clear - we can no longer afford to take the heavens for granted, whether in the city or in the solitude of the Wilderness.

Denali Backountry Plan:

Last spring the National Park Service (NPS) released its draft backcountry management plan for Denali National Park and Preserve (Wilderness Watcher, May 2003). Wilderness Watch and several other conservation groups urged the public to support Alternative B – the only alternative that continues the Park’s current prohibition on recreational snowmobiling. By contrast the NPS prefers Alternative D, which would open 46% of the park to recreational snowmobiling for the first time in Park history.

The chart printed below shows the range of comments the NPS received. Of the 9,341 individuals who commented on the plan, 8,733 or 94% of them spoke in favor of Alternative B. One would assume that the NPS, recognizing the will of the public, would either outright adopt or at least tailor its own preferred alternative to better mirror Alternative B.

Sadly, this has not been the case. As reported in our September issue, Alaskan legislators objected to the plan, stating that the NPS’s preferred alternative is too restrictive on motorized access. The legislators put their support behind Alternative E, which opens 62% of the park to recreational snowmobile use, places no restrictions on aircraft landings, and places no cap on the number of climbers swarming Denali. Together this faction amounts to 8 commenters, less than 1% of the respondents.

Recently the NPS issued a letter stating that it was working to address the concerns of the State of Alaska. Despite overwhelming public support for the protective measures in Alternative B, the NPS may shift its support from the unpopular Alternative D to the even less popular Alternative E, in order to appease the special interests of the Alaska State legislators and the snowmobile and aircraft industry.

The nearly 1,600 scoping comments received last winter demonstrate strong public support for keeping Gates of the Arctic National Park Wilderness undeveloped, uncrowded, and as unmotorized as possible. The NPS analyzed the comments in preparation for drafting a backcountry management plan (see On the Watch, p. 6).

Protecting wilderness character and preserving the superlative wilderness values of Gates of the Arctic were the topics most frequently mentioned in comments received. Most felt that group size limits should not be increased, and most comments were entirely opposed to any facilities in Gates of the Arctic — no trails, roads, cabins, campsites, bear-proof food caches, fire rings, airstrips, or communication facilities. In contrast, the State of Alaska demanded that any limits on entry or activities must be based on “tangible criteria” and that managing for “values” or “experiences” must be based on the rigorous evaluation of measurable data.
Most commenters felt that motor noise does not belong in wilderness, and view the natural soundscape as a valuable resource. Many people are aware that the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) allows some motorized access for subsistence activities, and that airplanes are used by recreationists for access into remote areas. Most felt that existing airplane access along with primitive access (foot and non-motorized boat) are adequate forms of recreational access into Gates of the Arctic and no additional aircraft use or other forms of motorized access for recreation should be facilitated. The State of Alaska, however, suggested that motorized use is a “traditional recreation activity” and should be allowed.

No one, including commercial operators, wanted to see commercial use exceed public use, and some commenters suggested establishing commercial-free zones within the park. Most also stressed that visitors are responsible for their own safety, and the NPS should not modify the wilderness experience in an attempt to reduce risk.

— By Roger Kaye

On January 16, 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published a Federal Register notice and solicitation for comments on its recently developed Draft Wilderness Stewardship Policy Pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964.

The purpose of the draft policy is to provide a broad framework and specific managerial direction for implementing the Wilderness Act within the National Wildlife Refuge System. Because of its prominence in the Wilderness Act, the phrase "wilderness character" is referenced throughout the draft policy as a criterion for administering Wilderness. This emphasis is supported by recent research by Wilderness Act scholar Douglas Scott who describes preservation of wilderness character of designated areas as the overriding mandate of the Wilderness Act. Furthermore, subsequent congressional action has reemphasized the primacy of this mandate. For example, a 1983 report by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs stated that:

The overriding principle guiding management of all wilderness areas, regardless of which agency administers them, is the Wilderness Act (section 4(b)) mandate to preserve their wilderness character.

Recognizing this importance, the Service decided a description of wilderness character should be provided in the policy. But wilderness character, like other key descriptors of Wilderness in the Act, was not defined in the legislation.

