The George Wright Forum

Home , George Wright (general)

WILD & SCENIC RIVERS ISLE ROYALE: 50 YEARS OF A LANDMARK STUDY CLIMATE CHANGE & CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMERCIAL GRIZZLY VIEWING

The GWS Journal of Parks, Protected Areas & Cultural Sites

volume 25 number 2 • 2008 Origins Founded in 1980, the George Wright Society is organized for the pur poses of promoting the application of knowledge, fostering communica tion, improving resource management, and providing information to improve public understanding and appreciation of the basic purposes of natural and cultural parks and equivalent reserves. The Society is dedicat ed to the protection, preservation, and management of cultural and natu ral parks and reserves through research and education.

Mission The George Wright Society advances the scientific and heritage values of parks and protected areas. The Society promotes professional research and resource stewardship across natural and cultural disciplines, provides avenues of communication, and encourages public policies that embrace these values.

Our Goal The Society strives to be the premier organization connecting people, places, knowledge, and ideas to foster excellence in natural and cultural resource management, research, protection, and interpretation in parks and equivalent reserves.

Board of Directors ROLF DlAMANT, President • Woodstock, Vermont STEPHANIE TOOTHMAN, Vice President • Seattle, Washington DAVID GllABER, Secretary • Three Rivers, California REBECCA CONARD, Treasurer • Murfreesboro, Tennessee BRAD BARR • Woods Hole, Massachusetts SUZETTE M. KlMBALL • Kearneysville, West Virginia SUZANNE LEWIS • Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming MELIA LANE-KAMAHELE • Honolulu, Hawaii BRENT A. MITCHELL • Ipswich, Massachusetts JOHN WATTHAKA • Ottawa, Ontario ROBERT A. WINFREE • Anchorage, Alaska

Graduate Student Representative to the Board: REBECCA E. STANFIELD MCCOWN • Burlington, Vermont

Executive Office DAVID HARMON, Executive Director EMILY DEKKER-FIALA, Conference Coordinator P. O. Box 65 • Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065 USA 1-906-487-9722 • fax 1-906-487-9405 [email protected] • www.georgewright.org

The George Wright Society is a member of US/ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites—U.S. Committee) and IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature).

ISSN 0732-4715

Editorial and manuscript submission guidelines may be found on our website at www.georgewright.org/forum.html. Text paper is made of 50% recycled fibers. Printed by Book Concern Printers, Hancock, Michigan. The George Wright Forum

The GWS Journal of Parks, Protected Areas & Cultural Sites volume 25 number 2 • 2008

Society News, Notes & Mail • 3

The National Park Service Centennial Essay Series Reassessing the National Park Service and the National Park System Janet A. McDonnell • 6

Celebrating 40 Years of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act: An Evolution of River Protection Strategies Sue Jennings and Abby Miller, guest editors

Celebrating Forty Years of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Sue Jennings • IS

The Wild and Scenic St. Croix Riverway Kate Hanson • 27

Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers Jamie Fosburgh, Joe DiBetto, and Fred Alters ' 37

2(a)(ii)-Designated National Wild and Scenic Rivers: The Confluence of Local Management and Federal Protection Lauren Koshcre • 45

Commercial Grizzly Bear Viewing in the Fishing Branch (Ni'iinlii Njik) Protected Area, Yukon, Canada Erik Vol • 52

Climate Change and Cultural Heritage Michelle L. Berenfeld, guest editor

Climate Change and Cultural Heritage: Local Evidence, Global Responses Michelle L. Berenfeld • 66

Sustain the 9!: Greening of the Holy Cross/Lower 9th Community Charles E. Allen HI • S3

Protecting Cultural Resources in Coastal U.S. National Parks from Climate Change Maria Cajfrey and Rebecca Beavers ' 86 The Isle Royale Wolf-Moose Project: Fifty Years of Challenge and Insight Michael P. Nelson, RolfO. Peterson, and John A. Vucetich • 98

On the cover: The Upper Falls of the Tahquamenon River, Michigan, a unit of the national wild and scenic rivers sys tem. Photo courtesy of Sue Jennings. A series of articles marking the 40th anniversary of the Nationa Wild and Scenic Rivers Act begins on p. 15.

2 The George Wright Forum SOCIETY NEWS, NOTES & MAIL GWS Board sets near-term strategic directions In March the Society's Board endorsed an updated Strategic Statement for the period 2008-2012. The Board produces these statements every five years. They are, in effect, con cise strategic plans: a pithy outline of where we want to go and how we want to get there over the near term. The new Strategic Statement sets six directions for the Society, each elaborat ed with a small number of actions matched to benchmarks of success:

1. Enhance fiscal solvency while actively seeking to expand our financial, governance, and administrative capacities so that we are in a position to seize new opportunities when they arise. 2. Build membership so that membership in the GWS is widely considered a "must" for park and protected area professionals. 3. Increase the visibility and connectedness of the organization so that GWS is better known to the audiences we wish to reach — make GWS "the NPR of protected areas." 4. Continue to develop the GWS's role as a leading convener and facilitator of confer ences on parks, protected areas, and cultural sites. 5. Enhance the quality and expand the influence of the GWS's publications so that they are seen as a principal clearinghouse for information about protected area research and management. 6. Establish the GWS as a leader in promoting diversity within professions dealing with research in and management of parks, protected areas, and cultural sites.

To read the entire Strategic Statement (5 pages), go to www.georgewright.org/strategic.html. We welcome any comments you might have; send them to the Executive Director Dave Har mon at [email protected].

GWS member survey coming your way As just noted, one of our strategic directions is to build up the GWS membership. The first step is finding out what current members think are the strengths and weaknesses of the organization, and what specific tasks they'd like to see the Society take on. We have never done a member survey before, but that deficiency is about to be remedied. Sometime in the next few months, all GWS members will receive an invitation to fill out (anonymously) a short web-based survey. Like you, those of us on the Board and in the executive office are fre quently asked to fill out web surveys, and we know such requests can be tiresome. However, we hope all members will be receptive to our invitation—your input really will help us strengthen the organization we all share. So watch your inbox, and when you get your invi tation, please take five minutes to fill out the survey.

Call for nominations, 2009 GWS awards Nominations are now open for the 2009 round of Imagine Excellence, the Society's awards program. Imagine Excellence recognizes outstanding accomplishments in fields Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 3 associated with research in, administration and management of, and communication about parks, other kinds of protected areas, cultural sites, and related supporting activities. The GWS awards are handed out every two years at a banquet on the closing evening of our con ference. The 2009 banquet, to be held March 5 at the conference in Portland, is a joint affair at which the National Park Service's top natural resources awards will be bestowed. GWS members are invited to submit nominations for the following awards:

• The George Melendez Wright Award for Excellence, given in recognition of lifetime contributions on behalf of the Society or in furtherance of its purposes. This is the Society's highest award, and it is reserved for exceptional achievements in any of the areas with which the GWS is concerned. It is a top-of-career award. • The GWS Cultural Resource Achievement Award, given in recognition of excellence in research, management, or education related to the cultural resources of parks, cultur al and historic sites, reserves, and other protected areas. This award is generally aimed at mid-career to senior-level accomplishments. • The GWS Natural Resource Achievement Award, given in recognition of excellence in research, management, or education related to the natural resources of parks, reserves, and other protected areas. This award is generally aimed at mid-career to sen ior-level accomplishments. • The GWS Communication Award, given in recognition of excellence in communica tion, interpretation, or related areas pertaining to the purposes of the Society. This award is given specifically to recognize outstanding efforts in communicating highly technical or controversial park-related subjects to the public in a clear and understand able manner.

Please note: Nominations must be made by a current GWS member, but the person being nominated does not have to be one. All nominations must be made via the online application form; you can find more information about Imagine Excellence, and a link to the form, at www.georgewright.org/awards.html. The deadline is October 31, 2008.

New guidelines out on sacred natural sites in protected areas A new set of guidelines, co-published by IUCN and UNESCO, finds that thousands of sacred natural sites are in jeopardy around the world despite the fact that many lie within for mal protected areas. These sacred sites are endangered because indigenous peoples are sometimes excluded or forcibly removed from their traditional territories and thus can no longer care for the sites. There is growing interest in, and recognition of the importance of, sacred natural sites as critical elements to both biological and cultural preservation, especial ly in light of the accelerating loss of biocultural diversity as an unintended by-product of globalization. Sacred Natural Sites—Guidelines for Protected Area Managers, the latest in IUCN's Best Practice Guidelines series, summarizes experience in recognizing, planning, and managing sacred natural sites in a variety of protected areas. The guidelines will be used to share experience with protected area managers and their colleagues around the world who are concerned about and interested in protecting sacred natural sites. For more information,

4 The George Wright Forum visit http://cms.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/wcpa/ and click on "Best Practice Guidelines."

GWS co-publishes U.S. Tentative List portfolio For the past several years, the GWS has worked with the National Park Service Office of International Affairs to revise the U.S. Tentative List of properties deemed worthy of World Heritage nomination. Early this year a new Tentative List was approved by the secretary of the interior. Now, GWS and NPS have co-produced a 48-page, full-color, richly illustrated portfolio booklet describing the 14 sites on the new Tentative List and providing back ground information on the Tentative List's revision and the World Heritage nomination process. You can download a PDF of World Heritage in the United States of America: The U.S. Tentative List 2008 at www.georgewright.org/us_tentative_list.pdf.

Duly noted Sellars receives Hartzog Award. In May, former GWS President Richard West Sellars was presented with the George B. Hartzog, Jr., Award by the Coalition of National Park Ser vice Retirees (CNPSR). Sellars, who retired from a long NPS career in February, is well known for his 1997 pathbreaking history, Preserving Nature in the National Parks, which helped lay the groundwork for the agency's successful natural resources research and man agement program, the Natural Resource Challenge. Sellars is now working on a parallel his tory of NPS cultural resource management. CNPSR's Hartzog Award, named after the influ ential NPS director, cites Sellars for "his unparalleled past contributions to understanding and advancing the cause of natural resource management in the National Park Sendee, for his continued professionalism and positive contributions to cultural resource management, and for his determination to cany the project forward to completion even after retirement." (Editor's note: As we were about to go to press, we learned of the death on June 27 of former NPS Director Hartzog. The next issue of The George Wright Forum will have an obituary and appreciation of Hartzog, who was a GWS Life Member.) Addendum to Cane River interpretation article. The co-authors of "Economics and Authenticity: A Collision of Interpretations in Cane River Creole National Heritage Area, Louisiana," published in volume 23, number 1 (2006), have asked that an addendum be added to the online edition of the article. The addendum updates some of the key conclu sions of the article based on information that has recently come to light. You can read the arti cle, and the addendum, at www.georgewright.org/231morgan.pdf. Report assesses Revolutionary War & War of 1812 sites. A recent National Park Service study, titled Report to Congress on the Historic Preservation of Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Sites in the United States, is now available online. The 137-page report gauges the historic preservation status of 243 battlefields and 434 associated historic prop erties, and concludes that up to 170 of them are in immediate jeopardy of being damaged or destroyed by development. The report is the most comprehensive federal review of sites associated with the two wars that achieved, and then consolidated, American independence. It is available online at www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/Revl812Study.htm.

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 5 Reassessing the National Park Service and the National Park System

Janet A. McDonnell

We are all agreed that park lands are more than physical resources; they are indeed the deli- cate strands of nature and culture that bind together the generations of men. They are moreover the bench marks by which we may chart a new course of human behavior. — George B. Hartzog, Jr., Centennial Celebration of Yellowstone and the Second World Conference on National Parks

IN RECENT DECADES, THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS) AND ITS PARTNERS conducted a series of studies, reports, and conferences to assess the current state and future of the national park system. Each study to some extent reflected its political, social, cultural, and economic environment. A critical review of these studies can tell us much about the significant challenges the National Park Service and the parks have faced—and continue to face. Though varied in scope and form, the reports all struggled with questions about the importance of the national parks and what the drafters and participants believed were the enduring core values that the parks represented. Their major findings and recommendations were remarkably similar. Although the reports yielded some positive results, none resulted in fundamental, enduring change. As the NPS Centennial approaches and discussion focuses on the future of the NPS and the park system, there is much that can be learned from a look back at the strengths and weaknesses of these earlier studies and assessments.

State of the Parks–1980 duct a major review of the condition of its There had been several landmark stud- parks. NPS officials used results from a ies of park natural resources in the 1960s,1 questionnaire that had been sent to park but the more contemporary reassessment of superintendents. The final product, State of the NPS and the park system began in 1980 the Parks–1980: A Report to Congress, re- when Congress directed the NPS to con- flected the growing emphasis on an ecolog-

6 The George Wright Forum NPS Centennial Essay ical and scientific approach to park manage- Parks did prompt the NPS to develop train- ment that had occurred in the 1960s and ing courses in the 1980s to educate employ- 1970s. It highlighted the damage caused by ees in ecological management principles both external and internal threats, such as and environmental laws, although this effort that caused by management failures and vis- declined by the end of the decade. It also itor use. NPS efforts to document the dam- encouraged increases in funding and age and manage the resources, it concluded, staffing for scientific research and natural were inadequate. Alarmed by the national resource management. press attention that the report received, senior NPS and Interior department officials National Parks for a New Generation began to have reservations and attempted to Meanwhile, The Conservation Found- minimize its findings. The study made spe- ation undertook a comprehensive, three- cific proposals for improving natural re- year study focused primarily on land use source management but contained no firm issues. A multi-disciplinary team that in- commitment that the NPS would act on cluded a land use and public land planner, these proposals. In January 1981 the NPS an urban specialist, a social scientist, and submitted its formal response to Con- attorneys visited more than sixty parks and gress—a second State of the Parks report— interviewed hundreds of individuals. NPS in which the Park Service agreed to identify staff assisted in the study, sharing informa- the most critical threats and give them pri- tion and insights. The final report, titled ority for funding in the coming fiscal years. National Parks for a New Generation: Visions, It also agreed to complete a resource man- Realities, Prospects, published in 1985, pre- agement plan for each park and implement sented a critical portrait of the current state a greatly expanded training program, which of the parks and made specific recommen- would promote a more professional cadre dations for the future. The Conservation of natural resource managers. Foundation acknowledged that the park The same month that the Park Service system had grown in size and complexity, submitted this mitigation report to Con- and the needs of the parks had changed. It gress, President Ronald Reagan took office outlined three major concerns that calling for government austerity and conser- demanded attention if the national parks vative retrenchment. His secretary of the were to retain their “distinctive place in interior, James G. Watt, shifted emphasis American life”: improved stewardship of from wildlife and wilderness protection and park resources, a new assessment of the role preservation to recreational development. of the private sector in the parks, and inno- During the Reagan administration, leader- vative strategies for creating the park system ship in shaping the national park system of the future.2 shifted from the executive branch to Con- As with the State of the Parks report, gress. With little support from the adminis- National Parks for a New Generation was tration, by 1982 Park Service leaders lost very much a product of the contemporary some of their resolve and abandoned the political, social, and economic climate. The reporting procedures recommended in the report warned that pressures on parks were first State of the Parks report. State of the mounting, and the cumulative impact of

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 7 NPS Centennial Essay heavy visitor use, deferred maintenance, ultimately depend on more widespread and outside threats would “seriously dam- respect, by an increasingly crowded and age parks unless checked.” The 1980s, it developed nation, for the visitor experi- explained, were “not a time of great expec- ences that are less and less available outside tations” for much-needed management the national parks,” the report concluded. innovations.3 Officials had placed more “In communicating to a wider audience the emphasis on reducing federal expenditures experiences of awe, solitude, adventure, than on promoting park stewardship. The communion, repose, and reinvigoration to wide-ranging report recommended broad be found in national parks, the conservation initiatives to preserve park resources and community can aid the continuing evolu- respond to rising public expectations: a ten- tion of the park ideal to help preserve the year, $50 million comprehensive program parks for this and future generations.”4 called Preservation ’95 to protect park The problems identified in these and resources; special attention to historic and other studies persisted. As the decade of the cultural resources; and a campaign to com- 1980s closed, the NPS struggled with bat external pressures in the parks. declining morale, the increasing complexity National Parks for a New Generation of the park system and programs, serious envisioned new and expanded roles for the fiscal constraints, and inadequate personnel private sector but with greater transparency and organizational structures. The attempt and improved oversight. It advocated a to improve NPS scientific resource manage- “more expansive” vision of the future in ment through training, funding, and staffing which many unprotected sites worthy of as recommended in the various reports had preservation would become part of the had only partial success. Park Service lead- national park system or protected in some ers planned a major meeting of employees other way. The report emphasized the need and their partners to address some of these to address the backlog of private lands cur- growing challenges. rently located within park boundaries and highlighted the need to improve and mod- The Vail Agenda ernize NPS management. National Parks In October 1991 the NPS convened a for a New Generation conceded that the 75th Anniversary Symposium in Vail,Colo- increased visitation and other pressures on rado, to analyze the problems facing the the park system made it increasingly diffi- NPS and make recommendations that cult to preserve traditional park values. Yet would help chart the agency’s course for the it was confident that the system could 21st century as an organization, as steward accommodate these demands and still fulfill of the parks, as host to their visitors, and as its preservation mission. It challenged NPS an environmental leader—in effect to leaders to advance a “broad and dynamic” reassert its leadership role in shaping the vision that reflected the size and diversity of national park system. Working groups the park system, but defined that vision in focused on four areas of NPS policy and vague and narrow terms, emphasizing the management: organizational renewal, park individual visitor experience. “Preserving use and enjoyment, environmental leader- park resources more nearly unimpaired may ship, and resource stewardship. Six strate-

8 The George Wright Forum NPS Centennial Essay gic objectives framed the work: resource be nurtured with people and resources to stewardship and protection, access and accomplish the social purposes that we as a enjoyment, education and interpretation, nation have agreed upon for them.” What proactive leadership, science and research, the Park Service needed, Brown concluded, and professionalism. was nothing less than “a national crusade.”6 The findings and recommendations Though the report included important from the symposium were published in recommendations concerning park use and 1992 as National Parks for the 21st enjoyment, its analysis was sometimes con- Century: The Vail Agenda. The Vail Agenda fusing and its recommendations related to recognized that the Park Service’s “portfo- natural resources, such as the call for inven- lio of parks” had expanded to include a torying and monitoring park resources, broad array of sites—from scenic rivers to echoed those of earlier studies. Others top- historic battlefields. The park system had ics included external threats, improving been constructed to serve many different cooperation with universities and managers constituencies and purposes, and these of neighboring public or private lands, edu- constituencies, whether backpackers, cating the public about environmental urbanites or others, measured the Park Ser- issues, increasing and professionalizing vice’s performance based on that aspect of NPS staff, increasing funding for science the park system that had direct value to and natural resource management, and them. Few understood or cared that the securing a legislative mandate for scientific NPS mission was much broader. Yet, the research in the parks. The Vail Agenda report noted, “Appreciation of the multi- issued a challenge to the Park Service warn- faceted mandate of the Service is essential if ing that “the only failure will be inaction,” a one is to effectively define what it means to challenge that continues to resonate.7 At the be a leader in this agency.”5 close of the Vail meeting, NPS Director Echoing earlier studies, The Vail James M. Ridenour voiced a similar con- Agenda found that the NPS budget had cern: “It is clear to me that we will need an failed to keep pace with visitation and ongoing commitment and process to keep pointed to the immediate need for a massive our collective feet to the fire to make sure investment in organization and parks. that our efforts do not just generate another However, NPS historian Bill Brown noted report to gather dust on a shelf.”8 Yet for all that by failing to include cost figures for the bold objectives, the problems outlined implementing its recommendations, the were all ones that the NPS had been reluc- report remained “a wish list of 90 distinct tant to address. Although the report recommendations.” Also missing was a prompted some agency restructuring, clear vision of how the national park system Interior officials and agency leaders showed as an institution should fit into an evolving little enthusiasm for major change. society. Nor was there a strong, direct appeal for public support. Brown encour- Preserving Nature in the National Parks aged the NPS draw upon its legislative man- Problems with natural resource mandate to state more emphatically “what the agement received even greater scrutiny after parks must be in our society,how they must the Vail symposium. For example, the

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 9 NPS Centennial Essay

National Academy of Sciences came out Park System Advisory Board to address the with a critical report called Science and the complex, “multi-dimensional” mission of National Parks in 1992. In 1997 NPS the NPS and make recommendations for Historian Richard West Sellars published the future and to prepare a report on the Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A “purposes and prospects” for the NPS in History. This well-documented, carefully the coming decades. More succinct and crafted history of NPS natural resource focused than previous studies, Rethinking management revealed that the NPS had the National Parks for the 21st Century: A been negligent in the extreme when it came Report of the National Park System Advisory to pursuing a core function of its mission: Board, which came out in 2001, reiterated preserving natural resources unimpaired for the Park Service’s founding mission: to the enjoyment of future generations.9 ensure that these places would never be Unlike previous studies, Preserving impaired and would be available to “inspire Nature in the National Parks inspired a and inform future generations.” It called on substantial institutional response. In Aug- leaders “to re-examine the ‘enjoyment ust 1999 Park Service leaders announced a equals support’ equation” and to enhance major initiative, the Natural Resource the public’s understanding of and apprecia- Challenge, to substantially improve the way tion for the importance of resource protec- the NPS managed the natural resources tion. The Advisory Board sought to take a under its care. The NPS appealed to Con- “fresh look” at the NPS within the existing gress and within the first few years of the social, political, and economic context and Challenge, had garnered an increase of to identify ways that the NPS could better approximately $80 million in base funding serve the American public. It framed a more for natural resource management and expansive social contract. Parks, it warned, research in the parks. Since its inception, could no longer be thought of “as islands the Natural Resource Challenge has sub- with little or no connection, cultural or eco- stantially increased the role of science in the logical, to their surroundings.”10 Park Service’s decision-making, revitalized The Advisory Board recommended and expanded its natural resource pro- that the NPS increase its commitment to grams, strengthened its partnerships with education; encourage the study and public the scientific community, and shared its discussion of the American past and link knowledge with educational institutions. park sites to the broader themes of Ameri- Although the Natural Resource Challenge can history; focus more attention on the has proven successful, there has been no conservation of natural systems and biodi- similar initiative or effort on behalf of cul- versity; adopt and advance the principles of tural resources. sustainability; actively explore and empha- size the connections between native cul- Rethinking the National Parks tures and the parks; encourage collabora- for the 21st Century tion among park and recreation systems As the Natural Resource Challenge from the local to the federal level to promote gathered momentum, in late 1999 NPS Dir- a widely accessible outdoor recreation net- ector Robert G. Stanton asked the National work; and develop a more diverse work-

10 The George Wright Forum NPS Centennial Essay force. The recommendations reflected the plenary sessions, with such distinguished impact of the large number of cultural and guest speakers as scientist E.O. Wilson and historic sites that had come into the park historian John Hope Franklin, and small system during the 1990s and the mounting group sessions and workshops where par- pressure on park boundaries. It also reflect- ticipants engaged in spirited discussions on ed the agency’s increased program respon- a variety of pressing topics. sibilities and greater emphasis on education The conference came at a time of mod- and environmentalism. The study encour- est expansion, budget increases, and signif- aged the NPS to reaffirm the meaning and icant change. Yet, the problems the Park value of parks, conservation, and recreation Service faced, the problems the NPS and its and to expand the education and research partners tackled at the conference, were role of the parks. Expressing its vision for remarkably similar to those a decade earlier: the NPS, the report concluded, “By caring development around park borders, invasive for the parks and conveying the park ethic, non-native species, air pollution, and dete- we care for ourselves and act on behalf of riorating roads and facilities. The confer- the future. The larger purpose of this mis- ence was organized around four familiar sion is to build a citizenry that is committed themes: cultural resource stewardship, nat- to conserving its heritage and its home on ural resource stewardship, education, and earth.” The report sparked little response.11 leadership. Participants discussed education, resource protection, the role of sci- Discovery 2000 ence, biodiversity,threats from outside park As the new century opened, the pro- boundaries, demographic changes, leader- cess of reassessment continued. In the fall of ship, environmentalism, and sustainability. 2000, Director Stanton convened a major But, as with many of the earlier efforts, par- servicewide conference in St. Louis, Mis- ticipants left with no clearly articulated plan souri, called “Discovery 2000.”More inclu- or agenda to guide real reform. Developing sive than traditional superintendents’ meet- a clear agenda for the 21st century had ings, it included partners; representatives never been the conference’s purpose. As from various federal, state, and local agen- noted earlier, one of the major goals of the cies; Indian tribes; concessionaires; non- conference was to inspire, and by any meas- profit organizations; and foreign parks. ure it succeeded in this. However, inspira- There was greater representation of women tion alone would not be enough to prompt and minorities than in the past. The stated dramatic change, and the momentum gen- goal of the conference was to develop a erated at the conference soon waned.12 vision of the NPS role in the life of the nation in the 21st century; to inspire and invigorate the Park Service, its partners, and Since 1980 the various studies and the public about this vision; and to develop conferences discussed above have repeated- new leadership to meet future challenges. ly highlighted concerns related to educa- The dialogue was to focus on the long-term tion, leadership and management, threats future of the Park Service and the park sys- from outside park boundaries, the role of tem. The format was a mix of inspirational science, environmentalism, and the need to