The other three agencies that administer designated Wilderness (National Park Service, Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management) have overlooked this definitional problem in their Wilderness management policies. Their unspecified use of the term can be read to mean that the Act’s resonating mandate to preserve wilderness character is synonymous with the mandate to preserve the physical condition and natural processes of Wilderness. However, the writings of Howard Zahniser, the originator, chief author, and lobbyist of the Wilderness Act, and others who influenced his drafting of it, clearly indicate that the intent of the Wilderness Act goes well beyond the protection of the tangible qualities of designated landscapes.

Although Zahniser did not offer a formal definition of wilderness character in any of his drafts of the Wilderness Act, his testimony before the final Senate hearing on the Wilderness Bill in 1963 indicates that the essence of the concept is found in the first sentence of Subsection 2(c), "Definition of Wilderness." Zahniser testified that "The first sentence defines the character of wilderness. . . ." That sentence reads:

"A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."

Zahniser further stated that:

"In this definition the first sentence is definitive of the meaning of the concept of wilderness, its essence, its essential nature–a definition that makes plain the character of lands with which the bill deals, the ideal."

The first sentence of Section 2(c) has probably caused more confusion and debate than any other line in the Act. To clarify Zahniser’s intent in constructing this sentence we must recognize that it contains two related, yet distinct elements of wilderness character.

Consider first the second, most widely quoted element, "where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man." It describes the ecological and evolutionary freedom of the natural system that wilderness designation maintains. Zahniser purposely chose the word "untrammeled" because it was precisely the right word to convey the wildness of wilderness – that is, its freedom from human control, manipulation or limitation.

The first element of the Act’s definition of Wilderness expresses a seminal function of Wilderness: In providing a "contrast" with those areas where humans dominate, it expands our thinking about our relationship to the natural world. Wilderness provides the physical distance from societal influences that is necessary for us to understand their effect on us. And as a place set apart, where we yield our actions and uses to nature’s primacy, Wilderness provides a psychological distance from our cultural imperative to dominate and bend nature to our purposes. This is the distance necessary to sense our ancestral relatedness and continuing dependence on the natural world.

That Zahniser’s intent went beyond protecting the natural and untrammeled condition of wilderness is further revealed by his statement in Wilderness Forever that:

"protecting areas is only part of our concern. We saw that safeguarding wilderness involves the wildness of ourselves . . . " (emphasis added)

Indeed, unlike his associates Robert Marshall, Aldo Leopold, and Olaus Murie, Zahniser was not a biologist or an ecologist by either training or inclination. The son of a minister, Zahniser’s orientation toward wilderness was primarily spiritual. In his seminal article The Need for Wilderness Areas, inserted into the Congressional Record by sponsor Senator Hubert Humphrey, Zahniser emphasized that the potential for wilderness to evoke a transcendent perspective was among the needs for and purposes of "a national program for wilderness preservation."

Zahniser then referenced an article Robert Marshall wrote toward the end of his life. It described "certain distinctive values" that come to a person in wilderness. Marshall was a scientist, with a Ph.D. and research experience in plant physiology. But this reflective article did not emphasize the ecological values of untrammeled wilderness. Nor did it give primacy to scenic or recreational aspects. Many values are present in wilderness, Marshall wrote:

" but they are blended with the dominant value of being part of an immensity so great that the human being who looks upon it vanishes into utter insignificance."

Zahniser acknowledged the more tangible and commonly understood recreational, scientific, and ecological values of wilderness, but emphasized that "THE MOST PROFOUND of all wilderness values in our modern world is an educational value" (emphasis his). By "educational value" Zahniser was specifically referring to the capacity of wilderness to enable one "to sense and see his own humble, dependent relationship to all of life." He believed that the "understandings" implicit in this wilderness way of perception and relation might promote:

"an awareness of our human existence as spiritual creatures nurtured and sustained by and from the great community of life that comprises the wildness of the universe, of which we ourselves are a part . . ."

Over and over, Zahniser spoke to the contrast Wilderness provides to our shared sense of separation from the natural world. To understand ourselves as integral parts of a broader system of life, Zahniser said that:

"We deeply need the humility to know ourselves as the dependent members of a great community of life, and this can indeed be one of the spiritual benefits of a wilderness experience…to know the wilderness is to know a profound humility,…to sense dependence and interdependence, indebtedness and responsibility."