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 11 NPS Centennial Essay improve resource stewardship. The reports pose. Though there were repeated refer- laid out a vision for the NPS and the park ences to “the park ideal” and “park values,” system that often fell short, just as the Park most failed to articulate a clear vision and Service fell short in its response. Some of mission for the Park Service and the park these reports recommended that the NPS system. To be fair, the NPS’s mission and develop a comprehensive program to inven- responsibilities had become so complex tory parks’ natural resources and monitor that the authors of these studies might have their condition over time. The Park Service found producing a single mission statement repeatedly expressed its intent to do this, or statement of park values simply too diffi- but made little progress. cult. State of the Parks–1980, for example, Why did these studies and reports highlighted the need for improvements in keep revisiting many of the same issues? determining what cultural and natural Why were the problems and concerns iden- resources existed in each park, their current tified in the reports not addressed more condition, and the degree to which they forcefully? The answer is not entirely clear. were threatened. In its response, the NPS Certainly budget constraints and inade- called for resource management plans to quate political support were factors. Some identify the condition of each park’s of the responsibility lay with the NPS and resources and the problems managing its own resistance to change. Park Service them. Yet, between 1987 and 1996 the leaders seem to have absorbed the reports General Accounting Office (now the Gov- and made modest changes, but then retreat- ernment Accountability Office) reported ed to their comfortable cultural behavioral three times that the Park Service had made patterns. In addition, most of the studies only limited progress in fulfilling the failed to include any requirement for requirements for information and monitor- accountability or milestones against which ing identified in 1980.13 progress could be judged. Another recurring theme from these Yet, as we have seen, the reports also reports and conferences was lack of ade- had some positive impacts. Most important- quate funding. However, with few excep- ly, they focused attention on the critical tions the reports failed to detail the specific issues affecting the Park Service and the costs associated with their findings and rec- parks. They articulated the pressing prob- ommendations. Except for Preserving lems and challenges in clear and sometimes Nature in the National Parks, none called compelling ways. In some instances, they for or sparked a major campaign to secure resulted in organizational change, budget additional funds. None appealed directly to increases, and improved training. Yet none the American public for support. None prompted long-term, fundamental change. actively enlisted the grassroots support As the system grew larger and more com- within the Park Service that is so critical to plex, the challenge of addressing the issues success. None fully addressed the funda- noted above only became greater. The Vail mental question of what the national parks Agenda set out to answer the question should be and should mean in a rapidly “Why would a nation want a system of changing society. None were able to effec- national parks?” as a way of defining the tively and powerfully assert the NPS pur- purpose of the National Park Service. The 12 The George Wright Forum NPS Centennial Essay question remains as challenging, relevant, must face. At the same time, change and and urgent today as at any time in the Park growth have also created a new context of Service’s history. opportunity,one in which boldness, creativ- The NPS mission has grown well ity, and a new set of skills will be required. beyond what founders Stephen Mather and As the NPS reflects on its role and pur- Horace Albright envisioned; it has become pose in anticipation of its second century, much more complex than preserving and what can we learn from these earlier assess- managing park sites. The Park Service now ment efforts and their outcomes? It has responsibility for managing a broad becomes clear that significant fundamental range of programs, and its legislative man- change will require broad vision, bold lead- date has grown to include clean air and ership, outside-the-box thinking, a clear water, protection of archeological re- articulation of goals, careful planning, clear sources, historic preservation, endangered standards of accountability,a detailed budg- species, wild and scenic rivers, 40 national et that provides adequate funding, grass- heritage areas, large cooperative landscape roots public support, a strong support base projects, and environmental protection. within NPS, and thoughtful, close collabo- The national park system has expanded ration with its partners. Any vision for the from managing a collection of the great sce- next century clearly must focus on more nic parks to administering hundreds of than preserving the individual visitor expe- diverse sites and programs and participat- rience; it must be firmly linked to the coming in civic and social pursuits. As the mis- mon good. The NPS and its partners must sion has grown in complexity,so too has the continue to develop and embrace a broader enormousness of the issues the Park Service view of what the national parks are for.

Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Richard West Sellars, Dwight Pitcaithley, Loran Fraser, and Rolf Diamant, who reviewed the manuscript and provided valuable comments.

Endnotes 1. For a detailed discussion of the (A. Starker) Leopold Report and the National Academy of Sciences Reports, both in 1963, see Richard West Sellars, Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997). 2. National Parks for a New Generation: Visions, Realities, Prospects (Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1985), xxxi. 3. National Parks for a New Generation, xviii. 4. National Parks for a New Generation, 310. 5. National Park Service, National Parks for the 21st Century: The Vail Agenda (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1992), 101–103. 6. William E. Brown, “Report and Reflections on Vail,” November 22, 1991, NPS Park History Office Files. 7. National Park Service, Vail Agenda, 39. 8. “Talking Points for Vail Ridenour Concluding Speech,” October 10, 1991, NPS Park History Office Files. Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 13 NPS Centennial Essay

9. Sellars, Preserving Nature, 280–290. 10. National Park Service, Rethinking the National Parks for the 21st Century: The National Park System Advisory Board Report (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 2001), 2–3. 11. Rethinking the National Parks, 13. 12. Janet A. McDonnell, “The National Park Service Looks Toward the 21st Century: The 1988 General Superintendents Conference and Discovery 2000,” NPS Park History Office Files. 13. U.S. General Accounting Office, Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcom- mittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands, House Committee on Resources, “Na- tional Park Service: Activities within Park Borders Have Caused Damage to Resources,” GAO/RCED-96-202, August 1996, 4.

Janet A. McDonnell served as the National Park Service Bureau Historian from 2000 to 2007. She currently works as a senior historian for the Defense Department.

Join the Centennial conversation! Do you have a comment on the ideas presented in this essay? Ideas of your own to share? Whether it be criticism, praise, or something in between, we want to hear your thoughts on the National Park Service, its centennial, and the future of America’s national park system. Write us at [email protected] and we’ll post your comments on our Centennial webpage (www.georgewright.org/nps2016.html).

14 The George Wright Forum Celebrating 40 Years of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act: An Evolution of River Protection Strategies     ,  

Celebrating Forty Years of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

Sue Jennings

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT IS AN IMPORTANT YEAR FOR RIVERS, marking as it does four decades of protection provided by the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Given the importance of rivers, both to individuals and the nation, it is an anniversary worth acknowledging. Growing up in the North Woods of red-wing blackbird buzzing along a marsh, Michigan, I was surrounded by water. From frogs singing in chorus, or the thump of a canoeing on the Au Sable River, to hiking beaver tail hitting the water. I am reminded along the Tahquamenon, moving waters that these and other such experiences are have been an important influence in my life. my touchstone, a grounding point of refer- These rivers and streams were a consistent ence. source of exploration and discovery—both Collectively, just as for me individually, an open schoolyard and a warehouse of life rivers are an important part of America’s lessons, in metaphor—that fed my curiosity, natural and cultural heritage. They have nourished my soul, and, at times, served as been sources of physical sustenance and a refuge. Though I didn’t understand it at spiritual inspiration, provided an impetus the time, the rivers and the woods through for human settlement, and served as paths which they flowed were an important part for exploration, commerce, and travel. If we of my own personal growth, development, are to fully understand America’s history, it and history. I am convinced that the time I is imperative to fully understand the contri- spent listening to the birds along the river butions that rivers have made to our banks, or watching the life cycles ebb and nation’s growth, development, and conser- flow as the seasons progressed, are experi- vation ethic. In many respects, rivers are ences that contribute to who I am today. analogous to our wilderness areas, which, as The emotional connection and inspiration I Roderick Nash (Lawliss and Davis 2004) felt then are resurrected each time I hear a observes, are our historical documents— Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 15 Wild and Scenic Rivers our libraries and a living repository of histo- posed construction of hydroelectric dams ry and knowledge that cannot be obtained within Hells Canyon along the Snake River. without direct, firsthand experiences. They The dispute propelled Senator Church into are integral to who we are as a nation. To an 18-year battle that would define his allow our waterways to deteriorate is, to career (Ewert 2001). The drama at Hells paraphrase Nash, equivalent to tearing Canyon involved one of the largest acciden- pages from our most important historical tal fish kills in our nation’s history, along documents. with an unusual lawsuit where the Depart- For four decades, the National Wild ment of the Interior sued the Federal Power and Scenic Rivers Act has protected our Commission (asserting a proposed project nation’s most spectacular rivers and serves would have adverse affects on fish and as an important tool for balancing develop- wildlife resources), and resulted in a his- ment and preservation. From the Allagash, toric Supreme Court decision where the Delaware, and Obed, to the Missouri, Mer- definition of the public good was expanded ced, Snake, and Trinity, the stories of our to include environmental values (Ashworth nation’s signature rivers are preserved by 1977; Ewert 2001). During this period, this pioneering law. Championed by Sena- similar controversies were playing out in the tor Frank Church of Idaho, and signed into West and across the nation. Likewise, in- law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on creasing levels of education,personal income, October 2, 1968, the act declares that and awareness helped spawn a greater inter-

... certain selected rivers of the Nation Obed Wild and Scenic River, Tennessee. Photo which, with their immediate environ- courtesy of NPS. ments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. Notable for safeguarding the special character of certain rivers, the act purpose- fully strives to balance development with permanent protection for the country’s outstanding free-flowing rivers and their associated values. In doing so, it establishes a visionary template for a collaborative approach to river protection involving federal, state, and local partners. The act emerged following nearly two decades of bitter controversy over the pro- 16 The George Wright Forum Wild and Scenic Rivers est in environmental issues. The nation’s tainous country” where the river banks environmental conscience was re-emerging were “in most places solid and perpendicu- into a modern environmental movement, lar rocks, which rise to a great hight [sic]” which challenged the premise of sustainable (Lewis et al. 2002). Further attesting to the hydropower. The stars could not have canyon’s difficult landscape, members of aligned more perfectly. The time was ripe this historic expedition were convinced by a for a new direction in managing our nation’s Shoshone chief that the river and moun- river resources. tains were inaccessible (Ashworth 1977). As we approach the 40th anniversary Later, in the 1830s, after arriving at Hells of the act, it is an appropriate time to reflect Canyon as part of an expedition to the on where we have been and where we are American West, U.S. Army Captain Benja- today, and to renew our commitment to min Bonneville observed: “Nothing we had river protection beyond the next 40 years. ever gazed upon in any other region could for a moment compare in wild majesty and The Snake River and the impressive sternness with the series of Hells Canyon controversy scenes which here at every turn astonished Along the northern border between our senses and filled us with awe and Oregon and Idaho, the Snake River has delight” (Ewert 2001). Unsettled, rugged, carved out sheer vertical cliffs through a and remote, Bonneville and other explorers rugged landscape, making a stunning gorge were forced to abandon the gorge time and deeper than the Grand Canyon. Desolate again. It wasn’t until gold was discovered in and seemingly impenetrable, the walls of Idaho in the 1860s that a renewed interest Hells Canyon rise up an astounding 7,900 in accessing the canyon emerged. Home- feet, and, in some places, are less than five steaders, prospectors, and ranchers came to miles apart. The canyon features dramatic establish mining towns and small communi- changes in vegetation, supports a variety of ties. With the conclusion of the Nez Perce wildlife, and offers stunning vistas of Idaho War of 1877, rapid development followed. and Oregon from the rim. In addition to a It was not long after that plans were in place diverse array of plants and animals, the to harness the immense hydroelectric po- Snake was home to extraordinary salmon tential of the Snake. runs—at one time it produced nearly 40% By the late 1940s and early 1950s, fed- of all the salmon and steelhead in the Col- eral dam construction was sweeping the umbia River Basin (Ewert 2001). nation. Large rivers were dammed, and The canyon has an equally rich cultur- eventually this remote gorge, with its fast- al history. Home to Native Americans and flowing waters, was seriously considered by the subject of Nez Perce legend, the gorge is the federal government for its development a storehouse of prehistoric artifacts, petro- potential. During this period, the U.S. glyphs, and other important archeological Army Corps of Engineers and other federal relics. In more recent times, several explor- agencies had completed feasibility studies ers came through the area in search of trans- in the Columbia River basin, which includ- portation routes. Captain Meriwether Lewis, ed the Middle Snake River (Ashworth as part of the Lewis and Clark expedition, 1977). Two federal dams, one at the Hells described the area as a “high broken moun- Canyon site and another downstream near Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 17 Wild and Scenic Rivers the confluence of the Salmon River, were Church, at the time of his election to proposed. In 1952, yet another proposal the Senate in 1956, supported federal dam emerged that advocated building a massive development. He felt strongly that the fed- federal dam at Hells Canyon Creek. This eral government had the best long-term proposal would have been six feet shy of the capability for both protecting the region’s Hoover Dam in height and would have water rights and ensuring economic growth. maintained a reservoir storage capacity of Church asserted that federally funded 4.4 million acre-feet of water, effectively hydroelectric projects would save taxpayer stagnating 93 miles of river behind the dam dollars (Ewert 2001). Others supported (Ewert 2001). Likewise, Idaho Power, a pri- privately owned and operated dams. How- vate company, was securing private owner- ever, by this time, preservation of salmon ship claims within Hells Canyon. By 1953, and steelhead runs for their economic and permit hearings were underway for a series cultural importance was gaining support, as of three privately owned dams within the was protecting the canyon’s scenic values gorge: the Brownlee, the Oxbow, and the and associated public recreational opportu- Hells Canyon. The controversy was begin- nities. The debate over how to best develop ning to boil. In the early 1950s, the concern hydropower for economic growth, irriga- was not should the dams be built; rather, the tion, and other needs soon intensified as the issue pertained to ownership. Should the environmental movement grew. Church dams and their hydroelectric generating struggled with balancing his own beliefs, potential be publicly or privately owned? which favored development as an economic

Location of Hells Canyon, Oxbow, and Brownlee dams. Source: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

18 The George Wright Forum Wild and Scenic Rivers growth stimulus, with those of a growing ogy. The controversy surrounding the environmental movement within his own Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon dams state and across the nation. had a significant impact on other dam construction. Elsewhere across the country the The Oxbow incident public was witnessing the unforeseen Following a bitter battle between feder- effects of hydropower dams in other cher- al and private interests, Idaho Power pre- ished locales—including the loss of recre- vailed, and construction for the Hells Can- ational whitewater, important floodplain yon projects began in 1955. The Brownlee habitat, and important Native American Dam was completed in 1958, the Oxbow sites. As the issue made its way through the Dam in 1961, and the Hells Canyon Dam in courts, public sentiment in support of the 1967. However, construction was not com- environment strengthened. Environmental pleted without incident. As part of the per- quality was rapidly becoming an integral mit condition for licensing, Idaho Power part of America’s perception of “the good was required to ensure protection of the life” and commensurate to a high standard anadromous fishery. Idaho Power’s plan of living (Ewert 2001). By the 1960s, the was to transport salmon around the 205- debate between the environmental costs foot-high Oxbow Dam and release them and economic benefits of hydropower was into the river as a means to maintain viable raging. Litigation continued to follow on runs during construction. Unfortunately, in the heels of licensing actions. In 1964, the 1958, the attempt failed and decimated the proposed High Mountain Sheep Dam on entire fall Chinook salmon and steelhead the Snake River (with both a private and run. This debacle, which included trap fail- publicly funded option) was litigated. In a ures, isolation of fish in an unaerated pool highly unusual move, the Department of the downstream of the dam, and poorly organ- Interior sued the Federal Power Commis- ized logistics, led to, according to one histo- sion in an effort to protect salmon and steel- rian, “one of the greatest anadromous fish head from the negative impacts associated disasters in history” (Ewert 2001). The with impounding the Snake. The case made U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was called in it to the Supreme Court, where Justice Wil- to survey the damage, and according one liam O. Douglas, writing for the majority, report “approximately 4,000 adult Chi- interpreted the Federal Power Act to re- nook salmon and steelhead died on site” quire the consideration of alternatives to and “50 percent of the 14,000 salmon which federal development, including no develop- were collected and transported around the ment. Douglas wrote: “The test is whether project did not survive to spawn. The suc- the project will be in the public interest. cess of the 3,700 steelhead trout which And that determination can be made only were passed remains to be determined. In after an exploration of all issues ... includ- addition to the environmental catastrophe, ing future power demand and supply, alter- the monetary loss from their failure to native sources of power, the public interest spawn was literally incalculable” (Ewert in preserving reaches of wild rivers and wil- 2001) . derness areas, the preservation of anadro- The Oxbow tragedy focused national mous fish for commercial and recreational attention on the limitations of dam technol- purposes, and the protection of wildlife.” Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 19 Wild and Scenic Rivers

Aniakchak Wild and Scenic River, Alaska. Photo courtesy of Troy Hamon/NPS.

(Ashworth 1977). The Supreme Court balancing development and preservation required the Federal Power Commission to and his skills in seeking reasonable solu- reconsider the application. tions through consensus. By the mid-1960s, there was sufficient public concern over the inexorable loss of Passage of the free-flowing rivers to force change. Church, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act who witnessed the environmental losses In March 1965, Church introduced the associated with dams, began to share this National Wild Rivers Bill, which prohibited concern. He wisely recognized that the dams on certain select rivers. Fully support- mounting public sentiment was creating “a ed by the Johnson administration, this land- groundswell of public concern for the fate mark legislation, designed to preserve for- of these majestic streams, many of them ever in a free-flowing condition some of the threatened by dams which would forever nation’s most precious rivers, was signed destroy their beauty and ecology.” Church into law on October 2, 1968, as the National warned that “if we fail to give these rivers, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Officially known which are assets of unique and incompara- as Public Law 90-542, Section 1(b) of the ble value, statutory protection now, while act expresses congressional policy for the there is still time, we shall have only our- rivers of the United States: selves to blame later, when time has run out.” The 20-year debate over the develop- The Congress declares that the estab- ment or preservation of the 110-mile free- lished national policy of dam and flowing stretch of the Snake in Hells Can- other construction at appropriate sec- yon changed Frank Church (Ewert 2001). tions of the rivers of the United States Clearly, his awareness and appreciation of needs to be complemented by a policy the role of dams in the larger environmental that would preserve other selected picture deepened, as did his commitment to rivers or sections thereof in their free-

20 The George Wright Forum Wild and Scenic Rivers

flowing condition to protect the water or a state may apply—through its gover- quality of such rivers and to fulfill nor—to the secretary of the interior for des- other vital conservation purposes. ignation under section 2(a)(ii) of the Act. For state-administered rivers in the system, Today, the act serves as the nation’s the state bears the primary responsibility primary river conservation authority. By es- for management through state and local tablishing a national wild and scenic rivers statutes and regulations. Where no federal system, the act established a policy that bal- lands adjoin state-administered segments, ances the federal government’s role in the NPS has oversight responsibilities, and, damming and channelizing rivers for power, on behalf of the secretary of the interior, is flood control, and agricultural purposes responsible for evaluating impacts of cer- with protection of the free-flowing character tain projects under section 7 of the act. and associated values of selected rivers for Once included, every river in the present and future generations. national system is to be administered in a manner that will not only protect, but Establishing a system of protected enhance the values that made it eligible for rivers: How the act protects rivers inclusion; namely, the river’s free-flowing The legislation outlines how rivers be- condition, its remarkable values, and water come part of the national system, how they quality.This is often referred to as the “anti- are managed, what kinds of developments degradation, affirmative protection” clause. can occur within a river’s corridor, and how The act is nearly unique in requiring the the federal government and its partners can improvement of a protected natural re- cooperatively share stewardship responsi- source’s integrity, function, or condition. bilities (National Park Service 2007). The Importantly, the act establishes federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Na- water rights. The act does not specify the tional Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and quantity of the right; the amount of the fed- Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the U.S. eral right varies from river to river depend- Forest Service (USFS) are the four federal ing on the river’s flows, its unappropriated agencies responsible for administering, reg- flows at the time of designation, and the val- ulating, and managing designated rivers in ues for which it is being protected (Baldwin the national system. In order to qualify for 2001). federal designation, a river or river segment Recognizing the importance of a water- must be in a free-flowing condition, have shed approach, Congress envisioned river good water quality, and be deemed to have protection to be accomplished by mutual one or more “outstandingly remarkable” cooperation on the part of federal, state, scenic, recreational, geologic, hydrologic, local, and private partners. As such, federal fish, wildlife, ecological, historic/cultural, or agencies may assist, advise, and cooperate other similar values. The act requires the with states in the designation and manage- establishment of a boundary, classification ment of rivers, and may seek opportunities of river segments, and the development of for sharing management responsibilities comprehensive river management plan. with states, political subdivisions, landown- Segments may be added by Congress, ers, private organizations, or other partners.

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 21 Wild and Scenic Rivers

Niobrara National Scenic River, Nebraska. Photo courtesy of NPS.

Congress also recognized that river protec- well as congressionally authorized study tion does not always require public pur- rivers, in their free-flowing condition and to chase and ownership of land. In some protect them from the harmful effects of instances, river values can be protected by dams and other types of water resources methods other than land acquisition (local projects that involve construction within zoning, restrictions on development on the river’s bed and banks. Additionally,sec- floodplains or other sites where develop- tion 7 prohibits federal agencies from ap- ment is incompatible, or donations of devel- proving water resources projects that are opment rights to land trusts). Most wild and proposed for locations above, below,or on a scenic rivers are managed to accommodate tributary of a designated (or study) river and reflect local community and landowner (National Park Service 2007). As such, interests. river-administering federal agencies serve in Importantly, section 7 of the act pro- a regulatory capacity during the permit vides the four administering agencies with a review process by scientifically evaluating powerful regulatory tool. Often called the proposed federally assisted water resources heart of river protection, section 7 serves as projects that might affect designated or a prohibition or limitation on certain feder- study rivers or their tributaries. Harmful ally assisted water resources projects. The projects can be denied. Because of its inher- intent is to preserve designated rivers, as ent veto authority, section 7 is an effective 22 The George Wright Forum Wild and Scenic Rivers action-forcing tool—early coordination observed, “And I count myself more fortu- with state, local, and private entities within nate with each passing season to have re- the watershed is thus essential for project course to these quiet,tree-strewn,untrimmed implementation to occur. Properly planned, acres by the water. I would think it a sad most project proposals can be designed in a commentary on the quality of American life manner that avoids or minimizes impacts, if ... we could not secure for our generation yet is compatible with the goals of the act. and those to come the existence of ... a substantial remnant of a once great endowment Celebrating decades of river protection of wild and scenic rivers.” Indeed, we have Since its passage in 1968, the act has much to celebrate. served as a visionary template for a nation- Over the last 40 years, a great deal has wide system of federal, state, and locally transpired. In 1968, there were eight inau- protected rivers providing a wide range of gural components in the national wild and benefits to the American public. In its scenic rivers system. The “original eight” entirety, the act is considered one of the comprised the Middle Fork of the Clear- most important pieces of conservation law water and the Middle Fork of the Salmon in we have. In contemplating this legislation to Idaho, the Eleven Point in Missouri, the protect our nation’s rivers, Representative Middle Fork of the Feather in California, the William Anderson of Tennessee rightly Rio Grande in New Mexico, the Rogue in

Missouri National Recreational River, Nebraska/South Dakota. Photo courtesy of NPS.