This statement underscores the fact that Zahniser’s motivation for excluding motor vehicles, motorized equipment, mechanized transport, structures and installations in Wilderness was not simply to protect the physical condition or recreational aspects of Wilderness. Through our act of foregoing these conveniences, through our decision to restrain and limit ourselves, arises the paramount benefit of Wilderness.

In conclusion, the phrase "wilderness character" at once represents two landscape attributes: a physical condition and a psychological effect. On the surface, it describes the untrammeled state of a landscape, its lifeforms, and the ecological and evolutionary processes in which they are embedded. On a deeper level, wilderness character embodies the psychological capacity of such a place to set apart to enlarge our thinking, to evoke the recognition that we are interdependent and obligate members of a larger community of life. It is these inseparable attributes of Wilderness – and the ennobling effect honoring them has upon us – that Zahniser believed we most deeply needed to provide for.

The Forest Service recognized that it had a problem in 1994. Visitor use of Idaho’s Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness, especially on the Wild and Scenic Middle Fork and Main Salmon rivers, was burgeoning. The on-the-ground evidence of this escalating use on the rivers and in the high country could not be ignored; managers reported widespread soil erosion and compaction at campsites, decreasing opportunities for solitude, the exposure and loss of cultural resources, the loss of vegetation, the incursion of user-created trails, and the invasion of exotic plant species. Visitors and managers also complained of congestion and crowding on the rivers, and noted the steady decrease of opportunities for a primitive wilderness river experience. In short, the general outcry alerted the Forest Service that the Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness (FC-RONR), the largest contiguous Wilderness in the Lower ’48, was losing its wild character.

It was clear that the existing management plans could no longer meet these challenges, so in 1998 the agency published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Wilderness Management Plan. Of the 5 alternative management scenarios presented in the DEIS, the agency’s preferred alternative allowed for unlimited aircraft and jetboat use, allowed a grossly unfair river rafting allocation program that favored commercial trips to continue, and fully conceded that the alternative would steadily degrade the FC-RONR’s wilderness character.

In response to the DEIS, Wilderness Watch and a coalition of other conservation groups galvanized the public to submit comments on the plan, forcing the Forest Service to draft a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement in 1999. The new DEIS included 6 new alternatives, one of which was a “Wilderness Protection Alternative” developed by Wilderness Watch and five other conservation groups. Labeled Alternative 9, the conservationists’ alternative took concrete steps to preserve and restore the FC-RONR’s wilderness character, while allowing for appropriate recreation activities and levels of use.

Unfortunately, though elements of this alternative were incorporated into a new alternative B, the real meat of Alternative 9 was noticeably absent in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) released this August. In fact, the 11 alternatives from the DEIS were reduced to 5, with the agency’s preferred plan falling far short of protecting the FC-RONR’s wilderness character.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement

Topping out at over 150 pages, the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Frank Church – River of No Return Wilderness was nearly nine years in the making. With hundreds of comments on file from concerned citizens and agency personnel one might expect that the document would implement concrete steps to preserve the 2.4 million-acre Wilderness. Instead, the Forest Service decided to drop many of the key issues from the FEIS, virtually guaranteeing the continuation of the status quo. While the two Draft EISs addressed pressing issues such as the widespread degradation of trails and campsites, the agency failed to include them in its final analysis.

While it is not ideal, Alternative B is the only alternative in the FEIS that takes steps to halt some of the current crowding and on-the-ground impacts. The Forest Service’s preferred plan is Alternative D, which allows unlimited expansion of aircraft and motorboat use, continued degradation around campsites, lakes, streams and trails, serious impairment of the opportunity for a wilderness experience on the Middle Fork Salmon and Main Salmon rivers, and an unfair quota system that has commercialized much of the access to these rivers (particularly on the Middle Fork).

It is disappointing that the agency entrusted with the stewardship of the public’s Wilderness is unable - despite nearly a decade of work, countless input from the concerned public and its own rangers, and hundreds of thousands of dollars - to produce a management plan that protects the basic wilderness character of the FC-RONR. If the FEIS is really the Forest Service’s idea of stewardship, than we would be better off without it.