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 23 Wild and Scenic Rivers

Oregon, the St. Croix in Minnesota and proach needs to be refurbished in order to Wisconsin, and the Wolf in Wisconsin. make it relevant and sustainable. Certainly, Since then, an astounding 11,290 miles taking full advantage of all the act’s provi- within 165 rivers have been included in the sions has proven to be difficult. The act has national system. Significant fisheries, ripari- complex requirements influencing the man- an corridors, and recreational opportunities agement of resources and resource attrib- are among the outstanding values protected utes as varied as water quantity and quality, on rivers such as the Skagit, Trinity, and minerals, agriculture, fisheries, archeologi- Noatak. The natural beauty of New Eng- cal resources, and varied forms of recre- land is reflected in the Allagash, Farming- ation. The range of involved jurisdictions ton, and Westfield rivers. The clean, pris- and ownership further compounds the tine waters of the Big Darby, Namekagon, complexities of the act. Consequently,effec- and St. Croix serve as important refugia for tive implementation of the act has been a federally listed species. History abounds challenge to agency personnel with shrink- where traces of prehistoric communities are ing budgets and staff, and can be confusing protected along the John Day, Snake, and to the public. Key issues demand attention Rio Grande. Appalachia’s rich cultural his- relating to regulatory responsibilities, re- tory comes alive along the Bluestone and source stewardship, and river policy. Gully. As a result of this legislation, rivers In the face of global climate change, that have played a fundamental role in shap- droughts and flooding, accelerated wetland ing our nation’s history, such as the Mis- losses, and water quality and quantity issues souri and Merced, are preserved forever. are becoming grave. Already, water wars, Importantly, the formation of the once heard of only in the western states, Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Co- have come to the heartland along the Nio- ordinating Council in 1995 has greatly im- brara and Missouri rivers, and are brewing proved interagency coordination among the in the East. As demand increases for water four federal agencies charged with adminis- for agricultural, hydropower, and energy tering the act. A model for interagency development, the pressures on our nation’s cooperation, the work of the council has river resources continue to intensify. The resulted in the production of technical rapid proliferation of energy corridors, papers, guidance documents, and training wind turbines, cell towers, and other devel- curricula that assist agency staff to fulfill the opments within river watersheds have left requirements of the act. Today, the council agencies and partners unable to respond. continues to address a broad range of Our nation’s wild and scenic rivers may emerging issues, provides technical expert- very well become important repositories or ise to river managers, and serves as a vital refugia for fish and other aquatic resources, resource to local governments and non- and riparian habitats along rivers could pro- profit organizations on the intricacies of the vide important corridors for movement of act. species. Already,the largest group of endangered species in the United States—mus- Charting a new course sels, fish, and crayfish—depends on a habi- Yet, with the passage of time, it has tat of clean, abundant water. These species’ become clear that our management ap- continued decline could well be a harbinger 24 The George Wright Forum Wild and Scenic Rivers of intensifying conflicts associated with Third, our management approaches water management if we fail to respond. should focus on enhancements—how to Forty years after the passage of the act, restore systems and undo the mistakes of the time is once again ripe to bring river the past. Such a focus could take advantage stewardship into the forefront of the nation- of this generation’s incredible energy and al consciousness—a time to re-evaluate cur- enthusiasm for new technologies and inno- rent management policy and approaches, vation and direct it toward developing inno- and to chart a bold new course for the next vative river and watershed restoration tech- 40 years. First and foremost, we must nologies. encourage efforts that promote our rivers as Finally,we need to work towards build- valuable assets, fundamental to our nation’s ing environmental coalitions with non-tra- health, safety, and way of life. This goes ditional partners, including business and beyond balancing today’s development industry. There is an incredible opportuni- trends and resource pressures with preser- ty in this arena to develop an economy that vation goals; our challenge is to integrate values healthy resources while diversifying river protection and consideration of envi- our portfolio of supporters. ronmental services into our economic equa- As we celebrate 40 years of the Wild tion. and Scenic Rivers Act, I invite you to answer Second, we need to re-invigorate our the call of the river. Jump in and engage in constituents so they become tomorrow’s the ongoing conversations with river scien- river champions. Our efforts need to focus tists and historians, resource managers and on educating, inspiring, cultivating, and policy analysts, educators and interpreters. motivating a generation of youngsters (and Reach out to non-traditional partners and adults) so that they fully understand the seek innovative ways to restore our water- value of rivers. We need to cultivate advo- sheds. Look for opportunities within the cates who view rivers from an ecological local community and beyond to institution- perspective, who understand their role in alize environmental standards and ensure our nation’s history,and who value rivers as these standards and core values are not a source of physical sustenance and spiritu- abdicated. Insist on an educational system al inspiration. that produces environmentally literate stu- In his introduction to A Sand County dents—it is imperative that today’s youth Almanac, Aldo Leopold wrote that “con- are given an opportunity to get out to the servation is getting nowhere because it is river’s edge, to learn about streams in their incompatible with our Abrahamic concept own back yard, and to understand their of land. We abuse land because we regard it watershed. Only then will they begin to as a commodity belonging to us. When we connect rivers to their own history and their see land as a community to which we personal lives, to associate rivers as an belong, we may begin to use it with love and essential link to their future, and thus respect.... That ‘land is a community’ is restore culture. This is the type of land ethic the basic concept of ecology, but that ‘land that leads the way to sustainable co-exis- is to be loved and respected’ is an extension tence. Like the vocal groups that propelled of ethics.” We need to revive our land, and Frank Church into being an advocate for water, ethic. rivers, and others who were instrumental in Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 25 Wild and Scenic Rivers our landmark environmental protection could very well lose what so many have laws, without an educated, inspired, and worked so hard to achieve. vocal constituency to advance an idea, we

References Ashworth, William. 1977. Hells Canyon: Man, land, and history in the deepest gorge on earth. American Heritage (April). Online at www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1977/3/1977_3_12_print.shtml. Baldwin, Pamela. 2001. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and Federal Water Rights. Congres- sional Research Service Report no. RL30809. 18 January. Online at www.ncseon- line.org/NLE/CRSreports/Public/pub-16.cfm. Ewert, Sara E. Dant. 2001. Evolution of an environmentalist: Senator Frank Church and the Hells Canyon controversy. Montana 51 (spring), 36–51. Lawliss, Lucy, and Tim Davis. 2004. Wilderness state of mind: An interview with Roderick Nash. Common Ground 9:3 (fall), 27–35. [Washington, D.C.: National Park Service.] Lewis, Meriwether, William Clark, and Members of the Corps of Discovery. 2002. Journal entry of August 14, 1805. In The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Gary E. Moulton, ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Online at http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/journals.php?id=1805-08-14. National Park Service. 2007. Final Report: Wild and Scenic Rivers—Charting the Course. Navigating The Next 40 Years of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act—Recommendations of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Task Force to the National Leadership Council. Internal agency report. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. Snyder, Gary. 1995. A Place in Space: Ethics, Aesthetics, and Watersheds. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint.

Sue Jennings, Mount Rainier National Park, 55210 238th Avenue East, Ashford, Wash- ington 98304; [email protected]

26 The George Wright Forum The Wild and Scenic St. Croix Riverway

Kate Hanson

UNLIKE THE WESTERN RIVERS DESIGNATED IN THE 1968 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT, which largely flow through federal lands under the authority of a single agency,the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway passes through a variety of jurisdictions and is managed cooperatively by federal, state, and local entities (Figure 1). The course of management at the riverway over the past 40 years illustrates the challenges of multiple-jurisdiction management, the successes that can be attributed to its wild and scenic status, and current issues.

It was the threat of a 610,000-kilowatt River. The Izaak Walton League was instru- power plant in Oak Park Heights,Minnesota, mental in fighting off this proposal (Kara- proposed in the 1960s, which triggered manski 1993:29–30, 33). action leading to designation of the St. By 1953, there were 23 dams and Croix National Scenic Riverway, one of the hydroelectric plants in the St. Croix Basin, first eight rivers designated as part of the including five small dams on the upper 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The riv- Namekagon River. However, the middle erway includes the St. Croix River and a and lower St. Croix remained a free-flowing major tributary, the Namekagon. North Woods stream, popular among can- Other river development proposals oeists and anglers (Karamanski 1993:38). had been debated since the 1800s, includ- By the 1960s, the Twin Cities metro- ing an idea that persisted for decades to politan area was growing rapidly, extending connect Lake Superior with the Mississippi farther out from the core cities of Minnea- via the Namekagon and St. Croix Rivers. As polis and St. Paul. Blufftop, floodplain and early as 1870, the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- farmland property along the St. Croix was neers had considered damming the Lower being subdivided for homes and commer- St. Croix to create a reservoir and control cial developments. Ever more people were navigation on the Mississippi (Merritt coming to the river to swim, boat, fish, sail, 1979:72–77, 289). water-ski, canoe, camp, and enjoy the By the late 1920s, Northern States scenery. Power Company (now part of Xcel Energy) The Oak Park Heights plant, proposed had acquired almost 30,000 acres along the by Northern States Power, would have been St. Croix for power-generating facilities. In one of the largest in the nation, and it set off the 1940s, struggling farm cooperatives in a firestorm of public opposition. Activists northern Wisconsin and Minnesota wanted formed the Save the St. Croix Committee, the Corps of Engineers to create a “little with representatives from both Wisconsin TVA of the north” along the St. Croix and Minnesota (Karamanski 1993:50). Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 27 Wild and Scenic Rivers

Figure 1. The St. Croix River, about midpoint on its course from Solon Springs, Wisconsin, to the confluence with the Mississippi River. While there are places along the riverway where communities or rural private residences are visible, large stretches remain undeveloped and provide undisturbed, natural views. Photo courtesy of the author.

The notion that the St. Croix and proposal. At a January 1965 hearing in Namekagon deserved protection was not response to the proposal, he made a moving new. But not until the late 1950s did these appeal for river protection, stating: “Call rivers come to be perceived as national, the roll of the great American rivers of the rather than local, resources. past ... the mighty Hudson, the thermally A newspaper editor in Chisago Coun- polluted Delaware, the Ohio, the Missis- ty, Minnesota, was among the early advo- sippi, the Missouri, and even the Minne- cates for national protection, writing in sota.... The story in each case is the same: 1958: “If Mr. Public has a place or places to they died for their country” (Nelson 1965). play in the future, now is the time to consol- In the national political arena, Nelson idate all efforts here in the upper Midwest was joined by Walter Mondale, then a junior and ask for a gigantic St. Croix Federal senator from Minnesota (and later, vice Park, perhaps named the ‘River of Pioneers president), to introduce a 1965 senate bill National Park’” (Norelius 1958). (S. 897) to establish a St. Croix National Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson Scenic Waterway (Karamanski 1993:73– first championed the cause of St. Croix and 75). Both men had ties to the rivers and Namekagon protection in response to the their dedication to protection would be life- controversial Oak Park Heights power plant long. 28 The George Wright Forum Wild and Scenic Rivers

The 1965 bill passed the Senate, but agement responsibility for the Lake St. was laid over in the House. Controversy Croix stretch of river and NPS responsibil- had developed, largely over concerns about ity for the remaining 27 miles. possible condemnation of land by the While there were two separate designa- National Park Service. In 1967, Nelson and tions, the entire Namekagon and St. Croix Mondale again introduced legislation to Rivers are considered the St. Croix Na- create a St. Croix National Scenic Riverway tional Scenic Riverway. The Namekagon (S. 368). Representative Joseph Karth and St. Croix above Taylors Falls/St. Croix introduced a companion bill in the House Falls are referred to as the Upper St. Croix; of Representatives. The Nelson/Mondale the Lower St. Croix is the river downstream and Karth bills were virtually identical to of these two communities. one another and to the earlier S. 897. At the time of designation, supporters At the same time, Nelson and Mondale were concerned primarily with maintaining were backing efforts to enact national river free flow,protecting scenic resources, elimi- protection legislation. When it became nating industrial pollution, and preventing apparent that a national bill had momen- loss of public access and recreational tum, they used that as a vehicle for the St. opportunities. Early management focused Croix legislation. As a result, the St. Croix on acquiring land and scenic easements River upstream of the communities of within the riverway boundary, removing Taylors Falls (Minnesota) and St. Croix structures, and developing landings, camp- Falls (across the river in Wisconsin), along sites, visitor centers and other public facili- with the entire Namekagon River, were des- ties. Over the years, NPS initiated programs ignated as the 252-mile St. Croix National for facility maintenance, resource protec- Scenic Riverway in the 1968 Wild and tion, interpretation, and resource manage- Scenic Rivers Act. ment. Today,river management has evolved The lower 52 miles of the St. Croix to address a host of concerns that likely (downstream of Taylors Falls/St. Croix were not in the forefront of people’s minds Falls) were not included in the original des- forty years ago. ignation. The National Park Service (NPS) was concerned that this stretch of river, par- Mixed land ownership and multiple ticularly the last 25 miles before the conflu- management entities ence with the Mississippi River (known as The St. Croix and Namekagon rivers Lake St. Croix), did not have wild and sce- flow through multiple jurisdictions. The nic river characteristics because of its lake- wild and scenic boundary is roughly a quar- like quality and the level of existing devel- ter-mile on either side of the river and, with- opment. in the 252-mile federally administered por- The governors of Wisconsin and tion of the riverway, encompasses about Minnesota petitioned the secretary of interi- 97,500 acres, including land and water sur- or to include the lower 52 miles in the fed- face. Of this, NPS has acquired 20,503 eral wild and scenic rivers system, and acres (above the ordinary high water line) in Congress designated the Lower St. Croix fee simple at a cost of $37.3 million, and National Scenic Riverway in 1972, with holds easement interests in about 14,137 direction that the states would have man- acres of privately owned land (above the Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 29 Wild and Scenic Rivers ordinary high water line) at a cost of $8.6 other parties when wild and scenic river million. The remainder of land within the management intersects with their interests boundary is a mix of other public land and activities, or visa versa. (about 28,000 acres), municipal and private land, and Indian trust land. Thus, NPS has Cooperative management direct management authority over only The riverway is managed through a about one-fifth of the riverway. variety of formal and informal partnerships. A variety of other entities own, manage, For example, separate management com- regulate, or have other interests in land and missions are in place for the lower and facilities within the riverway boundary, upper portions of the riverway. NPS, including the following federal, state, tribal Wisconsin Department of Natural Re- and local government agencies: sources, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources are represented on the • Wisconsin Department of Natural Re- Lower St. Croix Commission. These three sources (land use, water quality, wild- agencies, along with Xcel Energy (formerly life areas, state parks, state forests, pub- Northern States Power Company, which lic landings, trails, law enforcement); donated significant acreage for the river- • Minnesota Department of Natural Re- way) comprise the Upper St. Croix Man- sources (land use, state parks, landings, agement Commission, which addresses law enforcement); management of the Namekagon and the St. • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Croix above Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls. (water quality); Land use on non-public lands within • The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the riverway is governed by state and local (wetlands, in-stream disturbance); governments. The states have established • U.S. Forest Service (a small portion of special riverway land use regulations that the Chequamegon National Forest); must be adopted and implemented by local • Eleven counties (private land use, units of government for both the federal and forests, parks, landings, roads, bridges, state-administered portions of the Lower trails, law enforcement); St. Croix. There are no riverway-specific • Thirty-three townships and seven land use regulations on the Upper St. municipalities (private land use, roads, Croix, although state wetland, shoreland, parks, docks, landings, trails, law and land use regulations apply. enforcement); NPS has no legal authority over local • Indian tribes (Indian trust lands and land use. Our role is to support the states treaty rights for traditional resource and “encourage” local governments or indi- uses); vidual landowners to follow land use prac- • Transportation agencies (roads and tices that will protect the river. We must bridges); interact with the various local governments • Utilities (electrical transmission lines, on a regular basis, attending town board oil and gas pipelines, cell towers); and and city council meetings where river-relat- • Private landowners (residences, retreat ed matters are on the agenda, communicat- centers, camps, docks). ing regularly with local zoning officials, It is essential for NPS to work with these reviewing proposals for subdivisions, cell 30 The George Wright Forum Wild and Scenic Rivers towers, wind towers, gravel mining, roads, conduct extensive research on water and other developments, and otherwise quality and take cooperative action to engaging in matters affecting the river. We protect water quality (Figure 2). Mem- are frequently asked why we “can’t do bers include NPS, U.S. Geological something” about an issue and, despite the Survey, the Minnesota and Wisconsin fact that we exercise no authority, are often departments of natural resources, Min- held accountable if there’s a decision unfa- nesota Pollution Control Agency, the vorable to the river. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the In addition to the two management Twin Cities Metropolitan Council, the commissions, a number of coordinating Science Museum of Minnesota/St. groups and less formal partnerships are in Croix Watershed Research Station, place to address specific resources or re- several counties, soil and water conser- source issues at the field level. Some exam- vation districts, and nonprofit organi- ples: zations. • The Interagency Mussel Coordination • The St. Croix Basin Water Resources Team, comprising staff from the U.S. Planning Teamhas pooled resources to Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish

Figure 2. Maintaining good water quality is crucial to the survival of freshwater species such as mussels. Here, NPS aquatic biologist Byron Karns (right), filters water to obtain mussel veligers for the Inter- agency Mussel Coordination Team. Dan Kelner, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is driving the boat. Photo courtesy of the author.

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 31 Wild and Scenic Rivers

and Wildlife Service, the state natural Use and limitations of easements resource departments, and the Lac For a number of years following desig- Courte Oreilles Indian community, is nation of the riverway, NPS emphasized working to control the spread of zebra protecting land within the park. The Wild mussels, protect the riverway’s 40-plus and Scenic Rivers Act allows fee-simple species of native freshwater mussels, acquisition of up to 320 acres/mile. Where and propagate and reintroduce two NPS was unable to acquire land in fee sim- threatened and endangered species of ple, because of the acreage limitation or an freshwater mussels. unwilling seller, purchase of scenic ease- • The St. Croix Conservation Collabora- ments offered an alternative method of land tive meets regularly to share informa- protection. In the acquisition heyday, as tion on methods of protecting land and many as ten NPS lands specialists were coordinating land acquisition and land working at St. Croix. As more land was pro- protection efforts of various land trusts tected, the acquisition needs diminished and agencies. The group has estab- and so did the lands staff. However, the lished priority areas for land protection work did not end with purchase of the ease- within the watershed. ments. • An interagency Fisheries Committee Today, NPS holds 1,163 scenic ease- formed to develop a fisheries manage- ments within the riverway—about 37% of ment plan for the riverway and is coop- the scenic easements in the entire national erating to carry out research and habi- park system. It holds an additional 65 river- tat improvement projects. way conservation easements (about 1.5% of • NPS and state park biologists work the system total). At the time of enactment together to control invasive plants, of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, ease- monitor rare plants, and carry out ments were a relatively new tool that, restoration projects. because of acreage limitations on fee owner- • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and ship, offered a means to protect more land NPS staff are pooling resources to within the riverway boundary.In retrospect, carry out prescribed burns. their limitations are apparent, not only • A Lower St. Croix Partnerships Team, because NPS is geared more to managing comprising local government represen- land held in fee-simple title than easements, tatives, meets every other month to re- but also because the easements provide view land use decisions that have been only partial protection. made by individual communities, with The St. Croix’s scenic easements do a goal of achieving consistency in not prohibit subdivision or development implementing riverway land use rules. that conforms to local land use regulations. • Law enforcement officers from NPS, They place conditions on activities that the states, counties, and local govern- would diminish the integrity of the view ments meet regularly about fishing, from the river, such as cutting vegetation or hunting, boating and other regulations building a structure that would be visible, and coordinate response to emergen- but they do not address ecological integrity cies and enforcement needs. by protecting rare or sensitive habitat.

32 The George Wright Forum Wild and Scenic Rivers

With funding from the St. Croix Valley phorus loading will return water quality to Community Foundation, NPS currently is the condition of the 1940s, prior to major working with the West Wisconsin Land agricultural development in the watershed. Trust to update the easement records by Based on this information, in 2006, Minne- researching county lands data for informa- sota and Wisconsin entered into an agree- tion on tract subdivision and current own- ment to work to achieve a 20% nutrient ership. With this information, we will be reduction goal (St. Croix Basin Water Re- able to communicate with the landowners sources Planning Team 2004:6). to encourage private stewardship and build While the “impaired” listing is dis- a stronger relationship with the riverway. tressing, it requires establishment of a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for phosphorus entering the St. Croix. This will be an Water quality protection important step toward restoration of water The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was quality. crafted largely in response to concerns Because NPS has no regulatory author- about industrial pollution directly entering ity over either private land use or water rivers. Today, there is widespread recogni- quality,it is imperative to work with the var- tion that the health of a river depends on the ious agencies that have this role. The Basin health of its watershed. Team provides a forum for cooperation and The St. Croix has long been consid- is leading efforts to set a TMDL. ered pristine, in part because of its wild and In 2007, through its Great Lakes scenic river designation. The water quality, inventory and monitoring (I&M) program, along with the scenery,is what has attracted NPS began comprehensive water quality recreational use for generations, and people sampling at 13 sites along the Namekagon have taken it for granted. and St. Croix rivers. NPS funds sampling This year, both Minnesota and Wis- every other year, but the St. Croix Valley consin designated Lake St. Croix, the far- Community Foundation provided funding thest downstream portion of the riverway,as for sampling in 2008. Through the Basin an “impaired” water, because levels of phos- Team, NPS monitoring is being coordinat- phorus and chlorophyll a exceed Clean ed with that being done by other agencies Water Act standards. It was a wake-up call. along the riverway and key tributaries. Research carried out by the intera- The work to establish a TMDL re- gency St. Croix Basin Water Resources ceived a boost recently with notification Planning Teamover the last decade has pro- that the St. Croix will receive 2008 NPS vided a wealth of information about water Centennial cost-share funding to develop a quality.We now know that 80% of the nutri- watershed model that predicts nutrient and ent and sediment loading to the St. Croix is sediment loading. The $200,000 NPS from nonpoint sources, such as agriculture funding for this project will be matched and stormwater runoff (St. Croix Basin with contributions from the Twin Cities Water Resources Planning Team 2004:5). Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota The Basin Team’s research has further Pollution Control Agency. The modeling determined that a 20% reduction in phos- will be done by the Science Museum of

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 33 Wild and Scenic Rivers

Minnesota’s St. Croix Watershed Research and endangered and native mussels and Station. other aquatic life. One team is sampling for the presence of pharmaceuticals and chem- The future icals in personal care products entering the Just as those who crafted the 1968 river from several wastewater discharge Wild and Scenic Rivers legislation could points. Another team is studying the move- not have predicted everything that would be ment of nutrients through backwaters. The involved in managing rivers in 2008, we third team is studying the effect of food cannot foresee the complexities and chal- quality on unionid mussel survival and lenges of river management in 2048. After growth rate. all, how many of us imagined that one day Researchers from Macalester College human beings would tear across stream- in St. Paul, Minnesota, are studying the beds on all-terrain vehicles, submerged and impact of an increasing amount of fine sed- using snorkels? iment that is being deposited in an area Since the riverway’s designation, NPS identified as habitat essential for the recov- and its partners have developed extensive ery of Higgins’ eye pearly mussels (an knowledge about its resources. These two endangered species; Figure 3). rivers support a wonderful diversity of As human population grows, so too species, including 350 vascular plants, 265 will demands for recreation (Figure 4), as lichens, 270 birds, 218 aquatic inverte- well as the need to respond to evolving out- brates, 18 amphibians, 14 reptiles, 60 mam- door interests and new technology. NPS mals, 40 native mussels, 70-plus species of statistics indicate that visits to St. Croix fish, and more than 40 listed species. Now, National Scenic Riverway grew from we must be concerned about how climate 413,305 in 1996 to 523,588 in 2007 (NPS change will affect the ecology of the river- 2008). The NPS data represent the number way and management of these resources. of visits to NPS landings and other facilities Three research projects currently but do not consider riverway use originat- underway by U.S. Geological Survey teams ing from non-NPS facilities, such as state will add to our knowledge of water quality boat launches, state parks and forests, coun- and its effect on the riverway’s threatened ty forests, public marinas, private docks, and other facilities. As part of a new Lower St. Croix management plan being implemented this summer, NPS has placed more restrictions on

Figure 3. Higgins’ eye pearly mussel (Lampsilis higginsii), one of the riverway’s two endangered mussel species. Research is underway by the U.S. Geological Survey to determine sediment impacts on mussels in a critical habitat area. Photo courtesy of NPS. 34 The George Wright Forum Wild and Scenic Rivers

Figure 4. A number of businesses rent canoes throughout the riverway. Several years ago, NPS began requiring that out- fitters obtain commercial use permits. Some businesses had operated for decades, since before the riverway was established, making it challenging to implement this requirement. This is a typical scene on the Lower St. Croix on a summer weekend. Photo courtesy of NPS. where people can camp and the size of shed, we could lose the most unique groups; this is in response to resource dam- National Wild and Scenic River in the age, use conflicts, and concern that without nation. While there is much excellent more active management, river users would effort underway on the St. Croix, we no longer have the type of recreational need to do more—and we need to do it experience intended for a wild and scenic now (Mondale 2008). river. For a day, meeting attendees, some of NPS interpreters are introducing pro- whom had been involved in securing the St. grams that provide new ways to experience Croix’s wild and scenic river designation, the Riverway—virtual geocaching, for discussed strategies for addressing the is- example. We must continue to find ways to sues of today.They are exploring formation engage people with this resource in order to of an organization to promote river and have public support for its continued pro- watershed stewardship. All recognize that tection. the National Park Service and its various At the St. Croix, there is a sense of management partners are not, by them- urgency about stepping up river protection selves, able to adequately protect the St. efforts. In early May 2008, former vice pres- Croix and Namekagon. ident Mondale convened 60 leaders of com- The threats to the St. Croix National munities, nonprofit organizations, and Scenic Riverway are not unique. River man- agencies involved in management and pro- agers throughout the country are dealing tection of the St. Croix and Namekagon with development pressure, water quality rivers. His invitation letter articulated the protection, water rights, easement manage- current concerns: ment, land protection, threatened and The assaults on the St. Croix water- endangered species protection, the need to shed by development, run-off and loss manage use more intensively, exotic species of habitat put at risk the ribbon of control, the uncertainties of climate change, Riverway we protected 40 years ago. and many other challenges. Without a renewed commitment to There is a need to renew commitment protection of the river and its water- to the St. Croix Riverway and other wild Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 35 Wild and Scenic Rivers and scenic rivers, whether managed by the ommendation to establish a wild and scenic National Park Service or another agency. A rivers program to provide servicewide poli- large part of today’s public was not yet born cy and management guidance. when the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and The exodus of baby-boomer profes- other environmental laws of the late 1960s sionals from river management agencies is and early 1970s were passed, and they have well underway. New and younger employ- little knowledge of the conditions that led to ees need opportunities to develop expert- efforts to protect some rivers in a free-flow- ise, and we need to pass on institutional ing, unimpaired state. Others assume that memory that can be a touchstone for future once a river has been designated, it is pro- management. Partnerships with states and tected and needs no additional support. As other entities need renewed attention to managers, we need to see that these special ensure that commitments to shared man- places have continued relevance in a chang- agement survive over time. ing world. Those who float, paddle, fish, or other- The National Park Service will benefit wise enjoy a wild and scenic river can be its from a renewed commitment to the wild best advocates, if managers can effectively and scenic rivers it is charged to care for. An communicate the significance of the river NPS task force was formed several years ago and the actions that are needed to protect its to assess the status of NPS wild and scenic unique characteristics. I’d like every person river management and develop recommen- who comes to the St. Croix and Namekagon dations for the future. The task force has to have an experience so special that they’ll completed its report, which includes a rec- become a friend for life. References Merritt, R.H. 1979. Creativity, Conflict & Controversy: A History of the St. Paul District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Karamanski, T.J. 1993. Saving the St. Croix: An Administrative History of the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. Omaha, Nebr.: National Park Service, Midwest Region. Mondale, W.F. 2008. Letter of invitation to attend May 8, 2008, meeting regarding St. Croix River and watershed protection, St. Croix Falls, Wis. 22 April. Nelson, G. 1965. Statement before a joint hearing by the Minnesota Conservation Commis- sioner Wayne Olson, and the Minnesota Water Pollution Control Commission, Still- water, Minnesota. January. Transcript in Gaylord Nelson Papers. Norelius, T.A.1958. Editorial. 28 August. Chisago County Press. [Lindstrom, Minn.] NPS [National Park Service]. 2008. NPS statistics database. Online at www.nature.nps.gov/ stats. St. Croix Basin Water Resources Planning Team. 2004. St. Croix Basin Phosphorus-Based Water-Quality Goals. P.J. Davis, coordinator. Online at www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/reports/stcroixbasin-phosreport04.pdf.

Kate Hanson, St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, 401 North Hamilton Street, St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin 54024; [email protected]

36 The George Wright Forum Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers

Jamie Fosburgh, Joe DiBello, and Fred Akers

Revisiting the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act THE NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM was established through enactment of Pub- lic Law 90-542 in October 1968. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is a visionary piece of legislation, laying the framework for a national system of rivers protected from federal development projects under section 7 of the act, as well as prompting states and local river protection efforts with federal assistance and incentives under section 11 of the act. The main purpose of the act as defined in section 1(b) is to make it the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. The only river included in the initial Early designation efforts legislation from the private-lands-dominat- Early congressionally authorized stud- ed northeastern United States was the ies of potential wild and scenic rivers in the Allagash, which was proposed as the inau- private-lands, community-based setting of gural component of a class of “state-admin- the populated Northeast all failed to result istered” wild and scenic rivers under sec- in designation. These early studies, includ- tion 2(a)(ii) of the act (pending anticipated ing the Housatonic (Connecticut), East application by Maine’s governor). Absent Branch Fish Creek (New York), Wood/ the unique Allagash resolution, none of the Pawcatuck (Rhode Island), and others, uni- original components of the system were formly failed to embrace the planning and found in the Northeast—not surprising assistance provisions of the act to solve the given the relative lack of federal lands, the fundamental questions of how to protect density of the population, and the region’s national river values on private lands with- prevalence of communities based around out a massive federal acquisition campaign. their rivers. And yet, the act clearly antici- The studies resulted in questions, not pated that such rivers should be considered answers, such as: and included, with specific provisions limit- ing land acquisition authority on rivers • How do you protect identified “out- where communities had enacted “compati- standingly remarkable” values of a river ble” zoning (section 6(c)), and encouraging when they are not on public lands? local and state participation in administra- • How will local, state, and federal juris- tion and management (sections 10 and 11). dictions coordinate? Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 37 Wild and Scenic Rivers

• What is the role of landowners? Citizen’s Guide to River Conservation. This • Who is in charge? “how-to” book emphasizes building multi- • How will coordination occur? interest citizens’ coalitions through commu- • Who has the funding responsibility? nity involvement in river and stream conser- • What is the federal role? vation efforts. This book has been and con- • Will there be condemnation authority? tinues to be used as an important reference • What local zoning or other non-federal for the study and designation of many wild protection standards will be sufficient? and scenic rivers using the local partnership planning model. Partnership innovation emerges Congress amended the Wild and Sce- Pioneering wild and scenic river efforts nic Rivers Act in the late 1970s, and again Several pioneering efforts picked up later, to limit federal land acquisition and the challenge, and in different ways, have mandate cooperative federal, state, and local laid the groundwork for a new approach to planning conservation efforts, which wild and scenic rivers on non-federal lands. opened the door to management innovation Upper Delaware River (New York/ and collaboration. At about the same time, Pennsylvania; 1978). The designation of planners with the Department of the Interi- the Upper Delaware River in 1978 (Figure or in the East were using civic engagement 1) was the first time that Congress had des- to work in partnership with various private ignated a river with an (almost complete) and government experts and states and prohibition against federal land acquisition local governments interested in river con- and yet a mandate to NPS. Congress direct- servation. In these activities, no federal ed NPS to achieve Upper Delaware River management or designation was promised management and protection goals and or expected, but the planners nonetheless develop the management plan for the river, utilized the assistance authorities found in in coordination with local communities sections 10 and 11 of the Wild and Scenic organized into an advisory committee. The Rivers Act. This principle would soon be development of the plan was completed in developed and formalized as the National 1986, but was controversial and difficult in Park Service (NPS) Rivers, Trails, and Con- the post-designation setting. servation Assistance Program. The Upper Delaware National Scenic As top-down and more collaborative, Recreational River was the place where the locally driven planning and management Figure 1. Upper Delaware National Scenic approaches began to meld and blend, a Recreational River. Photo courtesy of NPS. river conservation model built on alternatives to direct federal management and administration began to take form. In 1984, Rolf Diamant and Glenn Eugster, who at the time were land use planners with NPS from Boston and Phila- delphia, respectively, and Chris Duerksen, who was an attorney and senior associate at The Conservation Foundation, published A 38 The George Wright Forum Wild and Scenic Rivers concept of a partnership river took form. with members of Congress and NPS on the Stakeholder conflicts required a team of authorization of a new kind of wild and sce- practitioners skilled in working with com- nic river study—one that would answer the munity leaders to design a process to devel- questions that thwarted earlier unsuccessful op a community-based management plan. designation efforts by developing and Here is where the NPS planners refined and implementing a successful river conserva- further learned the lessons of balancing fed- tion plan as the centerpiece of the study eral management with state and local needs process. and those of the private sector to meet the The plan, developed by the town with requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers support of NPS and a specially formed local Act, and to conserve the river and manage advisory committee, identified and imple- recreational use in partnership. mented local zoning, conservation ease- In 1986, the Upper Delaware National ments, and riverfront restoration elements Scenic and Recreational River management necessary to protect the river’s special val- plan was completed. One of the lessons ues. The Wildcat Brook river conservation learned is that there is a need for communi- plan in turn became the basis of federal leg- ty and resident engagement throughout the islation in 1988 to designate the Wildcat as planning process. Another observation a component of the national system—with made was that it is important to discuss the support of landowners, local and state river management in addition to eligibility officials, and the federal government. during the study process. If river manage- Westfield River (Massachusetts; ment plans could be developed prior to 1993). Planning for the Westfield River designation, more understanding, accept- (Figure 3) utilized a similar approach, but ance, and broader consideration of alterna- one that took advantage of the built-in tives would occur and the federal or NPS mechanisms of section 2(a)(ii) of the act to role would be better and more appropriate- limit and define the federal role. The critical ly defined. element still was to complete the plan in Wildcat Brook (New Hampshire; partnership with local communities and 1984 study, 1988 designation; Figure 2). landowners prior to designation. For the Spurred by the threat of unwanted hydro- Westfield, this was accomplished through electric development, the town of Jackson, the assistance of NPS acting under the New Hampshire, successfully partnered Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Figure 2. Scenic Wildcat Brook at Jackson, New Figure 3. Westfield Wild and Scenic River. Photo Hampshire. Photo courtesy of the authors. courtesy of Chris Curtis.

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 39 Wild and Scenic Rivers

Program (rather than under a congression- the national park system. The Great Egg ally authorized study), and through state Harbor was the first national wild and sce- planning grants. nic river to incorporate an extensive tidal Chris Curtis, of the Pioneer Valley estuary (Figure 4). The primary partners Planning Commission, initiated this pro- were local conservation advocates, resi- cess in 1984, also choosing to form a local- dents, four counties, and 12 municipalities. ly based advisory committee to assist in Through citizen advocacy,all 12 municipal- developing the conservation plan. In 1992, ities resolved to recognize that their eco- Massachusetts Governor William Weld nomic and cultural vitality were supported submitted a completed greenway plan to by their close proximity to the Great Egg the secretary of the interior with the sup- Harbor River and designated tributaries. port of local communities, landowners, and They also recognized that the health of the state and federal officials. The submitted Great Egg Harbor River is dependent upon plan was the basis of the Westfield’s desig- the economic, cultural, and environmental nation in 1993 as a state-administered com- policies of its surrounding municipalities. ponent of the national wild and scenic rivers As a result of this recognition, they agreed system. to participate in the designation process Great Egg Harbor River (New Jersey; and long-term management of the river. 1992). The Great Egg Harbor River was With NPS, county and state agencies, studied and designated as part of the and local advocates, these municipalities national wild and scenic rivers system by formed the Great Egg Harbor River Plan- Congress in 1992 based on its outstanding- ning Committee. Through participation in ly remarkable cultural, historic, recreation- this committee, the municipalities assisted al, and natural resource values, thereby in the preparation of local river manage- becoming a cooperatively managed unit of ment plans and a comprehensive manage-

Figure 4. Estuary of the Great Egg Harbor River. Photo courtesy of the authors.

40 The George Wright Forum Wild and Scenic Rivers ment plan for the long-term management Partnership wild and scenic rivers, as and protection of the federally designated they are now referred to, share the following segments of the Great Egg Harbor River common principles and management sys- and its tributaries. tems: This planning process identified the • No federal ownership or management need to continue a formal organization to of lands (and federal ownership is not monitor implementation of the comprehen- authorized in legislation or recom- sive management plan and assist the 12 mended in the management plan) municipalities, individually and collectively, • Administration of the designation and in dealing with matters concerning the implementation of the management Great Egg Harbor River system. The citi- plan is accomplished through a broad- zen advocates incorporated and became the ly participatory “council” or “commit- Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association, tee” organized and convened for each which was written into the management river specifically for this purpose. plan as the “host organization.” It was • Land use continues to be governed by agreed that the 12 municipalities and the local communities and states through Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association existing laws, regulations and authori- would establish the Great Egg Harbor Na- ties. tional Scenic and Recreational River • The river management plan is written Council. The council’s role is to provide and implemented through a broadly ongoing monitoring, coordination, and participatory process involving guid- assistance in implementing the comprehen- ance from locally based representa- sive management plan to the participating tives. The plan is locally developed municipalities and NPS. While the earlier with NPS assistance and is locally cases involved partnerships, the Great Egg approved prior to federal designation Harbor River was the first true partnership (as a part of the feasibility study). The wild and scenic river (PSWR), and its river plan, locally approved and endorsed by council process is used as a model for other relevant state and federal authorities, PWSR river councils and committees. forms the basis of the designation and Fulfilling the model: PWSR designations guides subsequent management. today • The costs and responsibilities associated with managing and protecting river With a refined planning and manage- resources are shared among all of the ment approach established around alterna- partners—local, state, federal, and non- tives to direct federal management and governmental. Landowner participa- administration, NPS has been called on to tion and volunteerism is an essential address a growing demand for wild and sce- element of the partnership and viewed nic river protection for “private lands as the backbone of success. rivers” in more urban environments on the East Coast. Starting in 1986, Congress has As the administering agency, NPS is authorized NPS eligibility studies for 12 responsible for implementing section 7 of river systems in seven states from New the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, reviewing Hampshire to Florida. projects that are federally funded, spon- Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 41 Wild and Scenic Rivers sored or licensed to ensure consistency in with other government and private organi- preserving identified “outstandingly re- zations. markable values” for which the river was Another key factor to the dynamic designated. This responsibility is coordi- nature of PWSRs is the growing and active nated with each river’s council or commit- leadership role that Congress plays in the tee. NPS is also authorized to provide tech- process. Based on local grassroots interest nical and financial assistance to river organ- and concern for river conservation, over the izations. last 20 years members of Congress from What is distinctive about these designa- seven East Coast states have repeatedly tions (Table 1) is the reliance on federal, introduced and pushed Congress to pass state, local partnerships in river manage- bills to study and designate almost a dozen ment and conservation. The designated rivers with over 500 river miles. And these rivers are administered by NPS but the same members of Congress have developed partnership organizations are responsible an informal partnership to work together to for day-to-day management. They are simi- support more stewardship funding for the lar to national park units in that there are management implementation and long-term specific NPS management and administra- protection of these PWSRs. tive responsibilities and line-item operating Paralleling this leadership in Congress, appropriations for each of the areas. The local partners from each PWSR have difference between these areas and tradi- formed a national network, called “Part- tional units of the national park system is nership Wild and Scenic Rivers,” that works that there is minimal federal ownership and to support the needs of this growing pro- a reliance on cooperation and partnership gram and ensure the success of PWSRs.

Table 1. Partnership wild and scenic rivers.

42 The George Wright Forum Wild and Scenic Rivers

River conservation challenges and model is an intelligent and cost-effective opportunities for today and tomorrow one for the conservation of hundreds of The PWSRs have established a model miles of rivers and thousands of acres of for successful adaptation of the Wild and riparian land at a small fraction of the cost of Scenic Rivers Act to a community-based, full acquisition. By working together with private-lands setting. In 2007, the Ash Congress, federal agencies, state govern- Institute for Democratic Governance and ments, local governments, non-governmen- Innovation at Harvard University’s John F. tal organizations, private landowners, and Kennedy School of Government named citizens, we should be able to unlock the PWSRs to its list of the top 50 government door to including many more rivers in the innovations linking citizens with important national wild and scenic rivers system. public services. Legislation to conduct The PWSR approach complements the Vermont’s first-ever wild and scenic river still-active and important consideration of study (for the Missisquoi River), which is wild and scenic river designations predom- based on the partnership model, is also inantly on federal lands of the Bureau of pending, and the success of the upper Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and Farmington River designation has prompt- National Park Service, where hundreds of ed a newly authorized study of the remain- deserving rivers lie within the boundaries of der of that river system. In May 2008, in the established federal areas. As we celebrate 40th anniversary year of the national wild the 40th anniversary of the national wild and scenic rivers system, Congress has fit- and scenic rivers system and look forward tingly enacted protection for the nation’s to the 50th and beyond, the PWSR ap- newest wild and scenic river, based on the proach offers the promise and potential to PWSR approach: 25.3 miles of the Eight- fill out the national system by creating a suc- mile River in Connecticut. cessful mechanism to manage and protect There are many more valuable rivers to important rivers outside the federal protect in our country, and the partnership domain.

References Coyle, Kevin J. 1988. The American Rivers Guide to Wild and Scenic River Designation: A Primer on National River Conservation. Washington, D.C.: American Rivers. Curtis, Christopher. 1992. Grassroots River Protection: Saving Rivers Under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act through Community-Based Protection Strategies and State Action. Washington, D.C.: American Rivers. Diamant, Rolf J., Glenn J. Eugster, and Christopher J. Duerksen. 1984. A Citizen’s Guide to River Conservation. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation. Interagency Wild and Scenic River Coordinating Council. 1996. Protecting River Values on Non-federal Lands. October. Boston: National Park Service. Online at www.rivers.gov/ publications/non-federal-lands-protection.pdf. National Park Service. 1982. East Branch Fish Creek, NY, Wild and Scenic River Study. November. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. National Park Service and National Recreation and Park Association. 1994. Grassroots river conservation. Special issue of Trends 31:4. Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 43 Wild and Scenic Rivers

Jamie Fosburgh, Northeast Region, National Park Service, 15 State Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109; [email protected] Joe DiBello, Northeast Region, National Park Service, 200 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106; [email protected] Fred Akers, Great Egg Harbor Wild and Scenic River, P.O. Box 395, Newtonville, New Jersey 08346; [email protected]

44 The George Wright Forum 2(a)(ii)-Designated National Wild and Scenic Rivers: The Confluence of Local Management and Federal Protection

Lauren Koshere

THIS PAPER EXAMINES A SPECIAL CLASS OF WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS: those designated under section 2(a)(ii) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Using a case study, it highlights the benefits of this type of designation and also the challenges that such rivers face. Unlike other national conservation programs, such as the national wilderness system or national trails system, rivers designated under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Act)— through provisions in section 2(a)(ii)—allows the states to obtain many of the benefits of the act, including protection from the harmful effects of federal water resource projects. This section was the result of a considerable evolution in thinking by Congress: it allows the governor of a state both to apply to the secretary of the interior for national designation and to serve as the principal manager of the river. With this provision, Congress expressed a clear intent to encourage the states to share in the responsibility of preserving selected rivers of the nation. In fact, the House report expressed the hope that “all the states will become active partners in the development of the national Scenic Rivers System” (Haas 2007). Qualifying 2(a)(ii) rivers are included To date, 19 river segments, represent- in the national system following an eligibili- ing over 1,800 miles of protected river ty study that comes at the request of a state (NPS 2007), have been designated through governor. They are managed by the state section 2(a)(ii) of the Wild and Scenic without cost to the federal government, al- Rivers Act. Those rivers offer a set of advan- though technical assistance is permissible tages and challenges that distinguish them and encouraged. The 2(a)(ii) rivers must be from their congressionally designated managed to protect and enhance their free- cousins. Benefits include the possibility of a flowing condition, water quality, and out- much shortened designation time-frame standingly remarkable values. The state or and greater ease of designation where there local administering agency is responsible are concerns about federal management; for establishing boundaries, classifying the contributions to community pride, involve- river, and protecting water quality and river ment, and economies; and increased river values. Section 2(a)(ii) is ideally suited to protection owing to multiple levels of rivers where there is a strong tradition of involvement. Challenges include those state or local management and protection. faced by other rivers, such as development

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 45 Wild and Scenic Rivers impacts, as well as shifting state priorities nation by the secretary of the interior may and funding shortfalls. The case study take less time than congressional action below will look at these in detail. (Haas 2007). Thus, if a state desires to include a river in the national system within Why 2(a)(ii)? A case study of Ohio’s a particular period, the 2(a)(ii) designation Little Miami River process may appeal most. If there is a threat, If rivers designated under section such as a dam or otherwise, a state can act 2(a)(ii) receive the same protection as con- quickly to ensure protection. Moreover, gressionally designated rivers but require once a river enters the national system funding from state and local agencies, what under section 2(a)(ii), the local and state makes the 2(a)(ii) designation more suitable agencies shouldering the management or appealing for a particular river than con- responsibilities often have access to federal gressional designation and its accompany- technical assistance for their river protec- ing federal funding? While not representation programs. For example, on the Little tive of all 2(a)(ii) rivers in the national wild Miami, federal resource agencies such as and scenic rivers system, the generally suc- the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or Na- cessful outcomes of Ohio’s wild and scenic tional Park Service have provided impor- rivers program reveal the advantages of des- tant technical assistance in streambank sta- ignation through section 2(a)(ii). bilization techniques and the development The mainstem of southern Ohio’s of a comprehensive river management plan. Little Miami River, the first in the state to While there has been little use of emi- become a national wild and scenic river, nent domain for congressionally authorized runs 105 miles through a 1.1-million-acre wild and scenic rivers, in some cases there watershed before joining the Ohio River are nonetheless fears of federal acquisition. (Figures 1 and 2). Though the watershed is Since the federal government is specifically primarily made up of agricultural land, it prohibited from expending funds on sec- also includes developing regions east of the tion 2(a)(ii) rivers, using this type of desig- Cincinnati–Dayton metropolitan area. nation can be easier where such fears exist. Three million people live within thirty min- The growth of state-level river manage- utes of the river, and the Little Miami ment and protection programs is an impor- aquifer is tapped by twelve communities tant benefit to states with 2(a)(ii) rivers. For along its mainstem. Benefits to the states and local communities. Importantly, 2(a)(ii) rivers offer unique benefits to the state(s) and communities through which they run. First, there are benefits related to the designation process itself. One of these benefits is its brevity: desig-

Figure 1. The Little Miami River. Photo courtesy of Ronald Levi. 46 The George Wright Forum Wild and Scenic Rivers

which results in a shift of perspective: people come to see the river as an amenity worth protecting (Gable 2008). When more people are aware of and experience the positive attributes of a river, they become likely to see it as a local amenity. They grow proud of the river, they appreciate it, and they want to protect it. Likewise, when viewed as a communi- Figure 2. Railroad bridge over the Little Miami. ty amenity, tourism and river-based recre- Photo courtesy of Little Miami, Inc. ation opportunities expand locally. Fishing, canoeing, hiking, and other water-depend- example, following the passage of the act in ent activities offer undeniable benefits to the 1968, Ohio modeled its existing state-level local economy. A 1999 study of the Little scenic rivers program after the national pro- Miami Bike Trail, for example, proved that gram. Because of that program, Ohio now visitors spent an average of over $13 per protects sections of 13 rivers and their trib- visit to the trail on food, beverages, and auto utaries—754 stream miles in total at the expenses (OKI 1999:31). Recreation state level (Gable 2008). Of those 13 rivers, opportunities are beneficial economically, three have met the criteria for inclusion in but they also make the river accessible to the national system pursuant to section local school groups, citizens, and out-of- 2(a)(ii): the Little Miami River, the Little state visitors. Again, Ohio’s Little Miami Beaver Creek complex, and the Big and River provides an example: canoeing draws Little Darby creeks. Though those rivers about 100,000 people each year (Partee were first protected by the provisions of 2008). That is 100,000 customers for the Ohio’s state-level scenic rivers program, river’s six canoe liveries and 100,000 peo- local agencies and groups petitioned the ple who annually benefit from the protec- governor to seek secretarial designation. tion afforded the Little Miami as a result of Ohio rivers designated under section its 2(a)(ii) wild and scenic river designation. 2(a)(ii) have contributed significantly to According to Little Miami, Inc. (LMI), a local communities’ identity, tourism, and private, non-profit land trust, 500,000 peo- economic growth, primarily because of the ple recreate in some way along the Little attention that comes from a national wild Miami every year. and scenic river designation. When a State-level protections usually grow 2(a)(ii) river is designated, one of the imme- from grassroots, community protection diate benefits is a surge of local pride from efforts. Consequently, 2(a)(ii) designation the people who worked to protect the river often requires attention at two legislative to the level requisite for designation. Even and geographical levels—the local and the citizens who did not participate actively in state—before it gains protection through efforts toward a river’s national designation the federal act. Such multiple levels offer have a sense of ownership when a local re- numerous opportunities for citizens living source is recognized with a national title. within the watershed to maximize river pro- That pride often fosters appreciation, tection (Haas 2007) The local river man- Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 47 Wild and Scenic Rivers agement model detailed in section 2(a)(ii) address local issues relating to zoning, taxa- fosters participation from the citizens tion, and development. For example, LMI whose work helped establish state protec- successfully presented a case before the tion in the first place. In some cases, those Ohio Supreme Court for the establishment residents organize local non-governmental of property tax exemption for conservation organizations, citizen groups, and other lands in Ohio. As the pressures of develop- non-profit organizations that offer supplement threaten riparian zones, maintaining mentary funds and volunteer time in the water quality and a viable habitat corridor name of river protection. Though such are principal goals of LMI—especially local organizations have no legal or deci- important because the Little Miami sup- sion-making authority over the rivers, they ports habitat for six state and/or federally may cooperate with state and local manage- endangered and threatened aquatic species ment agencies in restoration and fundrais- (Partee 2008). ing efforts. Perhaps most significantly, they Though LMI has no legal authority represent a means for local people to partic- over the river, the organization seeks mutu- ipate and work in concert with the efforts of al benefiting opportunities, and operates state and local management efforts. with what Partee describes as a “cordial, LMI provides an excellent example of but firm” position in its response to local such an organization. Founded in 1967, issues. That means working in a close part- LMI was the key local advocate for the nership with local officials and zoning and Little Miami’s inclusion in the national wild planning staff to encourage developers to and scenic river system and Ohio’s state implement sustainable practices that benefit scenic river program. Over the years, LMI both the river and development goals. Par- has exerted considerable influence in the tee observes of LMI’s approach, “We’ve watershed of the river. The organization gotten enough inroads with developers and also played a lead role in the passage of the the development community that they have Little Miami Forest Preserve law in Ohio. at least some degree of comfort to call us” Funded by the support of over 500 member before they plan projects that may seriously families and individuals, as well as founda- impact the river (Partee 2008). tion grants, LMI has co-funded a study of More than just attracting people for endangered mussels in the Little Miami river-based recreation opportunities, state- watershed and created the Little Miami supported 2(a)(ii) river designations have a Scenic River and Trail Center in Loveland, positive effect on the community by engag- Ohio—a site that educated close to 15,000 ing local municipalities and zoning com- visitors in 2007, its first full year of opera- missions. In some cases, the Ohio Depart- tion. ment of Natural Resources (ODNR) pro- Eric Partee, LMI’s executive director, vides matching dollars to park districts or calls the organization a “land trust plus.” It conservation projects that support state- acts as a traditional land trust by securing level conservation goals on 2(a)(ii) rivers. In conservation easements and acquiring contrast, the federal management and lands, but it also pays attention to details of administration of congressionally designat- water quality and uses persuasion to ed rivers often limits river managers’ influ-

48 The George Wright Forum Wild and Scenic Rivers ence on local zoning. On 2(a)(ii) rivers in organize. Following a tremendous grass- Ohio, these cooperative conservation proj- roots effort at the local, regional, and state ects, most often funded by grants received levels, citizens worked to clean up the lower by the state, benefit all parties because they section, remove abandoned buildings, and require limited investment from the state establish local ordinances to protect the and are implemented through a local part- corridor. In 1980, the state re-petitioned the ner (Gable 2008). secretary of the interior, and, following fur- Benefits to the river. The example of ther review, the lower Little Miami River the Little Miami embodies one of the most was designated. This has been the first and important set of advantages associated with only instance when a segment was first 2(a)(ii) designation: a river gains protection. denied inclusion into the system and later Because the 2(a)(ii) designation process deemed eligible. results in a river having both state and fed- ODNR cooperates with riverfront eral legislative protections, there is greater property owners to help them with riparian opportunity to focus attention and land management issues and forest restora- resources on the river. And, as Eric Partee of tion (Gable 2008). LMI, in turn, has LMI believes, “it’s always best to layer the worked to secure riparian protection with protection. The more layers, the better.” He acquisitions and conservation easements. also points out that the dual requirements of Since the upper river’s designation as a both state- and federal-level protection cri- national wild and scenic river, LMI has teria act as a system of checks and balances acquired more than fifty nature preserves for each other, ensuring that designated along the Little Miami, which amount to rivers receive the full attention they deserve almost 2,000 acres of riparian forest land. from both state and federal agencies (Partee Today,nearly half of forests along the banks 2008) Similarly, Bob Gable, scenic rivers of the Little Miami are protected through program manager at ODNR, observes that land ownership or conservation easements because of this dynamic, national designa- held by LMI and other conservation enti- tion of Ohio’s rivers was a natural out- ties; nearly a quarter of the riparian forests growth of local action. Under 2(a)(ii), with- remaining are protected by local zoning out the protection of the state first, a river ordinances. could not be protected as a national wild Benefits to the nation. Finally, section and scenic river (Gable 2008). 2(a)(ii) provides an additional pathway for In the case of the Little Miami River, eligible rivers that would not otherwise be local involvement led to expansion of the included in the national system. First, con- portion of the river and its adjacent lands gressional action can be difficult to obtain, being protected. Though the upper Little which means secretarial designation more Miami was designated in 1973, the lower quickly. Also, as noted above, the 2(a)(ii) reaches did not meet eligibility require- local management model often appeals ments because of water quality issues and when there is local concern over federal reg- the magnitude of visual intrusions along the ulation. By providing an alternative in in- corridor. This attracted attention and stances when congressional designation sparked the communities along the river to may not be suitable, 2(a)(ii) rivers thereby

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 49 Wild and Scenic Rivers boost the number of protected river miles— of its authority clear (Gable 2008). and all at no or very little expense to the fed- Additionally, due to their federal pro- eral government (Haas 2007). tection and local management, 2(a)(ii) rivers may lead to uncertainty about the distribu- Challenges for 2(a)(ii) rivers tion of funding and management responsi- Though 2(a)(ii) river success stories bilities. This requires a substantial, long- serve as useful models for river manage- term commitment on the part of the state to ment, these rivers nevertheless are facing ensure the river is managed to the federal challenges. As with so many rivers across standard. However, as state and local agen- the country, watershed development cies are reorganized and budgets are modi- around 2(a)(ii) rivers is a principal concern. fied under changing political climates, the Developments such as housing projects, commitment becomes blurred with com- road construction, and commercial uses peting state priorities, and confusion may threaten rivers by increasing the number of rise about who is responsible for what man- impermeable surfaces in a watershed, agement actions and what costs (Haas increasing the temperature and volume of 2007). runoff, contributing more pollution to the LMI’S Eric Partee points out that state water, and increasing turbidity. While these budgets cannot always commit the issues are not unique to 2(a)(ii) rivers, they resources needed to protect a river, which is can overwhelm state programs and staff that why local non-governmental cooperation is are already taking on additional responsibil- so beneficial on 2(a)(ii) rivers (Partee ities. 2008). In the case of the Little Miami River, A second challenge is the public’s ten- LMI’s efforts and resources have helped dency to misunderstand state and federal supplement funds allocated from the state. authority over private riverfront property A related challenge for 2(a)(ii) rivers rights. Though the act specifically prohibits emerges as a result of changing times. When the federal government from condemning a river is first designated as part of the land adjacent to a 2(a)(ii) river, some national system, the Wild and Scenic Rivers landowners express concern over potential Act requires that a comprehensive river federal condemnation. In those instances, management plan (CRMP) be developed state management agencies must confront for it. The CRMP, which must be complet- the misconception that a federal designa- ed within three full fiscal years of designation removes or limits private property tion, should clearly articulate the river’s rights. While this may make 2(a)(ii) desig- outstandingly remarkable values and identi- nation somewhat less difficult than other fy management goals, requirements, and national wild and scenic river designation, it responsibilities. The CRMP should also nonetheless poses a challenge. In Ohio, the provide a management framework for only regulatory authority held by the state is when, where, and what types of develop- over publicly funded projects within a ment can occur; express guidelines for the 1,000-foot corridor of the 2(a)(ii) river. A intensity of development; and establish state must devote significant time and ener- zoning recommendations. Moreover, the gy at all levels to make the extent and limits document should address how conflicts

50 The George Wright Forum Wild and Scenic Rivers will be resolved, provide strategies to reach Gable also believes in the necessity of long-term goals, and establish a monitoring what grows from educational efforts: coop- program. While CRMPs are critical to river eration and trust between local residents management, the act does not include a pro- and the agencies involved. Establishing vision that they be updated; as a result, trust takes time, of course, and “where peo- management strategies may not receive the ple are skeptical,” Gable observes, “it takes review they deserve when changes occur in more time.” But that time is worth the trust the federal, state, and local political climates that emerges when different parties reach an and in the watersheds of the rivers them- understanding of each other’s individual selves (Jennings 2008). aims. As Gable has learned, a river benefits most when people understand and trust Strategies for future success each other (Gable 2008). As 2(a)(ii) rivers and their managers That trust and understanding between face these challenges, what are the best pol- parties reflects what Eric Partee of LMI icy strategies to promote protection into the believes is critical to management success: a future? What lessons have been learned? commitment to protection on a local level Bob Gable believes that public educa- (Partee 2008). From his analysis and from tion is critical. When local landowners Gable’s, then, it is clear that successful understand the value and benefits of pro- 2(a)(ii) river management must reside at the tected rivers, they support the establish- intersection of federal protection and local ment of sustainable programs that can ben- commitment. The river inhabiting that con- efit all. Through public meetings, hearings, fluence is armed with the authority of feder- and presentations, agencies can help local al protection and the support and energy of landowners understand the facts and goals local agencies and communities. That river of protection. is a 2(a)(ii) river. References Haas, Dan. 2007. Designating rivers through Section 2(a)(ii) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Council Guidelines. Online at www.rivers.gov /publications/2aii.pdf. Gable, Bob. 2008. Interview with the author, 10 January. Jennings, Sue. 2008. Personal communication, March. Partee, Eric. 2008. Interviews with the author, 23 January and 6 May. National Park Service. 2007. River mileage classifications for components of the national wild and scenic rivers system. June. Online at www.nps.gov. OKI [Ohio–Kentucky–Indiana Regional Council of Governments]. Little Miami Scenic Trail Users Study. Cincinnati, Ohio: OKI.

Lauren Koshere, Xanterra Parks and Resorts, Mammoth Hot Springs, Montana 82190; [email protected]

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 51 Commercial Grizzly Bear Viewing in the Fishing Branch (Ni’iinlii Njik) Protected Area, Yukon, Canada

Erik Val

Introduction OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES, THE SETTLEMENT OF FIRST NATIONS LAND CLAIMS in Canada’s northern territories has led to the creation of national and territorial parks and protected areas. Located in the Yukon Territory, Fishing Branch (Ni’iinlii Njik) Protected Area is conserved through the 1995 Vuntut Gwitchin Final Claim Agreement. The 6,500-km2 area protects cultural and natural resources, most notably unusually high concentrations of salmon and grizzly bear. The protected area consists of both public and First Nation lands, a first in Canada, if not North America. The area is cooperatively managed in partnership as an ecological unit by the Yukon and Vuntut Gwitchin governments. In 2000, a jointly developed and conservation and the effectiveness of part- approved management plan identified ob- nerships in protected areas management, jectives and guidelines to protect the area’s especially related to the development of a natural and cultural resources. The plan new, highly specialized activity within the further identified the essential conditions to wilderness-tourism industry. allow for commercial grizzly bear viewing in the protected area. After fulfilling these con- Geographic, historic, and political ditions, a controlled pilot bear-viewing trial context started in Fishing Branch Protected Area in The Yukon is one of Canada’s three fall 2006. northern territories and spans an area from This paper will document the steps the Northern Rockies in British Columbia taken over the last ten years to prepare for to the Beaufort Sea. While large in area commercial bear viewing at Fishing Branch (450,000 km2), the territory is sparsely pop- Protected Area. Comparisons will be made ulated (30,000). First Nations (a term to other bear-viewing operations in Alaska which denotes most of Canada’s indige- and northern British Columbia. The paper nous peoples) make up about a fifth of the will conclude with a summary of lessons population. The city of Whitehorse is the learned related to cooperatively preparing service center and seat of government for for and managing such activities in remote the Yukon. Fifteen small, predominately wilderness areas. First Nation villages are scattered across the This case study demonstrates the posi- territory. The small Vuntut Gwitchin First tive role land claims can have in promoting Nation community of Old Crow is located 52 The George Wright Forum in the northern Yukon on the Porcupine new or confirmed existing national and ter- River. Fishing Branch Protected Area is ritorial parks, park reserves, heritage rivers, located 100 km south of Old Crow and national wildlife areas, and territorial habi- crosses the Arctic Circle (Figures 1 and 2). tat protection areas. These areas total about Over the last two decades, comprehen- 61,500 km2, or some 13% of the territory. sive negotiations have been conducted Settled claims also define the management across northern Canada to settle First objectives for these protected areas, cooper- Nation and Inuit land claims. Similar to the ative management regimes for government effect that the 1971 Alaska Native Claims and First Nations, and how First Nations Settlement Act had in creating over 100 can benefit economically from protected million acres of protected areas through the area establishment and operations. 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Con- In 1995, the Vuntut Gwitchin First servation Act, settled land claims in the Nation of Old Crow settled its land claims. Yukon also have created large tracts of pro- The settlement included the creation of a tected areas. Land claims have established 170-km2 territorial ecological reserve on the

Figure 1. Location of Fishing Branch Protected Area in northern Yukon. The small box indicates the area of Yukon Parks’ ranger camp and the commercial bear-viewing site.

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 53 Figure 2. The Yukon Parks’ ranger station and bear-viewing facility located along the Fishing Branch River at the base of Bear Cave Mountain (extreme left of photo). © 2008 Fritz Mueller, all rights reserved. Used by permission of the photographer.

Fishing Branch River pursuant to the mote ecological awareness and wilderness Yukon Parks and Land Certainty Act. Also tourism, and provide economic benefits for through the claim, an additional 140 km2 of the First Nation. First Nation settlement land was added to In 2004, an additional 6,200-km2 terri- this protected area. This addition is a signif- torial wilderness preserve and habitat pro- icant contribution to conservation and is a tection area was added to the ecological groundbreaking first in Canada, if not reserve and the settlement lands (see Figure North America. 1). The two governments also collaborative- Together, these protected areas are ly developed a management plan for these cooperatively managed by the Yukon and two protected areas. Vuntut Gwitchin governments under a jointly developed management plan, which The ecological and cultural significance was approved in 2000. The primary objec- of Fishing Branch Protected Area tive of the plan is to manage the area as an The Fishing Branch River is located in ecological unit to protect the full diversity of the Ogilvie Mountains of northern Yukon, wildlife (particularly salmon and grizzly and is of exceptional ecological signifi- bears) in a Beringian karst landscape. While cance. It is the seasonal gathering place for wildlife protection is the priority, the plan grizzly bears that come to feed on salmon also recognizes the possibility of introdu- (Figure 3). Spawning salmon depend on the cing commercial grizzly bear viewing as a constant water temperatures of the river, means to provide visitor opportunities, pro- which wells up through the karst substrate. 54 The George Wright Forum Figure 3. One of the annually returning grizzly bears fishing for chum salmon in front of the viewing facilities along the Fishing Branch River. © 2008 Fritz Mueller, all rights reserved. Used by permission of the photographer.

Karst landscapes develop over millennia as the last Ice Age. Altered caribou and mam- limestone is eroded by water. This dissolu- moth bones located in an area northwest of tion process results in towers, fissures, sink- the Fishing Branch have been dated to holes, complex underground drainage sys- about 25,000 years ago and may be the old- tems, and caves, all of which help to main- est known traces of human occupation in tain the constant annual water temperatures North America. (Figure 4). This provides unusually late but For thousands of years, the Vuntut ideal salmon spawning conditions, which Gwitchin, who now live in the community start in mid-September and continue until of Old Crow,have depended on the land for late October or early November (Figure 5). all aspects of life. The elders call the Fishing The constant water temperature also cre- Branch River Ni’iinlii Njik, “where the fish ates a micro-climate that affects the river val- spawn,” and have considered the area as the ley’s vegetation and wildlife habitats, there- source of life and food. The continuation of by increasing the biodiversity of the area. the Gwitchin culture is based on traditional The Fishing Branch area is also of cul- subsistence harvesting, which in turn tural significance. The area was not covered depends on a healthy, stable ecosystem, in the last Ice Age and the cold, dry environ- such as is found at the Fishing Branch. ment in the ancient karst caves in the surrounding mountains are optimal for pre- Preparations for commercial grizzly serving organic matter. The caves contain bear viewing evidence of human occupation that date to The Vuntut Gwitchin Land Claim Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 55 Figure 4. One of many caves located on Bear Cave Mountain used by bears as dens in the fall after the salmon run on the Fishing Branch River. © 2008 Fritz Mueller, all rights reserved. Used by permission of the photographer. 56 The George Wright Forum Figure 5. The “ice bear”: Unique to the Fishing Branch River, the fall salmon run provides late-season feeding opportunities for grizzly bears that become encrusted in ice and jingle as they move. © 2008 Fritz Mueller, all rights reserved. Used by permission of the photographer. Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 57 Agreement defines the management objec- (September 1 to November 1) is by permit tives for Fishing Branch Protected Area, only and limited to a maximum of five per- which includes the protection of the full sons per day (four visitors and one guide) diversity of wildlife, particularly salmon and with a maximum stay of seven days (Figure grizzly bears. The claim also identified the 6). This approach maintains the wilderness need for visitor services, learning opportu- character of the area; avoids disturbance to nities, public education, and economic fish, bears, and other wildlife; and limits the opportunities for the First Nation. need for facility development. Based on these broad objectives, the Qualified bear-viewing guide. protected area management plan states that During the viewing season, visitors are while bear viewing is secondary to protec- required to use the services of a qualified tion of wildlife and its habitat, effectively bear-viewing guide who is permitted to pro- managed viewing has the potential to (1) vide such services. This approach provides increase public understanding and appreci- a safe and high-quality wilderness experi- ation of bears and bear ecology,(2) increase ence. public understanding of appropriate Bear–human risk management plan. human behavior in bear habitat, and (3) Before bear-viewing operations could start, under controlled circumstances, increase tourism and provide economic benefits. Figure 6. Bear-viewing activities at the Fishing To ensure effective management of the Branch River are limited to five individuals, including the guide, for up to one week at a time in protected area, a Committee of Managing September and October. © 2008 Fritz Mueller, Agencies (CMA) has been established, rep- all rights reserved. Used by permission of the resenting the Yukon and Vuntut Gwitchin photographer. governments and includes Yukon Parks, the territorial Fish and Wildlife Branch, the local Renewable Resources Council, and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (which operates a fish-counting weir downstream from the viewing site). When required, the Archaeological Survey of Canada and the territorial Heritage Branch participate on the CMA. The management plan defined the conditions and operational guidelines related to preparing for commercial bear-viewing operations. The CMA oversaw these preparations to ensure that the management plan’s conditions and guidelines were followed. These conditions and guidelines include: Visitor access and use. Visitor access to the settlement lands and ecological reserve during the bear-viewing season 58 The George Wright Forum a detailed bear–human risk management ed. This research documented bear and plan was required, as was a controlled pilot salmon populations and baseline patterns trial. The operational and emergency pro- of bear behavior in the viewing area, and cedures defined in the plan are designed developed a bear behavior data-collection primarily to (1) minimize the adverse effect protocol. These data will be used in the of human activities on bears and salmon, (2) future to assess the impact, if any,of viewing minimize the probability of conflict operations on bear behavior, primarily on between bears and humans, and (3) provide spatial and temporal patterns of feeding. information on how to respond appropri- Limited facility development. Con- ately if a conflict between humans and bears sistent with the management principles and occurs. in keeping with the wilderness character of Bear behavior research and monitor- the area, facility development was been kept ing. Research and monitoring is an essen- to a minimum, consisting of a main cabin/ tial part of assessing and evaluating whether wash house, two sleeping cabins, an out- management principles and operational house, and high-storage cache (Figure 7). procedures are being effectively implement- Built and owned by the Yukon government, ed. Three years of research were undertak- these facilities support several activities, en by a graduate student from Simon Fraser including (1) year-round management op- University before viewing operations start- erations, (2) commercial bear viewing in the

Figure 7. The Yukon Parks’ ranger station is leased for two months annually under a park use permit to a private sector–First Nation joint venture to provide grizzly bear-viewing activities according to a human–bear risk management plan. © 2008 Fritz Mueller, all rights reserved. Used by permission of the photographer.

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 59 fall under lease to an operator, and (3) non- recorded as legal terms and conditions of commercial activity at other times of the the activity permit. The permit was issued year that supports research, monitoring, to the joint venture to allow trial operations and public education. to start in September 2006. Bear-hunting prohibition. In order to protect the bear population in the ecologi- Partnerships leading to commercial cal reserve and settlement lands, no resident bear viewing or non-resident non-aboriginal harvesting Table 1 summarizes the key steps and is permitted. While having the right to hunt, partnerships leading to the creation of bear- the First Nation has voluntarily closed the viewing operations at Fishing Branch Pro- area to bear and moose hunting by its peo- tected Area. This process started in 1995 ple. with the settlement of the Vuntut Gwitchin In addition to the required steps iden- Land Claim Agreement and continued to tified in the management plan, a number of September 2006 when trial operations other initiatives were undertaken prior to started. Throughout the process, the part- viewing operations starting, as follows: ners, including the First Nation and Yukon Commercial joint venture. To effec- governments, Simon Fraser University, and tively and safely provide bear-viewing the professional bear consultant and experi- opportunities, a First Nation–private sector enced bear-viewing guide mentioned joint venture, Bear Cave Mountain Eco- above, were able to learn about the initiative Adventures, was created. This joint venture in depth and share the experience of work- is managed by a bear-viewing guide with ing together towards a common goal. over 20 years of experience and who is Critical factors in the development of familiar with area. He has partnered with this activity hinged around the nature of the Vuntut Gwitchin Development Corpor- bear behavior, the careful planning and con- ation, the business arm of the First Nation. struction of facilities, and controlling Bear-viewing plan. A commercial human activity. The protected area and risk bear-viewing plan was developed by the management plans provided the steps to joint venture to demonstrate how the busi- prepare for the operation. Outside expertise ness would start the trial operation and then to complete these steps was critical in the continue into full operations in the future. process. Analyzing the experience of similar This plan is closely linked to the opera- activities elsewhere was valuable. Facility tional and emergency procedures described development demanded careful planning in the bear–human risk management plan. and sensitive construction practices and Use permit. Under the Parks and Cer- scheduling. Similarly, the comprehensive tainty Act, Yukon Parks regulates activities bear–human risk management plan was and development in territorial parks essential to achieving a level of confidence through the issuance of permits. To prepare in the bear-viewing plan and to providing for this, the Yukon Department of Justice definite guidelines for visitor operations. undertook a thorough review of the Monitoring the activity will be equally criti- bear–human risk management plan. As a cal in addressing operational concerns and matter of due diligence, the review ensured issues at all stages to ensure visitor safety that all requirements of the plan were and protection of the bears. 60 The George Wright Forum Table 1. Activities and partnerships leading to commercial bear viewing at Fishing Branch Protected Area. Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 61 Comparative analysis of viewing sites Branch is one of only three sites where bear in Alaska, British Columbia, and Yukon viewing was the primary and original In order to compare the management designed use of the site when established. controls and safeguards developed for the Bear viewing evolved over time in about half Fishing Branch operations, 13 other bear- of the other sites. viewing sites in Alaska and British Managing agencies. All sites are either Columbia were assessed. The work was managed by federal, provincial, state, or ter- prepared as part of the bear-monitoring ritorial agencies. Fishing Branch is one of benchmark and protocol development four that also includes a First Nation in research undertaken by Simon Fraser Uni- cooperatively managing the site, and is one versity. Only sites where the primary activi- of two sites where First Nations’ lands are ty is bear viewing related to spawning used in the viewing operation. As noted salmon were considered. Both viewing site above, the commercial viewing operation is conditions and management regimes were jointly owned by a First Nation develop- compared. ment corporation and a qualified bear-view- The results showed the following simi- ing guide. larities and differences between Fishing Access rules.Almost all 14 sites, includ- Branch and the other sites, using 14 differ- ing Fishing Branch, have rules and regula- ent characteristics: tions controlling visitor movements when Accessibility. Along with one other on site. Fishing Branch is one of only four site in British Columbia, Fishing Branch is sites that strictly controls visitor access and the most difficult and expensive to access, requires viewers to be accompanied by a as visitors can only arrive by expensive guide at all times. charter helicopter. Most of the other sites Viewing regulations. Daily visitor lim- are accessible by float plane or boat. Only its vary among the 14 sites, from a minimum two can be reached by road. of four to a maximum of 64, with Fishing Infrastructure. Viewing and lodging Branch along with one other British Col- infrastructure, as well as physical barriers to umbia site having the lowest. Six sites have reduce bear–human interactions, were com- no daily limits at all. Four provide only day- pared. About half the sites have all three viewing opportunities, with others being forms of infrastructure. The other half oper- multi-day, including Fishing Branch. Three ate on a day-use basis without lodgings. At have a permit reservation system to control Fishing Branch, viewing is conducted pri- visitor numbers, while five self-manage, marily from riverbanks without physical including Fishing Branch, which is permit- barriers, with modest visitor infrastructure. ted under strict operating conditions, Agency staff/qualified guides. Only including those governing visitor numbers. two of the 14 sites have no agency staff to Half the sites have daily viewing schedules, orient or guide visitors and have no require- while the others, including Fishing Branch, ment for visitors to use viewing guides. allow viewing only during daylight hours. Fishing Branch has no agency staff on site, User fees. The six sites that have a but is one of five sites that requires the use daily user fee charge between CDN$10.00 of a qualified bear viewing guide. and $87.50. Fishing Branch is among the Bear viewing as primary use. Fishing eight sites that do not charge a daily user fee 62 The George Wright Forum per se. However, the all-inclusive commer- measure the impact of viewing on bear cial guiding fee for Fishing Branch is high, behavior. The Fishing Branch program is at about $1,500 per day per client. A based on three years of bear behavior $1,500 lease fee is paid by the commercial research that led to the development of a operator for the eight-week use of park facil- data collection protocol, which the guide ities. uses during viewing operations. Education/safety/interpretive pro- Emergency procedures. Eight of the grams. Only one of the 14 sites provides no 14 sites have established procedures to prior or onsite education, safety, or inter- respond to a bear mauling, including victim pretive information programming. The assistance procedures, information record- other sites, including Fishing Branch, pro- ing, communications/notification proto- vide safety information that generally cols, and post-incident reporting. Being encompasses viewer movement and behav- isolated with only one guide, Fishing ior, including encounter response and food Branch viewers are made aware of emer- storage and disposal. Information provided gency procedures and have quick access to at Fishing Branch by the guide also a detailed onsite response manual and satel- includes how to respond to emergencies, lite phone/ HF radio. viewer obligations and camp duties, and, as Other permitted activities. Only five an ecotourism operation, extensive natural sites, including Fishing Branch, prohibit history of the bears, salmon, and other other uses, such as angling and sport and species, as well as cultural history of the subsistence bear hunting. Three sites allow area and First Nations. only angling. Four allow both sport and Viewing distances. Five sites have subsistence bear hunting. The size of bear stipulated minimum viewing distances, hunting closure areas vary from 4 to 14,000 which vary from 3 to 100 m, with the aver- km2. For Fishing Branch, the mandatory age being 30–50 m. Five sites, including closure area is 300 km2 around the immedi- Fishing Branch, have variable distances ate viewing site, and is voluntary in an addi- established by the guide dependent on the tional surrounding 6,000 km2. tolerance of individual bears—which, among other factors, is determined by view- Overall comparative summary er numbers. Compared with 13 other sites, Fishing Habituation. The Fishing Branch is Branch is one of the two smallest, with one of seven sites that uses bear habituation remote operations that provide highly con- (i.e., getting bears used to people, not food trolled viewing conditions through the conditioning) as a means to improve view- mandatory use of a qualified bear-viewing ing quality and bear–human safety. Five of guide at a relatively high (4:1) viewer-to- those seven sites, including Fishing Branch, guide ratio. This allows variable viewing use qualified viewing guides to undertake distances without physical barriers, as the habituation. Seven sites do not have an guide can identify individual bears and is active habituation program. familiar with their tolerance to viewers. As a Monitoring program. Only five of the relatively new, government–First Nation co- fourteen sites, including Fishing Branch, managed protected area, comprehensive have ongoing monitoring programs to pre-operational planning was possible, and Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 63 focused on preparing exclusively for bear- activity such as bear viewing was essential viewing activities. These preparations and used throughout the preparation of included (1) developing a bear–human risk both management plans. In the absence of management plan, (2) undertaking bear fully knowing all implications, the precau- behavior research and creating a monitor- tionary principle was used by initially set- ing program, and (3) approving a detailed ting restrictive use limits and conditions. commercial bear-viewing plan. Be comprehensive and patient. All that needed to be done was completed prior Conclusion: Lessons learned related to to starting operations, even as pressure planning for commercial bear viewing mounted to start earlier when wilderness The 10-year process leading up to tour operators and photographers wanted commercial bear viewing at Fishing Branch to view bears before the planning was com- demonstrated a number of important les- plete. The viewing operations will be sons learned: phased in slowly. This will allow operating Establish protected areas through and marketing programs to be tested and land claims. Settled land claims provided adjusted if necessary. the legislative means to establish the pro- Build capacity through joint ven- tected area, which included the contribu- tures. The commercial joint venture with tion of First Nation-owned lands, a first in the viewing guide and the First Nation conservation in Canada, if not North Amer- development corporation was encouraged ica. This provided an equal partnership and provided the expertise needed for safe between the territorial and First Nation gov- operations. The joint venture also will pro- ernments. vide the training and experience necessary Develop management plans with for the First Nation to eventually assume First Nations. The joint development of control of the operation. the management plan ensured First Nations’ Integrate planning and operations. participation in determining the objectives Activities leading up to viewing operations for the protected area, which included com- were interrelated and nested together. This mercial viewing as a means to both protect approached ensured that human–bear risk the bear and provide visitors safe viewing management plan reflected the objectives of opportunities. the overall management plan; that the bear- Cooperate and partner early. Taking a viewing plan reflected the operating condi- cooperative, shared approach to planning tions of the risk management plan; and that and management was fundamental to suc- the terms and conditions of the activity per- cess. Working with other key players (i.e., mit reflected the requirements of the risk the Vuntut Gwitchin Development Corpor- management plan. ation, the bear-viewing guide, Simon Fraser Involve legal counsel. Legal counsel University, and the consulting bear expert) was involved in preparing the activity per- early on, and continuously throughout all mit to ensure a degree of due diligence by stages of planning and operating, was cru- demonstrating that all reasonable steps cial. were taken to minimize the risk related to Apply the precautionary principle. A the operation. The exact operating proce- measured, conservative approach to an dures and protocols contained in the risk 64 The George Wright Forum management plan were used as the terms the joint venture in the fall and are used for and conditions of the activity permit to ranger operations and research for the rest ensure consistency and clarity. of the year. Government ownership ensures Government-owned facilities. The control over the facilities and, if required, facilities were built and are owned by the makes it simpler for Yukon Parks to cancel Yukon government. They were kept to a or not renew the activity permit for non- minimum and are leased for bear viewing to compliance. Acknowledgments Special thanks goes to Shelley Marshall, Master’s candidate, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, for her bear-behavior monitoring research, which included a thorough comparison of the Fishing Branch bear-viewing operation with 13 others in Alaska and northern British Columbia.Also,thanks go to Phil Timpany, operations manager and bear-viewing guide, Bear Cave Mountain Eco-Adventures, and film- maker Wildman Productions for taking and assembling the incredible bear and salmon video footage for presentation at the George Wright Society Meeting in 2007.

Editor’s note: The name “Gwitchin” is rendered several ways in English: Gwichin, Gwich’in, and Gwitch’in, among others. We have adopted the spelling used on the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation government website, www.vgfn.ca.

References Marshall, S. 2007. Comparative analysis of bear viewing sites in Alaska, British Columbia and Yukon. Unpublished report. Burnaby, B.C.: Simon Fraser University. Timpany, P. 2005. Fishing Branch Wildlife Viewing Plan. Whitehorse: Yukon Parks and Bear Cave Mountain Eco-Adventures. Yukon Department of Environment (Yukon Parks). 2000. Ni’iinlii Njik (Fishing Branch) Ecological Reserve and Settlement Reserve and Settlement Land R-5A & S-3A1 Manage- ment Plan. Whitehorse: Yukon Parks. ———. 2004. Ni’iinlii Njik (Fishing Branch) Wilderness Preserve and Habitat Protection Area Management Plan. Whitehorse: Yukon Parks. ———. 2006. Ni’iinlii Njik (Fishing Branch) Ecological Reserve and Settlement Land R-5A & S-3A1 Bear–Human Risk Management Plan. Whitehorse: Yukon Parks.

Erik Val, Yukon Parks, P.O. Box 2703, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory Y1A 2C6, Canada; [email protected]

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 65 Climate Change and Cultural Heritage  . ,  

Climate Change and Cultural Heritage: Local Evidence, Global Responses

Michelle L. Berenfeld

RECOGNIZING THE URGENT THREATS TO BOTH NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES posed by global climate change, the World Monuments Fund (WMF) organized a panel discussion at the 2007 George Wright Society Conference that gathered professionals in the fields of historic preservation, nature conservation, and green building and asked them to examine how these disciplines could collaborate to develop strategies both for adapting to those impacts and mitigating those threats by sustaining built and natural environments.1 WMF is a non-profit organization sionals in the field. From these nomina- based in New York City that works to pro- tions, a panel of international experts—con- tect and preserve cultural heritage sites vened by, but independent of, WMF— around the world—sites of all types and selects a group of 100 sites that present a from all periods. Setting an agenda for pro- snapshot of the state of global cultural her- tecting cultural heritage at that scale is a itage at a given time. Through the Watch challenge, and in 1996, WMF launched a List, WMF calls attention to and attracts program that would allow it to gain the support for not only 100 individual places, information it needed to see that larger pic- but also key issues in the field. In the past, ture—the World Monuments Watch List of major themes of the list have included 100 Most Endangered Sites.2 The Watch issues such as conservation challenges in List has since become the main tool WMF the developing world, threats to cultural uses to learn about the dangers posed to heritage in areas of armed conflict, and the cultural heritage sites around the world. To challenges of preserving Modern architec- create the list, every two years WMF solicits ture. In addressing these challenges, WMF nominations from governments, non-gov- has been able to draw on established meth- ernmental organizations (NGOs), universi- ods of the field of historic preservation. ties, grassroots organizations, and profes- While each project and program presents 66 The George Wright Forum Climate Change and Cultural Heritage unique challenges, for the most part they provide substantial, and thus far largely can be addressed using familiar tools. unexamined, information about how and In 2008, however, the Watch List pre- why the built environment survives or does- sented WMF with a challenge that promis- n’t over the long term. Therefore, in addi- es to change the way preservationists will tion to developing new strategies for adapt- have to think about what we do: global cli- ing and responding to climate change mate change. Although the specific threats threats, the field of historic preservation posed by climate change are familiar (water, must also focus attention on helping to con- bugs, soil erosion, etc.), and while politics vince the public to act to stop global warm- and economics have always affected cultur- ing by raising awareness of the threats al heritage conservation, climate change will posed to treasured monuments and historic expand and exacerbate those known chal- places. lenges. More important, however, is that cli- The 2008 World Monuments Watch mate change is not just a historic preserva- List demonstrates that climate change tion problem; it is perhaps the most far- impacts are already being felt today at cul- reaching and wide-ranging problem of our tural heritage sites around the world. These time and will affect every sector of human sites are only the canaries in the coal mine, life for years to come. It is for this reason however, and many more sites and cities that historic preservationists cannot afford around the world are vulnerable. Predict- to work in a vacuum, and to focus only on ably, rising sea levels pose a substantial our specific concerns. At the same time, problem. A large portion of the world’s there are ways that the field of historic population lives now and has always lived preservation can make a positive difference along the coasts and in cities built along in the world’s response to climate change, major rivers, and so with them are many of but in order to be effective, we must rethink the world’s cultural sites and historic cities. our methods—both in how we work and In addition to rising sea levels, changing how we explain our work to the public. weather patterns will also cause substantial Environmental threats—both natural damage to historic buildings. Designed to and human-made—have long threatened withstand one set of environmental condi- cultural sites. Monuments that have stood tions, many historic structures will have to on the Earth for centuries—enduring sym- be adapted to survive as those conditions bols such as the Great Wall of China or the change. For instance, places that were once aqueducts of the Roman empire—have dry will be wet, and vice versa; rising tem- always suffered from exposure to wind and peratures will pose threats to wooden build- rain, and plain old age, and in the last centu- ings in northern regions as termites and ry especially, new factors such as pollution other pests are able survive at higher lati- and other human-made environmental fac- tudes. As we consider global predictions tors have taken their toll. Addressing these about climate change impacts, it is clear that problems has been difficult, but it has also sites on every continent are in danger—from given preservationists experience—the ancient sites in Peru threatened by melting experience needed to address the larger- glaciers to whole swaths of the Pacific Rim scale versions of these threats that come that will be under water, and everything in with climate change. Historic buildings also between. Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 67 Climate Change and Cultural Heritage

Evidence nomination from going forward.5 The Yu- In examining cultural heritage sites on kon government and the Yukon Historical the 2008 Watch List that are threatened by and Museums Association (YHMA) have the impacts of climate change, the most des- been working to protect the cultural her- perate case seems to be Herschel Island, in itage of Herschel Island, taking measures the Canadian Yukon. Located on the Beau- such as moving historic buildings back fort Sea near the border between Alaska from the coastline and carrying out salvage and Canada, Herschel Island is in the excavations. The nomination to the 2008 fastest-warming part of the world (Figure 1, Watch List, however, stated that previously no. 1).3 It is home to a historic whaling town established strategies would have to be founded in the 19th century and an ancient adapted given the urgency and irreversible Inuit site that was settled some 1,000 years nature of the threats posed to the site by cli- ago (Figure 2).4 The warming of the ocean mate change. The caretakers of Herschel and the melting of sea ice in this region have Island are now focused almost entirely on caused increasingly severe storms and sea- salvage measures and documentation of the level rise, and, with them, coastal erosion. site so that some record of its history will be Rising waters are overtaking land once preserved for the future. They are undertak- occupied by the historic wooden buildings ing scientific documentation of the build- of the whaling village. Melting permafrost is ings and sites and a documentary film proj- causing ground slumping, which is destroy- ect is being developed to record the culture ing archeological remains and burials that and traditions of the place.6 are being revealed by melting and retreating There are many more sites farther soil. south that are not so far along as Herschel Herschel Island is currently included Island, but which face similar challenges or on Canada’s World Heritage Tentative List, will soon. The problems of warming seas which is the precursor to nomination to the and the resulting more-violent storms are UNESCO World Heritage List, but the on- expected to threaten many coastal towns going losses at the site could prevent that and sites in northern Europe, for instance.

Figure 1. Map showing locations of cultural heritage sites impacted by climate change. Numbers are referenced in the text. Source: World Monuments Fund.

68 The George Wright Forum Climate Change and Cultural Heritage

Figure 2. View of the historic settlement of Herschel Island, Canada. Photo courtesy of World Monu- ments Fund.

In Norway, a picturesque fishing village at have appealed to the local community to Sandviken Bay (a 2006 Watch Site), near help them record them before they are Bergen, is located in an area that is predict- gone.9 ed to experience increasingly violent seas At the other end of the Earth, in Ant- and winds (Figure 1, no. 2).7 Melting per- arctica, the bases built by the early explor- mafrost is a growing problem in northern ers of the continent remain exactly as they latitudes, and many large cities and towns were left at the beginning of the last century, are vulnerable as the ground beneath them complete with jars of mustard on pantry shifts and melts.8 Even in more temperate shelves and socks hanging on laundry lines climes, some of Europe’s oldest and most (Figure 3). These explorers’ huts are time revered sites are threatened by rising seas capsules of another age, filled with undilut- and coastal erosion. On the Outer Hebrides ed information about the lives of the men of Scotland, for instance, the archeological who built them and the adventures they remains of Norse settlements from the had. In the winter of 2007, the hut of Middle Ages are quickly disappearing as a Captain Robert Falcon Scott was bombard- result of eroding coastlines. In Baleshare, ed with more than 100 tons of snow over the problem is so acute that archeologists the course of a few months, far more than

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 69 Climate Change and Cultural Heritage

Figure 3. Interior view of Ernest Shackleton’s hut, Antarctica. Photo courtesy of World Mon- uments Fund. had previously been recorded, thought by some to be caused by warming temperatures. Interestingly, our knowledge of historic levels of precipitation is based in part on the records that the original explorers kept. They were interested in climate science and recorded some of the first scientific data on climate fluctuations in Antarctica— information that is used to track climate change today. The inclusion of the explorers’ huts on the 2008 Watch List was met with skepticism from some members of the public, and WMF was contacted by one scientist who pointed out that the increased snowfall might have been caused by factors other than global warming.10 On the other hand, we also heard objections based on the idea that shifts between wet and dry and hot and cold Antarctica was not melting “that fast,” i.e., across the Sahel and in other parts of Africa that it would be at least 50 years until sub- are also wreaking havoc on agriculture and stantial portions of the land ice on the con- people, as well as cultural heritage. tinent would melt. As the caretakers of sites The Chinguetti Mosque, in Mauritania, that are hundreds, if not thousands of years was founded in the 9th century and was old, preservationists must view a threat of once a stop on the caravan trade route loss in fifty years as imminent. Indeed, the through Africa (Figure 1, no. 3; Figure 4). It fact that we can point to changes that are was also an important center of Islam, and rooted in the time scale of human history today a major collection of medieval Islamic may be our most effective strategy in sup- manuscripts is housed there. A World Heri- porting public action to halt climate change. tage site that was first included on the Not all climate change threats are about Watch List in 2006, the Chinguetti Mosque ice and snow and water lines. In Africa, is now threatened by desertification, which huge areas of the content, and particularly brings with it not just encroaching sands the wide strip of land known as the Sahel, that cover and erode building material, but are experiencing drought and desertifica- also the danger of flash flooding.12 When tion, and when it does rain, it often rains heavy rain falls in these areas, the dry earth more intensely.11 Increasingly dramatic and sand cannot absorb water quickly

70 The George Wright Forum Climate Change and Cultural Heritage

Figure 4. Chinguetti Mosque, Mauritania. Photo courtesy of World Monuments Fund. enough and it rushes through the site and and increasingly dramatic temperature fluc- into buildings, causing dangerous condi- tuations in recent years (Figure 1, no. 4; tions as well as damage.13 Figure 5). The sharp changes in tempera- Also in West Africa, another World ture and humidity have caused many of the Heritage site, known as the megalithic cir- stones to crack, but more damaging for this cles of Senegal and Gambia, is also threat- unique landscape is soil erosion. Drought ened by drought and dramatic wet–dry has caused a substantial loss of vegetation cycles. The vast area covered by these and, with it, soil erosion, which is exacer- remarkable assemblages has suffered drought bated when it does rain. The significance

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 71 Climate Change and Cultural Heritage

Figure 5. Megalithic circles in Senegal. Photo courtesy of World Monuments Fund. and grandeur of the megalithic circles, like short, but heavy, downpours that the tradi- those of Stonehenge and other Neolithic tional mud structures are simply not sites around the world, depends in large equipped to withstand.14 In the longer term, part on their arrangement within the land- these temples and towns are also threatened scape. As the soil beneath them weakens by melting glaciers of the Himalayas, which and moves, however, stones topple over— will themselves cause flooding through leaving piles of rocks, in essence—and runoff and glacial lakes bursting their destroying much of the meaning and visual banks. The experience of getting to these impact of the monuments. buildings, along with their setting in the In the Himalayan region of northern natural landscape, are closely tied to their India, traditional temples and towns appear significance and purpose. As we think as simple mud and wood structures set in a about how to preserve the cultural heritage spectacular landscape (Figure 1, no. 5; Fig- of this region, it is important to consider ure 6). Inside, these apparently humble this context. If we wait too long to act, we buildings have beautiful and complex int- may be forced to take emergency measures eriors, decorated with elaborate paintings that will have a dramatic effect on this con- and brightly colored sculpture (Figure 7). A text—such as the construction of incongru- traditionally arid climate, this region used ous shelters or the extraction of precious to experience rain largely as light sprinkles, interior paintings and sculpture for their but in recent years the area has experienced protection or dispersal to museums. These 72 The George Wright Forum Climate Change and Cultural Heritage

Figure 6 (above). General view of the town of Leh, India. Figure 7 (right). Interior decoration at the Sumda Chunn temple in Ladakh, India. Photos courtesy of World Monuments Fund. sorts of salvage responses will dramatically alter these sites, and the meaning for the people who built and use them, and to those who journey to see them, would be lost. In another part of Indian subcontinent, the low-lying nation of Bangladesh has always struggled with flooding. The historic city of Sonargaon, which contains thousands of extraordinary and elaborate buildings constructed by aristocrats and kings in the Middle Ages (Figure 1, no. 6; Figure 8), has been deteriorating for years because of neglect and lack of resources, but this deterioration is also exacerbated by ing seas. Bangladesh is also one of the most flooding caused by the loss of natural barri- vulnerable countries in the world when it ers—such as mangrove forests—and by ris- comes to climate change, both as a result of Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 73 Climate Change and Cultural Heritage

Figure 8. A flooded historic building in Sonargaon, Bangladesh. Photo courtesy of World Monuments Fund. its geography and its economic status. Even Earth warms—it is also an example of how conservative estimates of future sea level cultural heritage can and will be lost in rise would result in flooding that would dis- those disasters if we don’t prepare for them, place tens of millions of people in Bangla- and, how deeply that loss will be felt. desh.15 Flooding on this scale, combined Thousands of the distinctive houses of New with the poverty and lack of infrastructure Orleans were damaged by Hurricane Katri- in this densely populated country, will na, but many more have been destroyed cause a humanitarian crisis of enormous since the storm through short-sighted dem- proportions, and by that point, the protec- olition in the effort to clean up. Now, a sub- tion of cultural heritage sites may no longer stantial part of the fabric of the city—its be feasible. character and history and one of the reasons As we consider these issues, we need people want to go there—has been lost. only look to Louisiana for an example of Now that the disaster has passed, the peo- such a scenario. New Orleans, which is ple who lived in New Orleans before the home to one of the largest collections of his- storm want to return to their brightly col- toric buildings in the country, presents a ored shotgun houses and Creole cottages. case study (Figure 1, no. 7). New Orleans is In addition, the distinctive built environ- not only a cautionary tale of natural disas- ment is a key attraction for visitors, whose ters waiting to happen—and possibly more funds fuel an important economic engine of frequently and with greater severity as the the city. 74 The George Wright Forum Climate Change and Cultural Heritage

The historic buildings of New Orleans ists—and natural conservationists—must are not simply charming for tourists and think differently and work together in new residents, however; they are also practical ways. architectural responses to the climate—built This presents a number of challenges, up on piers in case of floods (of normal lev- but it is clear from some examples of how els), constructed out of cypress wood that we are working today that new approaches comes from the nearby swamps and is more are necessary.One such example is the con- resistant to damage caused by humidity,and servation project now under way at Fort made with high ceilings and windows that Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas (Figure 1, no. provide cross breezes in hot weather. 8). Constructed on a spit of land off the Tearing down and replacing these houses southern tip of Florida and part of Dry with buildings that could be constructed Tortugas National Park, Fort Jefferson is the anywhere not only destroys the character of object of a multi-year, multi-million-dollar the city and its history, but is also bad envi- conservation effort led by the National Park ronmental strategy. Service.16 Fort Jefferson is endangered by exposure to salt air, rusting internal metal Responses structures, and the eroding ground on A key challenge of addressing the which it was built. This building is one of threats posed by climate change is how to many coastal historic sites in the U.S. that convince people to act collectively towards are threatened by rising sea levels and other a common goal and to do so without the threats posed by climate change, and promise of immediate or visible results. although many sites may be protected from Indeed, if effective, much of the action those threats through thoughtful conserva- required to halt global warming will have tion and maintenance, it is important that little or no discernible effect for most peo- we consider the question of how to allocate ple, as the goal of these actions is in large resources for these efforts. Predictions part to prevent change. Convincing people about climate change impacts would seem to radically change their behavior in order to indicate that Fort Jefferson is likely both to maintain the status quo is an exceedingly to experience significant further damage as difficult task. a result of increasingly severe hurricanes Climate change is a global threat, but and storms, and, by the end of the century, preservation, like politics, is local. Most of to be frequently flooded if not largely under the work of historic preservation is done on water.17 With sites like this in mind, the the state, city, or even neighborhood level, question of allocating resources must be and it has long been difficult to coordinate expanded to consider new factors. For efforts on a wider scale—to agree on priori- instance, New Orleans is a city of hundreds ties, and to make collective decisions about of thousands of people that is also in danger what to spend our money and time on, and and already suffering, and many more his- on what to save and what to sacrifice. In toric places where people live and visit order to effectively prepare for and adapt to around the country and the world, and the impacts of climate change and to use which could arguably be considered more historic preservation as a means for mitiga- important to human history,are also vulner- tion of its effects, however, preservation- able. In addition to historical significance, Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 75 Climate Change and Cultural Heritage the cultural heritage community’s response need to stop trying to shore up doomed to climate change must take into account places and start documenting them now, or how historic sites contribute to or are part else we will lose them from history forever. of the human habitat, and how protecting For those sites that must be saved at all them may support efforts to adapt to and costs, we have to start thinking about this mitigate climate change threats overall. This now, and try to build some kind of consen- includes incorporating historic sites into sus about what places humanity simply can- sustainable development and economic not live without—and for which we are will- planning. This is particularly important as ing to take heroic measures to protect. we consider the potential impacts on major These sorts of heroic measures have been cities such as London and New York. In taken before, but they are expensive and can London, the Thames Barrier already works be controversial. A few decades ago, with to keep that river from overflowing its banks the construction of the Aswan Dam in and flooding the city—and there are con- southern Egypt, many ancient monuments cerns about how long it will continue to be were going to be flooded and the world able to do so.18 In New York, much of the decided that it was worth it to literally move city was built on reclaimed land, and dense- mountains to save the great temple of Abu ly populated areas—not to mention interna- Simbel, built by the pharaoh Ramses in the tional airports that move millions of people second millennium BC. The temple at Abu and tons of goods each day—already are at Simbel was originally sited on a spot along or close to sea level. These and other cities the Nile meant to impress Nubians sailing all contain historic sites that are threatened up to Egypt. Toprotect it from flooding that by climate change, and which will only would come with the construction of the become more vulnerable as humanitarian Aswan Dam, the temple was moved to and economic concerns grow more urgent. another site. The imposing royal message to It is time for the cultural heritage com- the Nubians was sacrificed, but Ramses and munity—together with governments, his temple were saved. NGOs, and other stakeholders—to make In Venice, a city that has been strug- some hard decisions. One way to do this gling with water since the day it was built, would be to undertake a sort of “triage” for huge engineering projects to protect the city cultural heritage, in which three main cate- are underway—giant floodgates and break- gories of sites are identified: waters are being built to protect it. How long this will hold off the waters is anyone’s • Sites that are doomed. guess.19 The time is now to begin to identi- • Sites that are so important that we are fy these save-at-all-costs sites around the willing to save them at almost any cost. world and determine which are the most • Sites that could be saved if we plan vulnerable to climate change impacts. ahead and consider climate change in The third category—those sites that conservation efforts. can be protected through strategic planning For those sites that are doomed, we and interventions—is the largest and the must accept these losses rather than invest most complex. It includes the many sites time and money in them. Like the caretak- around the world that require conservation ers of Herschel Island are already doing, we and protection for many of the usual rea- 76 The George Wright Forum Climate Change and Cultural Heritage sons—neglect, lack of resources, exposure, caused by the loss of the natural protective old age—but which will suffer more dramat- barrier along the coast—mangrove forests. ically as a result of climate change. These WMF is working with the Tanzanians to include such places as Kilwa Kisiwani in preserve the Gereza Fort at Kilwa and to Tanzania, where WMF is developing its restore mangrove barriers at the same time. first project that specifically seeks to While this probably won’t save the site for address climate change impacts on a cultur- centuries, WMF chose this project to serve al site by demonstrating new ways to as an example of the new way that we have approach cultural resources within their to think about cultural heritage preserva- natural environments (Figure 1, no. 9). Kil- tion—shoring up the sites of Kilwa without wa is a World Heritage site on the east coast addressing the land beneath them is point- of Tanzania that was occupied from the less. If we can demonstrate successful alter- Middle Ages through the Colonial era. Pre- natives, however, perhaps we will be able to served there are the ruins of early palaces, encourage our colleagues, governments, forts, houses, and a mosque, all set within a and supporters to think this way about picturesque seaside landscape (Figure 9). other places and work with us to make The buildings at Kilwa are deteriorat- smart decisions in the future. ing as a result of coastal erosion and expo- This is just one example of the types of sure to salt air and wind. These problems integrated, multidisciplinary approaches will be exacerbated by global warming and that historic preservationists need to con- rising sea levels, but right now they are also sider and develop. If we want to preserve

Figure 9. The Gereza Fort at Kilwa Kisiwani, Tanzania. Photo courtesy of World Monuments Fund.

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 77 Climate Change and Cultural Heritage our cultural heritage in its natural habitat, develop an integrated approach to preserv- which happens to also be our own, we must ing and sustaining the built and natural approach the work of cultural heritage environments by pooling our resources, preservation from new angles. We have to consolidating our efforts, and sharing our ask ourselves: Do we want to experience the skills and experience to further our shared wonders of the world in the future as their goals. Such an effort would bring together creators did—in the deserts, jungles, plains, the fields of nature conservation, cultural and cities in which they were built—or do heritage preservation, and sustainable we want to consign them to museums and development to develop strategies that will display cases, or risk losing them complete- increase public interest and awareness of ly? The answer for those of us charged with efforts to address climate change threats; preserving cultural and natural heritage is gather and disseminate information about clear, but we have a long way to go to climate change threats to cultural and natu- explain these threats and their conse- ral resources among public and profession- quences to the wider public. als; and undertake projects that demon- An important part of our efforts to strate core principles and strategies. change the way the cultural heritage field as Additionally, on the issue of mitigation well as public policy address the threats of climate change threats, while it is impor- posed by climate change will be specialists’ tant for cultural and natural heritage profes- ability to demonstrate that preserving exist- sionals to set an example by reducing our ing historic buildings is an inherently own carbon footprints, there is much more “green” activity. There is much to learn that we have to contribute. The work of her- from those human-made structures that itage conservation itself can also contribute have survived for generations, including substantially to mitigation efforts. The envi- how to design for repair and maintenance ronmental benefits of preserving historic instead of replacement, how to build struc- buildings are many, including the simple tures that are well-suited to their natural fact of reusing and repairing instead of environment, and how traditional methods replacing existing structures, as well as the and locally available resources can support advantages of using traditional, locally sustainable construction along with eco- sourced materials that are well suited to nomic and community development. local environments and therefore require Effective public education and change fewer resources to heat and cool and main- depends on collaboration. The cultural her- tain. It is also essential that we more system- itage preservation and environmental con- atically integrate natural and cultural her- servation movements share a common mis- itage conservation, that is, undertake proj- sion to protect and sustain existing ects that focus on the conservation of cul- resources; however, there has been limited tural sites along with the natural environ- collaboration between the two disciplines. ment that surrounds them. In short, we The threats posed by global climate change have much to learn, but also much to teach, present us with the need and opportunity to and the time to act is now.

78 The George Wright Forum Climate Change and Cultural Heritage

Endnotes 1. The panelists were Rebecca Beavers, coastal geologist, Geologic Resources Division, Natural Resource Program Center, National Park Service; Dinu Bumbaru, policy director for Heritage Montreal and secretary general of ICOMOS International; and Charles Allen III, assistant director for external relations of the Center for Bioenvironmental Research (CBR), Tulane and Xavier Universities, and president of the Holy Cross Neighborhood Association of New Orleans, Louisiana. The session was organized and chaired by the author. 2. Information about WMF, the Watch program, and individual sites on the list are available at www.wmf.org. 3. IPCC 2007a, 30, 32, Figure 1.2; IPCC 2007e, 620. 4. See Yukon Environment, Herschel Island–Qikiqtaruk Territorial Park Management Plan, 14, 17–18, for a discussion of climate change and other stressors on the site. 5. The Tentative List entry for the site can be found at http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1939/. See also Colette et al. 2007, 58–59. 6. The film is being developed by Fresh from the Yukon, Inc., Productions. 7. For a discussion of climate change impacts and adaptation strategies in Norway, see Sygna et al. 2004. A news story in Oslo last year about a collapse of an unoccupied apartment building cited increasingly severe weather caused by global warming as a factor in its deterioration (Berglund 2007). 8. Anisimov and Reneva 2006, 172 and passim; IPCC 2007d, 486. 9. For information about the shoreline archeology project in Baleshare and other parts of the islands, see www.shorewatch.co.uk/index.htm. 10. WMF is grateful to A.J. Monaghan for the information he provided. For some of his work on the subject, see Monaghan, Bromwich, and Schneider 2008, and Monaghan, Bromwich, Chapman, and Comiso 2008. Analysis of climate change impacts and development of predictions remains a subject of some debate among climate scientists. For an overview of some of the questions that continue to be debated, see IPCC 2077c, 663 and passim. 11. On desertification, erosion, and other soil degradation in West Africa, see Elasha 2006, 7, Figure 2, 19, and 16–17, 19–20 for discussion of changes in rainfall patterns. See also IPCC 2007f, 436, for a brief overview. 12. Cassar et al. 2007, 24, Box 8. 13. A historic example of the dangers of flash flooding to desert sites is the ancient Naba- taean city of Petra, where the Siq—a deep and narrow valley that leads into the city—was outfitted with elaborate water management systems by its ancient residents. In 1963, several tourists were killed as a result of flash flooding in the Siq and Jordanian authorities have since taken steps to prevent flooding. 14. For information about rainfall patterns and variability in this region, see IPCC 2007d, 471–473. 15. IPCC 2007d, 484–485. 16. Information about the restoration project can be downloaded from the NPS website: www.nps.gov/drto/upload/Restoration%20site%20bulletin4.pdf. Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 79 Climate Change and Cultural Heritage

17. IPCC 2007e, 630 and passim. 18. Connor 2008. For a general discussion of threats to London cultural heritage, see Col- ette et al. 2007, 66–69. See also www.environment-agency.gov.uk for information about increased use of the Thames Barrier in recent years and plans for the future. 19. For recent discussions of the barriers project (popularly known as the “Moses” project) to protect Venice, see Merali 2002; Cocks 2005–2006, 23–27; and Jamiolkowski and Ulam 2005–2006, 28–29. For a case study on Venice by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, see Colette et al. 2007, 70–71.

References Anisimov,O., and S. Reneva. 2006. Permafrost and changing climate: The Russian perspective. Ambio 35, 169–175. Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies and International Institute for Environment and Development. 2002. Summary Report of Roundtable Discussion on Climate Change and Bangladesh: The Way Forward. Online at www.ben-center.org/ClimateChange- BCAS.htm. Berglund, N. 2007. Climate change contributed to building’s collapse. Oslo: Aftenposten Multimedia A/S, 9 January. Cassar, M., et al. 2007. Climate Change and World Heritage: Report on Predicting and Man- aging Impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage and Strategy to Assist States Parties to Implement Appropriate Management Responses. A. Colette, ed. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Cocks, A.S. 2005–2006. The science of saving Venice. ICON (winter 2005/2006), 23–27. [Published by World Monuments Fund.] Colette, A. et al. 2007. Case Studies on Climate Change and World Heritage. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, 2007. Connor, S. 2008. Sea levels rising too fast for Thames Barrier. The Independent, 22 March. Elasha, B.O., et al. 2006. Background paper on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Africa. Prepared for the African Workshop on Adaptation, Implementa- tion of Decision 1/CP.10 of the UNFCCC Convention. Accra, Ghana, 21–23 Septem- ber, 1–54. Held, B.W., et al. 2005. Environmental factors influencing microbial growth inside the historic expedition huts of Ross Island, Antarctica. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 55, 45–53. IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. 2007a. (Core Writing Team; R.K. Pachauri and A. Reisinger, eds.) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment, Report of the Intergovern- mental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC. ———. 2007b. (J. Alcamo, J.M. Moreno, B. Nováky,M. Bindi, R. Corobov,R.J.N. Devoy,C. Giannakopoulos, E. Martin, J.E. Olesen, and A. Shvidenko.) Europe. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

80 The George Wright Forum Climate Change and Cultural Heritage

M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, eds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 541–580. ———. 2007c. (O.A. Anisimov,D.G. Vaughan,T.V.Callaghan, C. Furgal, H. Marchant, T.D. Prowse, H. Vilhjálmsson, and J.E. Walsh.) Polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic). In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M.L. Parry,O.F.Canziani, J.P.Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, eds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 653–685. ———. 2007d. (R.V. Cruz, H. Harasawa, M. Lal, S. Wu, Y. Anokhin, B. Punsalmaa, Y. Hon- da, M. Jafari, C. Li, and N. Huu Ninh.) Asia. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adapta- tion and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P.Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, eds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 469–506. ———. 2007e. (C.B. Field, L.D. Mortsch, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running, and M.J. Scott.) North America. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assess- ment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M.L. Parry,O.F. Can- ziani, J.P.Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, eds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cam- bridge University Press, 617–652. ———. 2007f. (M. Bok, I. Niang, A. Nyong, C. Vogel, A. Githeko, M. Medany, B. Osman- Elasha, R. Tabo, and P. Yanda.) Africa. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Pal- utikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, eds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 433–467. Jamiolkowski, M., with A. Ulam. 2005–2006. The MOSE Gates. ICON (winter 2005–2006), 28–29. [Published by World Monuments Fund.] Merali, Z. 2002. Saving Venice: An ambitious plan seeks to prevent a modern Atlantis. Scientific American. 19 August. Michener, W.K., et al. 1997. Climate change, hurricanes and tropical storms, and rising sea level in coastal wetlands. Ecological Applications 7:3, 770–801. Ministry of Energy and Minerals, Tanzania. 1999. Climate Change Mitigation in Southern Africa: Tanzania Country Study. The Centre for Energy, Environment, Science and Technology. Online at http://uneprisoe.org/EconomicsGHG/Tanzania.pdf. Monaghan, A.J., D.H. Bromwich, and D.P.Schneider. 2008. Twentieth-century Antarctic air temperature and snowfall simulations by IPCC climate models. Geophysical Research Letters 35. Monaghan, A.J., D.H. Bromwich, W. Chapman, and J.C. Comiso. 2008. Recent variability and trends of Antarctic near-surface temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research 113. Sygna, L., S. Eriksen, K. O’Brien, and L.O. Næss. 2004. Climate Change in Norway: Analy- sis of Economic and Social Impacts and Adaptations. Oslo: CICERO Center for Inter-

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 81 Climate Change and Cultural Heritage

national Climate and Environmental Research. Yukon Environment. 2006. Herschel Island–Qikiqtaruk, Territorial Management Plan. On- line at www.environmentyukon.gov.yk.ca/pdf/Final_version.pdf.

Michelle L.Berenfeld (Brown University; formerly of World Monuments Fund), 490 Angell Street, Apartment 216F, Providence, Rhode Island 02906; [email protected]

82 The George Wright Forum Sustain the 9!: Greening of the Holy Cross/Lower 9th Community

Charles E. Allen III

Introduction THE LOWER 9TH WARD, JUST AS MUCH OF NEW ORLEANS BEFORE HURRICANE KATRINA, has been a community with poor energy efficiency and limited investment in environmental sustainable architecture and infrastructure. Residents of the Holy Cross/Lower 9th ward pay high utility bills for homes that are not properly weatherized or insulated. Residential construction investments during the post-Katrina recovery period have brought about an unprecedented opportunity to increase the awareness of area residents as to what it means to be energy efficient and sustainable. City-mandated, neighborhood-level strategic planning in the Holy Cross/Lower 9th community has increased residents’ desires to understand more about what these concepts mean. And, as we undertake this project, we will explore how other communities have prepared more effectively for future environmental shocks as part of an overall comparative recovery analysis (Campanella et al. 2004). At the center of this activity has been CBR is a research and training partner- the Holy Cross Neighborhood Association ship between Tulane and Xavier universi- (HCNA) of the Holy Cross neighborhood ties. Its mission is to conduct and coordi- of the Lower 9th ward. It has been joined by nate interdisciplinary research and learning its principal academic partner, the Tulane/ to enhance global understanding of envi- Xavier Center for Bioenvironmental Re- ronmental issues, provide solutions search (CBR). through innovative applications and com- HCNA is your all-American neighbor- munication, and inform policy and prac- hood organization of the Holy Cross neigh- tice. borhood of New Orleans. Founded in Another premier partner in the Holy 1981, HCNA’s mission is to improve the Cross/Lower 9th post-Katrina recovery has living conditions and serve the needs of its been the World Monuments Fund (WMF). residents, preserve cultural and architectur- WMF’s support has come in the form of al heritage, serve as a clearinghouse for actual financial contributions and volunteer information, and actively represent the effort, as well as recently listing the Holy interests of the neighborhood in dealings Cross Historic District, along with all of with city, state, and federal agencies, private New Orleans’ historic neighborhoods, on businesses, community organizations, and WMF’s 2008 Watch List of 100 Most En- individuals, for the purpose of improving dangered Sites. Through this list, WMF the community. calls attention to and helps attract addition- Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 83 Climate Change and Cultural Heritage al support for this local community as it fur- returning Lower 9th residents with re- ther works to recover itself in a green sus- sources and training on rebuilding their tainable manner. homes energy efficiently through community bulk purchasing, enabling acquisition of Sustainable planning low- or no-cost rebuilding materials for res- From February to June 2006, with the idents. help of CBR staff and supported by funding An ultimate intent of this project is to from the U.S. Department of Energy via the instill in residents an interest in knowing Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, whether a product or substance that they the Holy Cross/Lower 9th community will be using in their personal rebuilding is undertook a strategic planning process that harmful or not to their own health and that focused on energy-efficient, sustainable of the environment (McDonough and recovery post-Katrina. A result of this plan- Braungart 2002). ning process, a recovery plan was devel- Numerous groups and individuals have oped, known as Sustainable Restoration: approached the Lower 9th community Holy Cross Historic District & Lower 9th recently to assist residents in the monumen- Ward. Contained in this plan are recom- tal strategic planning that they have been mendations from residents of the Lower required to go through to prove community 9th, including Holy Cross, on the recon- viability. These same groups and individu- struction, repair and restoration of their als will be the principal ones bringing infor- neighborhood. The report is divided into mation on green sustainable development four main sections. The first, “Urban and energy efficiency. The Office of the Design and the Built Environment,” is fol- Federal Environmental Executive defines lowed by recommendations in three cate- “green building” (an important component gories traditionally associated with sustain- of sustainable development) as the practice able development: “Economy,” “Environ- of (1) increasing the efficiency with which ment,” and “Quality of Life.” buildings and their sites use energy, water, and materials, and (2) reducing building Sustainable practices impacts on human health and the environ- Building on the ideas envisioned by the ment, through better location, design, con- community in the Holy Cross/Lower 9th struction, operation, maintenance, and sustainable restoration plan, HCNA, with removal—the complete building life cycle funding from Mercy Corps and the Blue (Cassidy et al. 2003). Moon Fund, has established a project called the Lower 9th Ward Center for Sustainable Potential implications for policy Engagement and Development (CSED). Toensure that the relevance of this sus- CSED’s mission is to increase the aware- tainable recovery work extends beyond the ness and understanding of Lower 9th ward Lower 9th neighborhood and New Orleans, residents regarding energy efficiency and qualitative and quantitative research tools environmental sustainability during the are being utilized to monitor and evaluate post-Katrina disaster recovery and invest- the Lower 9th community’s recovery. ment period. CSED also works to assist Through questionnaires, the CSED and

84 The George Wright Forum Climate Change and Cultural Heritage

CBR are routinely assessing residents’ stakeholders will help further influence the knowledge relative to sustainable recovery, course of action, shaping energy and envi- and trying to determine the uptake of sus- ronmental policy in the region. tainable practices and identify any limits to implementation of such practices. This sur- Conclusion vey tool will be developed with input from With the enormous degree of devasta- state agencies, local and national non-profit tion that occurred as a result of Hurricane organizations, and community leaders. Katrina,the New Orleans area and the Lower Once completed, the results will be com- 9th ward in particular have the great oppor- piled in a report for submission to the tunity to rebuild and re-develop its commu- RAND Gulf States Policy Institute and nity with an emphasis on sustainability and shared with local residents and stakehold- energy efficiency. It is anticipated that this ers. The sustainable development and community-driven recovery, developed and green building sector has rarely focused on implemented in the Lower 9th Ward, will the working class and minority communi- be replicable in neighborhoods throughout ties in the United States. Lessons learned New Orleans, and across the U.S., with the from this community-driven recovery effort potential to yield a more energy-efficient, will highlight current strengths and weak- environmentally attentive, and sustainable nesses of policy incentives and inform non- community for all coastal communities and profit organizations beginning to work with regions as a whole. And, New Orleans and these communities. More importantly, the the Gulf Coast, led by the Holy Cross/ information gathered from residents and Lower 9th, could become that city and region that care did not forget. References Campanella, R., D. Etheridge, and D.J. Meffert. 2004. Sustainability, survivability, and the paradox of New Orleans. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1023, 289–299. Cassidy Robert, Ed. 2003. White Paper on Sustainability: A Report on the Green Building Movement. Oak Brook, Ill.: Building Design and Construction. McDonough, W., and M. Braungart. 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York: North Point Press.

Charles E. Allen III, Tulane/Xavier Center for Bioenvironmental Research (CBR), 1430 Tulane Avenue, Box SL-3, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112-2699; [email protected]

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 85 Protecting Cultural Resources in Coastal U.S. National Parks from Climate Change

Maria Caffrey and Rebecca Beavers

THE U.S. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE MANAGES OVER 84 MILLION ACRES OF LAND on which are located around 26,000 historic structures. One hundred fifty areas under Park Service management are designated as “cultural landscapes.” The impact of climate change on cultural resources will challenge many resource managers, in particular those responsible for protecting America’s heritage in national parks. Rising sea level and projected increases in average annual temperatures will undoubtedly impact many parks’ natural resources, which have led some to ask, “What is being done to protect cultural resources from climate change?” This paper will discuss what steps have some of the oldest cities of the world, such already been taken to uphold the Park Ser- as Venice or London. In early 2007, vice’s mission to “preserve unimpaired the UNESCO listed twenty-six examples of natural and cultural resources and values of World Heritage sites (out of 830 total) that the national park system...” (NPS 2007a). are threatened by climate change In particular, we discuss how cultural re- (UNESCO 2007). These sites represent sources are being impacted by observed areas of global significance that are immedi- changes in climate and discuss how we ately at risk from changing climatic condi- expect cultural resources to be affected over tions. The list is categorized based on the next century, based on projections by whether the sites are (1) glaciers, (2) areas the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate of high marine biodiversity,(3) areas of high Change (IPCC). terrestrial biodiversity, (4) archeological Fort Massachusetts in Gulf Islands sites, or (5) historic cities and settlements. National Seashore and Cape Hatteras Light- While these sites are important, they house in Cape Hatteras National Seashore are merely examples of well-known sites will be used here as examples of large-scale that need protection. The question of how measures that are being taken to preserve we protect those sites has been the subject cultural resources that would otherwise be of a number of reports and research con- lost to a changing climate. ducted by various players, including those at multinational (e.g., UNESCO 2006, Literature review 2007), national (e.g., Cassar 2005) and aca- When many of us think of climate demic (e.g., Dietz et al. 2003; Wallach change and cultural resources, we may 2005; Hassler 2006) scales. However, while think of the cultural resources that are cur- the ecological impacts of climate change rently endangered by rising sea level in have been discussed extensively in the liter- 86 The George Wright Forum Climate Change and Cultural Heritage ature, Carter et al. (2001) have found any that needs both mitigation where (in this discussion of resource management and case) cultural tourism can impact climate, sustainability to be lacking. Overall, the dis- and adaptation to climate’s impact on cul- cussion of what can be done to protect fixed tural resources. Patterson et al. (2006) fur- sites that cannot naturally adapt to a chang- ther echo the work by UNESCO by stating ing climate, such as cultural heritage sites, that mitigation and adaptation must involve has been largely overlooked by those in stakeholders on a number of levels to be anthropology, archeology, geography, and successful, which has been the case for the other academic fields, leaving the discus- examples that will be discussed in this sion of what should be done about this paper. Tourism is a vital part of protecting issue almost exclusively to those in govern- cultural resources because tourist dollars mental institutions. This lack of research can contribute to protecting sites of cultural interest partly may be due to the lack of significance. However, it should not be for- immediate “catastrophic” levels of impact gotten that tourism itself can also harm by climate change. Patterson et al. (2006) these areas, not only by on-site impacts but point out that it can be difficult to plan for also by less-obvious impacts such as using climate change due to temporal incon- cars that release greenhouse gases to get to gruities between cultural tourism (that can the sites. The National Park Service relies change over the scale of a few years) and on fees paid by visitors to assist them in ecological changes that are expected to maintaining and protecting the parks. With occur over decades. escalating temperatures in some regions UNESCO (2006) outlined some sug- and increasing sea level among other threats gested ways to predict and manage the from climate change, the question arises: effects of climate change. This report takes “Can the financial cost of protecting these an even-handed approach to climate change resources exceed their cultural value?” that emphasizes preparation over a variety Whitehead and Finney (2003) tested of temporal and spatial scales. In sugges- willingness to pay to protect cultural re- tions to resource managers, the report lists sources in North Carolina through a survey the following steps as part of a suggested of 884 members of the public. The study strategy: asked respondents how much they would be willing to pay to protect submerged cul- • Take preventative actions that include tural resources (shipwrecks) found around monitoring, reporting, and mitigation Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, as a one- measures that should be “environmen- time tax increase. Respondents were also tally sound choices and decisions at a asked how much more they would be will- range of levels: individual, community, ing to pay based on the number of sub- institutional and corporate.” merged shipwrecks saved. Overall, they • Employ corrective actions to adapt to found respondents willing to pay to protect changing climatic conditions. cultural resources, although the number of • Share knowledge. shipwrecks being saved did not play a major This approach also follows the work of role in their decision-making. Patterson (2003), in which she states that However, this work did not include any climate and tourism is a “two-way street” questions regarding the length of time that Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 87 Climate Change and Cultural Heritage these resources should be protected. Cli- in society that could impact the level of mate change, which works on a scale of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. These decades to centuries, will test how long scenarios take into account changing rates these resources can be protected. In this of population growth, technology, and rates paper, moving Cape Hatteras Lighthouse is of economic development. From these sce- a case in point of a measure that can only narios, changes in the rate of sea-level rise mitigate for nature’s impacts for a limited and regional temperatures have been calcu- amount of time before more must be done. lated (Figure 1). Surface air temperatures in In the meantime, managers are reassessing the United States are predicted to warm by what preventative measures can be used 2–3°C by 2100 along the western, south- around Cape Hatteras itself, and are moni- ern, and eastern continental edges, with toring and reporting the progress of sea- greater warming of up to 5°C in the North level rise and erosion around the site. (IPCC 2007a). This increase in average In contrast, Fort Massachusetts requires annual temperatures will be accompanied more immediate attention—a situation that by a 20–30% increase in precipitation in has managers asking what would be the best most regions that will manifest itself as more way to protect it. The planning for the fort intense, short-duration storms that could is currently in the UNESCO “corrective result in flash flooding, particularly in the actions” stage of protection, whereby the summer months. Projections by global cir- site has to adapt now to climate change. culation models also show a northward shift Figure 1. Observed global average temperature, sea Climate change level, and northern hemisphere snow cover. Averages In February 2007, the IPCC are relative to the 1961–1990 period. Circles represent released its fourth assessment report yearly values. Source: IPCC 2007a. Reproduced courtesy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. on climate change. In addition to building on the work of their previous assessments by outlining its predictions for future impacts of climate change, the IPCC also discussed how changing climate is already impacting the Earth, and, crucially, what is causing these changes. For the first time the IPCC stated that changes in atmospheric gases (principally carbon diox- ide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone) have significantly increased due to anthropogenic activities and that it is very likely (within a 90–99% probability) that these human influences are driving the observed changes in climate (IPCC 2007b). IPCC predictions are built on six possible scenarios for future changes 88 The George Wright Forum Climate Change and Cultural Heritage in hurricane tracks, with an increase in the CVI website. However, the CVI index does number of higher-intensity hurricanes and not quantitatively take into account the cul- a decrease in moderate-intensity hurricanes tural or social values of the coastlines that (IPCC 2007b). are physically changing. However, from a coastal management perspective, one of the most important Fort Massachusetts, Mississippi changes in climate will be rising sea level. Fort Massachusetts is an example of a The IPCC predicts a global average sea- nationally significant resource of great cul- level rise of up to 59 cm by 2100, with aver- tural value that is threatened by rising sea age rates of rise almost doubling from 1.7 level. It is a brick structure that cannot be mm/yr-1 over the last century to 3 mm/yr-1 moved and will therefore have to be protect- since the early 1990s (Rahmstorf 2007; ed using engineered measures, or else risk IPCC 2007a). This number is expected to being lost to the rising waters of the increase to at least 4 mm/yr-1 over the com- Mississippi Sound and surrounding Gulf of ing century (IPCC 2007a). In order to Mexico. The question of what would be the assess U.S. coastal national parks’ ability to best approach to protect the fort has been adapt to climate change, the National Park the subject of some debate in recent Service, in collaboration with U.S. Geo- decades, particularly in light of predicted logical Survey, have published a number of rises in sea level and other factors resulting reports using the rate of sea-level rise cou- from climate change. A number of “hard” pled with variations in mean significant (engineered, long-lasting measures) and wave height and tidal range and other geo- “soft” (more natural, shorter-term) ap- logic variables, such as the geomorphology, proaches have been taken to protect Fort shoreline erosion/accretion rates, and Massachusetts from its changing environ- regional coastal slope, to calculate a relative ment. Harder measures, such as installing coastal vulnerability index (CVI) for 23 groins and sea walls, are longer lasting, yet coastal parks to identify areas in the nation- are expensive to install, affect down-drift al park system that are susceptible to cli- sediment transport, and, some say, detract mate change. from the aesthetic enjoyment of the struc- While this research looks at physical ture. Soft measures, such as beach replen- parameters, this work can be used by cul- ishment, are less intrusive, but they are usu- tural resource managers to help identify ally short-term and can be more expensive areas of cultural significance that could be over the longer term (French 2001). submerged or lost to changes in landform The fort is part of Gulf Islands Na- (i.e., eroded or buried) in the future (USGS tional Seashore, located approximately 20 2007a). Cultural resource managers can use km south of Mississippi on West Ship the maps and reports to measure whether Island in the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 2). The the area their resources are located in is of fort was built during the Civil War (between very low to very high vulnerability in com- 1859 and1866) and remained virtually un- parison with the rest of their park. Results touched from 1870 until 1975. Gulf Islands are also broken down further based on the National Seashore was created in 1971, six physical and geologic variables analyzed with part of the legislation recognizing Fort in each park report, which are posted on the Massachusetts as a structure of the first Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 89 Climate Change and Cultural Heritage

Figure 2. West Ship Island and Fort Massachusetts, with CVI assessment results (Pendleton et al. 2004a). Photo © 2007 DigitalGlobe, reproduced courtesy of Google. order of significance because of its national significance as an “Ameri- can Third System masonry fort” and for its unique “D” shape (Toscano 2004). However, over a century of exposure to salt air, wave action from the Mississippi Sound, and a number of hurricanes, most notably hurricanes Camille (1969) and Katrina nerable to shoreline encroachment and (2005), has begun to erode the brick build- inundation. ing’s mortar. Hard structures consisting of a Pendleton et al. (2004b) found West seawall and groin were built around the fort Ship Island to have a “high” to “very high” in 1917 to protect it from erosion. In the vulnerability ranking based primarily on its 1960s, funding was raised by citizens of the barrier beach geomorphology, very high “Save the Fort” committee to construct a rates of erosion (more than 2 m per year), circular rock jetty around the fort as a pro- near-flat coastal slope (<0.3%), and minimal visional breakwater to deflect some of the tide range (less than 1 m). While Pendleton energy of waves eroding the shore (Figure et al. (2004b) found relative sea-level 3). change to only be moderate around the However, debris and remnants of a island (2.5–3 mm/yr), this is still significant lighthouse east of the fort continue to exac- when the above factors are also taken into erbate efforts because they act as an unin- account. Furthermore, this rate would still tended “hard structure,” acting like a groin amount to a rise in sea level around Fort to capture sediment that could be used to Massachusetts of 2.4–2.9 m by 2100. Given protect the fort. the fort’s current location a few meters Soft approaches have also been taken, Figure 3. Fort Massachusetts during the 1950s, including dredging offshore and in chan- prior to funding for a rock jetty around the struc- nels to relocate sand back onto the national ture. seashore’s beaches, particularly on West Ship Island to renourish what has been eroded, using sediment of a similar size and composition. But this is not a permanent solution and ongoing maintenance is required. However, sea level continues to rise which, coupled with the geology of the area, will threaten Fort Massachusetts by making the structure increasingly more vul- 90 Climate Change and Cultural Heritage above sea level, it appears that intervention ment for the first Cape Hatteras Light- with either hard or soft measures to save the house, constructed in 1803. The 1869– structure over the next century will be 1870 lighthouse is the tallest in the nation, inevitable. measuring 58.8 m, although it is best known for its distinctive black and white Cape Hatteras Lighthouse National diagonally striped exterior, painted in 1873. Historic Landmark, North Carolina The lighthouse is a significant cultural Cape Hatteras Lighthouse National His- resource as a record-breaking historic struc- toric Landmark provides an example of ture of engineering significance, but also measures that have already been taken to because it adds to the aesthetic enjoyment react to changes in shoreline position result- of the coastline, having been described as ing from a combination of natural and “one of the most striking and beautiful anthropogenic influences. The measures structures on the Atlantic Coast” (NPS used to protect the lighthouse represent 2007c). some of the more drastic (and costly) However, over the first 130 years of the responses possible for resource managers. lighthouse’s existence, erosion took its toll While a number of measures were em- on the surrounding land. By 1935 already, ployed over the years to protect the struc- waves had eroded most of the 450 m of ture, ultimately the lighthouse had to be beach in front of the lighthouse and the moved away from the receding shoreline. ocean reached to within 30 m of the base of However, this type of action would not be the tower. A combination of natural changes available to many cultural resources, such as and a number of protective measures post- cemeteries, eroding battlegrounds, or his- poned the threat for a number of years. toric forts such as Fort Massachusetts. Over the years, a number of erosion control Cape Hatteras Lighthouse is one of projects have been initiated at the light- three lighthouses found in Cape Hatteras house site to protect the structure. They National Seashore, the eighth-most-visited include: sheet pile groins (installed in the coastal park in 2006, with 2.25 million visi- 1930s), beach renourishment (1966, 1971, tors (NPS Office of Statistics 2007). It was and 1973), nylon sand-filled bags (1967), built during the period 1869–1870 for reinforced concrete groins (1967), a sand- Atlantic ships passing along the Outer bag seawall (1971; Figure 4), piled rubble Banks of North Carolina in an area previ- (1980), artificially created “seascapes” to ously known as the “graveyard of the Atlan- capture sediment (1981), seawall revetment tic” due to its treacherous conditions (NPS with artificial seaweed (1980s), and sand 2007b). Unfortunately these rough, stormy bag revetment (1990s) (Platt et al. 1988). conditions have also proven hazardous to Despite these measures, increases in the lighthouse that was intended to protect sea level and a number of high-intensity ships from the storm-driven ocean waves hurricanes continued to remove the sedi- and currents that wash over the Outer ment surrounding the lighthouse and Banks and transport sediment into the threatened to engulf it. The National sound. In 1869 and 1870 the lighthouse Academy of Sciences recommended in was constructed approximately 450 m from 1988 that the lighthouse be moved, but it the shore. The lighthouse was a replace- was not moved until June 1999 due to Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 91 Climate Change and Cultural Heritage

Figure 4. Sandbag seawall in front of Cape Hatteras Light- house, taken shortly after the seawall was constructed in 1971. The seawall was destroyed by wave action soon thereafter. Source: USGS 2007b. R. Dolan photo courtesy of U.S. Geologi- cal Survey. lengthy planning and appeals against the has been eroding at an average of 2 m/yr-1 plan. Eventually the lighthouse and keeper- over the past 50 years (not accounting for s’ quarters were moved southwest approxi- additions to the shoreline using artificial mately 885 m to a new location that is again forms of beach nourishment and reinforce- 450 m from the shore, at a cost of $11.8 mil- ment), with the shoreline to the south of the lion (Figures 5–6). The lighthouse was lighthouse location eroding at an average of opened again to the public on May 26, 3.7 m/yr-1. This is particularly troubling 2000. given the projected increases in sea level In 2004, Cape Hatteras National Sea- and associated shoreline erosion brought shore’s coastal vulnerability assessment was about by anthropogenic warming. Based on published. Overall, 26% of the park was these rates, the sea level of Cape Hatteras is classified as having a “very high” relative conservatively expected to increase by 3.67 coastal vulnerability (Pendleton et al. m by 2100, not accounting for changes in 2004a). Cape Hatteras Lighthouse was also volume from increased water temperature classified as a “very high” coastal vulnera- and salinity (Miller and Douglas 2004). bility in five out of six assessment criteria: Furthermore, high-intensity hurricanes geomorphology, erosion, relative sea-level with storm surges also contributed to a large change, mean wave height, and mean tide amount of erosion around the lighthouse range (Figure 7). The coastal slope of the when it was in its previous position. Some location was assessed as “high” vulnerabili- 28 recorded hurricanes have directly struck ty because the grade was 0.60–0.30% (Pen- Cape Hatteras National Seashore since dleton et al. 2004a). 1854 (NOAA 2006). In 2003, Hurricane Based on tide gauge data, sea level in Isabel particularly impacted the barrier nearby Beaufort, North Carolina, has been islands of capes Lookout and Hatteras. In rising over the past 27 years at a rate of particular, the IPCC has noted increased 3.71±0.64 mm/yr-1 (Zervas 2001; Pendle- intense tropical cyclone activity in the ton et al. 2004a), which is higher than cur- North Atlantic since the 1970s, which is rent IPCC global averages (IPCC 2007a). linked to increased sea-surface tempera- The North Carolina Division of Coastal tures (IPCC 2007a). Given the expected Management (2004) has also determined increases in sea-surface temperatures result- that the shoreline in front of the lighthouse ing from anthropogenic warming, the IPCC 92 The George Wright Forum Climate Change and Cultural Heritage

Figure 5. Cape Hatteras Lighthouse in its original location. Inset: The lighthouse in its current location. Photos courtesy of the National Park Service.

(2007b) now finds it likely that intense tropical cyclone activity will increase, which could further jeopardize the Cape Hatteras coastline and its cultural resources. Although Cape Hatteras Lighthouse is presently out of danger from sea-level change, this does not mean that it will be protected indefinitely. Without the added push by anthropogenically driven warming, it is expected (based on the current rate of erosion) that the location of the lighthouse would have to reassessed again at least by 2199 (NPS 2007d). However, the factors discussed above brought about by climate change are expected to have a major impact on the rate of erosion around the historic help and educate resource managers about landmark. This means that more may need the impacts of climate change on their to be done to protect the structure before parks. Research by Pendleton et al. (2004a, the end of this century. 2004b) has also been used by stakeholders and managers to assess their parks’ vulnera- Discussion bility to rising sea level in an easy-to-inter- Fort Massachusetts and Cape Hatteras pret manner so that mitigation strategies Lighthouse are examples of corrective and can be put in place. Many of these mitiga- preventive actions, respectively,that are part tion measures take years to research and of Patterson’s (2003) two-way street of organize funding for—steps which should adaptation and mitigation. However, be taken now so that resource managers are UNESCO (2006) also stresses the impor- not caught unawares when increased sea tance of sharing knowledge to further pro- level is on their resource’s doorstep. In the tect cultural resources. The National Park Service has begun this process by encouraging national parks to take part in its Climate-Friendly Parks program, which is designed to

Figure 6. The path of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse move. The arrow indicates the direction of movement from the lighthouse’s original location. Photo © 2007 DigitalGlobe, reproduced courtesy of Google. Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 93 Climate Change and Cultural Heritage case of Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, it took 11 years from when a move was first proposed (in 1988) to when it was accomplished (in 1999). During that time the shoreline in front of the lighthouse had eroded further by approximately 22 m. Fort Massachusetts may not have 11 years to wait before something can be done to further protect it from sea-level rise and an eroding shoreline. The dissemination of information about climate change’s impact on coastal cultural resources is an ongoing process that will involve participation from the individual/public to the global/transgovernmental level of stakeholders. It should also not be forgotten that most cultural resources cannot be moved as Cape Hatteras Lighthouse was. This may be for practical reasons or because it is simply not economically Figure 7. Cape Hatteras CVI results. Source: Pendleton 2007b. possible to do so. The National Park Service has approximately 25 parks that over the fort, causing significant damage contain lighthouses. It is unlikely that every (Fritz et al. 2007). lighthouse in those parks could be moved if It should also be considered that many threatened by changing environmental con- national parks still contain valuable cultural ditions. The National Park Service also has artifacts on their grounds that have not yet a number of sites of cultural significance, been discovered. Recent erosion at James- such as Fort Massachusetts, that cannot be town National Historic Site uncovered a moved. At these sites, the National Park location of significant archeological value Service must consider a strategy of retreat that could have been eroded away had it not with selective preservation efforts, or imple- been for its discovery by park managers. ment harder structures such as rock armor- There are still many sites on national park ing or sea walls to protect vital cultural property that could be of significant cultur- resources, as rising sea levels limit the feasi- al value to future generations but which bility of keeping a sand buffer along the cannot all be identified before the impacts shoreline. Hard structures will not protect of climate change take their toll (NPCA Fort Massachusetts from the impact of 2007). increased temperatures and the possibility of more-intense storms that could damage Conclusions its structure. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina The next decades hold a great deal of generated a 9-m storm surge that washed uncertainty for many cultural resources 94 The George Wright Forum Climate Change and Cultural Heritage throughout the world, particularly those in protect these resources; it is also an exam- the coastal zone. Those in the U.S. national ple of managers taking a more proactive park system must be protected; however, approach to planning for climate change. this will be a difficult task in many cases, Overall, the three steps of conservation out- such as that of Fort Massachusetts. A num- lined by UNESCO (2006) are effective ber of financial and technological hurdles means of dealing with climate change, but that require a high degree of resourceful- the question still remains as to whether it ness must be overcome first. Cape Hatteras will be feasible to prevent damage by Lighthouse represents an extreme example increasing sea level or changing environ- of what engineering methods can be used to mental variables to all cultural resources.

References Carter, R.W., G.S. Baxter, and M. Hockings. 2001. Resource management in tourism research: A new direction? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9, 265–280. Cassar, M. 2005. Climate Change and the Historic Environment. Nottingham, U.K.: The Russell Press. Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P.C. Stern. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302, 1907–1912. French, P.W. 2001. Coastal Defenses: Processes, Problems and Solutions. New York: Rout- ledge. Fritz, H.M., C. Blount, R. Sokoloski, J. Singleton, A. Fuggle, B.G. McAdoo, A. Moore, C. Grass, and B. Tate. 2007. Hurricane Katrina storm surge distribution and field observations on the Mississippi Barrier Islands. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. (In press.) IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. 2007a. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Re- port of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2007b. Summary for policy makers. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Hassler, U. 2006. Implications of climate change on heritage. Building Research and Infor- mation 34, 175–179. Miller, L., and B.C. Douglas. 2004. Mass and volume contributions to twentieth-century global sea level rise. Nature 428, 406–409. NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]. 2006. Historical North Atlan- tic and East-Central North Pacific Tropical Cyclone Tracks, 1851–2005. Charleston, S.C.: NOAA Coastal Services Center. Online at http://maps.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes /index.htm. North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. 2004. Cape Hatteras at Buxton: Long Term Average Annual Shoreline Change Study and Setback Factors (Updated Through 1998). Raleigh: North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. NPCA [National Parks Conservation Association]. 2007. Unnatural Disaster: Global Warming and Our National Parks. Washington, D.C.: NPCA. Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 95 Climate Change and Cultural Heritage

NPS [National Park Service]. 2007a. Mission. Online at www.nps.gov/aboutus/mission.htm. ———. 2007b. Graveyard of the Atlantic. Online at www.nps.gov/archive/caha/graveyard.htm. ———. 2007c. The Cape Hatteras Lightstation. Online at www.nps.gov/archive/caha/capelight.htm. ———. 2007d. North Carolina State University 1997 review and update of the1988 National Research Council Report, part II. Online at www.nps.gov/archive/caha/1997up- date2.htm. NPS Office of Statistics. 2007. NPS statistics. Online at www2.nature.nps.gov/stats/. Patterson, T.2003. Tourism and climate change: Mapping the interactions. In Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop: Tourism and Climate Change—Assessment and Coping Strategies. B. Amelung and D. Viner, eds. Warsaw,Poland: North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Patterson, T.,S. Bastianoni, and M. Simpson. 2006. Tourism and climate change: Two-way street, or vicious/virtuous circle? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14, 339–348. Pendleton, E.A., E.R. Thieler, and S.J. Williams. 2004a. Coastal Vulnerability Assessment of Cape Hatteras National Seashore (CAHA) to Sea-level Rise. Woods Hole, Mass.: U.S. Geological Survey. Pendleton, E.A., E.R. Thieler, and S.J. Williams. 2004b. Coastal Vulnerability Assessment of Gulf Islands National Seashore (GUIS) to Sea-level Rise. Woods Hole, Mass.: U.S. Geological Survey. Platt, R.H., M. Ball, B. Gerwick, E. Harlow, F.R. Holland, V.I. Nelson, D. Nummedal, C.H. Peterson, A. Yorkdale, and P. Zia. 1988. (Committee on Options for Preserving Cape Hatteras Lighthouse.) Saving Cape Hatteras Lighthouse from the Sea: Options and Policy Implications. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Rahmstorf, S. 2007. A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise. Science 315, 368–370. Toscano, M.A. 2004. Assessment of Vulnerability of Coastal Cultural and Archaeological Resources to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Processes: Gulf Islands National Seashore, Flori- da and Mississippi—Recommendations for Protection and Preservation. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization]. 2006. The Impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage Properties. New York: UNESCO. ———. 2007. Case Studies on Climate Change and World Heritage. New York: UNESCO. USGS [United States Geological Survey]. 2007a. Relative coastal vulnerability assessment of national park units to sea-level rise. Online at http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project- pages/nps-cvi/. ———. 2007b. Photo of sandbag seawall at Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. Online at http://li- braryphoto.cr.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/show_picture.cgi?ID=ID.%20Dolan,%20R.%2022ct. Wallach, B. 2005. Understanding the Cultural Landscape. New York: Guilford Press. Whitehead, J.C., and S.S. Finney. 2003. Willingness to pay for submerged maritime cultural resources. Journal of Cultural Economics 27, 231–240. 96 The George Wright Forum Climate Change and Cultural Heritage

Zervas, C. 2001. Sea Level Variations of the United States, 1854–1999. NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 36. Silver Spring, Md.: NOAA.

Maria Caffrey, Department of Geography, University of Tennessee, 304 Burchfiel Geo- graphy Building, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996; [email protected] Rebecca Beavers, National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center, P.O. Box 25287, Denver Colorado 80225; [email protected]

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 97 The Isle Royale Wolf–Moose Project: Fifty Years of Challenge and Insight

Michael P. Nelson , Rolf O. Peterson, and John A. Vucetich

To hear even a few notes of [the song of ecology] you must first live here for a long time, and you must know the speech of hills and rivers. Then on a still night, when the campfire is low and the Pleiades have climbed over rimrocks, sit quietly and listen for a wolf to howl, and think hard of everything you have seen and tried to understand. Then you may hear it—a vast pulsing harmony—its score inscribed on a thousand hills, its notes the lives and deaths of plants and animals, its rhythms spanning the seconds and the centuries. — Aldo Leopold

Introduction THE ISLE ROYALE WOLF–MOOSE PROJECT IS THE LONGEST CONTINUOUS STUDY of a predator–prey relationship in the world. Though it is easy to take this for granted, to assume that such a project happens simply because the researchers do it would be a mistake. This is quite literally a phenomenal accomplishment: something that exists outside of the realm of normal happenings, “an extraordinary occurrence.” The general details of the project are moose would never be the same. Within a well documented (Mech 1966; Peterson decade Purdue University wildlife ecologist 1977, 1995; Allen 1979; Vucetich and Durward Allen (Figure 1) recognized a rare Peterson 2004a, 2004b, 2004c). The proj- opportunity to study the interactions ect is located on Isle Royale, a wilderness between a newly established predator–prey island and national park located in north- relationship in a setting as close to a labora- west Lake Superior, North America. Moose tory as ecologists get: an island ecosystem found their way to the 210-square-mile with a seemingly isolated population of a island in Lake Superior, fifteen miles from single predator and a single prey, a simple the Canadian coast near Thunder Bay, at system where population dynamics are the the turn of the 20th century. For fifty years, result of moose and the wolves who eat moose abundance fluctuated with weather them. conditions and food abundance. By a variety of measures the project Wolves first arrived to Isle Royale in has been successful. Several of the United 1949—coincidentally just as humans were States’ most recognized contemporary wolf working to introduce them to the park—by biologists and ecologists cut their teeth on crossing an ice bridge that connected the the project, including L. David Mech island to Canada. The lives of Isle Royale (Figure 2), Doug Smith, and Mike Phillips. 98 The George Wright Forum Descriptions of the project are sometimes sprinkled with adjectives like “iconic” and “classic.” In a recent issue of Audubon magazine, journalist Les Line (2008) dubbed Isle Royale’s wolves “the most famous Canis lupus population in the world.” The project has served as fodder for important scientific understanding, popular articles and books, and even artistic expressions (exhibited at www.isleroyalewolf.org). While wonderful and inspiring in the case of the Isle Royale wolf– moose project, such success is fickle and tragically rare— yet critically important. In this essay, we review the administrative history of the Isle Royale wolf–moose project. From that historical narrative we infer what obstacles might represent a general challenge to long- term ecological research. Finally, while Figure 1. The originator of the wolf–moose study, many take for granted that data collected Durward Allen. Photo provided by George Desort. from long-term research is especially valuable, the reasons why have not been good, dedicated scientist who has devoted explored in great depth. We conclude this much time and energy to the long-term essay by considering the importance of study” (Strayer et al. 1986:5). long-term research. For wolf–moose research at Isle Roy- ale, one of these people was the late Robert An administrative history M. (Bob) Linn (1926–2004), whose thought- A 1986 study by the Institute of Eco- ful support of research in national parks system Studies (Strayer et al.) analyzed sev- began with a career with U.S. National Park eral long-term ecological studies. The sup- Service (NPS), but expanded thereafter to porting agency, the National Science Foun- include all parks and equivalent reserves in dation (NSF), hoped to establish the foun- the world. Durward Allen frequently spoke dation for a program supporting long-term of Linn and the critical role he had played in ecological research by identifying factors helping to maintain the Isle Royale wolf– common to successful programs. But it moose project. As the first naturalist for Isle turned out there was no consistent theme, Royale National Park (Figure 3), Linn had research characteristic, or subject of study participated in an early winter study on the that seemed to matter. The only point worth island, in 1956, when he and NPS biologist mentioning was that frequently there was Jim Cole spent several weeks on the island one person whose commitment and interest in February,snowshoeing extensively,trying provided the long-term foundation: “Every to estimate how many wolves were present successful long-term study that we studied and what their activities might mean for the has had associated with it one (or a few) isolated moose population. Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 99 Linn was also the person who had to deal with the aftermath, in 1952, of a private effort to introduce wolves to Isle Royale. Zoo-raised wolves were used, after a search in Michigan for wild wolf pups failed. After the four semi-tame wolves became uncooperative pests, Linn led efforts to remove them, knowing that there was evidence that wild wolves had recently made it to the island on their own. In the mid-1950s there was substantial concern that the newly arrived wolves would increase and get out of hand, threatening the moose population and posing a danger to people (including some long- time residents of Isle Royale, whose efforts had helped establish the national park). Suddenly, sharing the island with an unregulated wolf population seemed a worrisome proposition. Anticipating a need to somehow rein in the wolf population, in 1956 Gordon Fredine, Linn’s successor as chief biologist Figure 2 (top). Researcher L. David Mech with a collection for the NPS, wrote to his close col- of moose jaws. Photo provided by George Desort. Figure league Jim Kimball, commissioner 3 (bottom). Bob Linn at Isle Royale, 1956. Photo courtesy of Milt Stenlund. of conservation for the state of Minnesota, and asked if Minnesota would accept some live wolves from Isle Meanwhile, in a harbinger of wolf reintro- Royale. Kimball declined the invitation to duction to Yellowstone forty years later participate, citing public opposition to (Smith et al. 2003), with the arrival of wolves generally and the fact that Minnesota wolves the controversy over an overabun- was spending (wasting, in Kimball’s view) dance of moose quickly evaporated. some $300,000 per year in bounty pay- Aristotle’s famous quip that all inquiry ments for dead wolves.1 Linn wrote the begins in wonder rings true for the origin of reports and letters necessary to establish the Isle Royale wolf–moose project. The that the wolves were not a threat to people, uncertainty surrounding the presence of and helped establish a policy whereby the wolves served as a catalyst for those interest- NPS supported the existence of an unman- ed in initiating serious research on the wolf aged wolf population on Isle Royale. and moose population. In 1958, Linn was 100 The George Wright Forum on hand when Allen and his graduate stu- barked on a secret bid to take over the proj- dent Dave Mech first visited Isle Royale to ect. He visited Purdue and had a pleasant begin an ambitious ten-year study to evalu- chat with Allen, who came away mystified ate the role of wolf predation in the dynam- about the reason for the visit. Before the vis- ics of the moose population.2 Most immedi- itor left, Rolf Peterson showed him a recent- ately there was a need for a field base for ly tanned hide of a wolf that had been killed Mech, who bounced around from one spot by other wolves on Isle Royale the previous to another in 1958 and 1959. In 1960, Linn winter. A few days later, Allen got a phone arranged for Mech to use the cabin at the call from Linn, at that time still the chief sci- Bangsund Fishery as a base for his summer entist of the Park Service in Washington, fieldwork, following the death of fisherman who had discovered the scope of the Jack Bangsund in 1959. The Bangsund takeover bid and alerted an incredulous cabin has served a valuable research role Allen. The wolf skin that had been shared ever since, long exceeding its tenure as a was being used as part of an attempt to dis- commercial fishery. Mech also needed a credit Peterson, Allen’s obvious successor boat, and Linn donated his own wooden to the project, the claim being that Peterson boat to the project (it did not last as long as possessed an endangered species without the fishery cabin). authorization. After some discussion Linn Allen had launched the wolf–moose told Allen not to worry, he (Linn) would project with funds from the National Geo- take care of the matter. The visiting NPS graphic Society and the NSF, but as these scientist and would-be wolf researcher was funding sources cycled through to comple- not heard from again. In 1975, as Allen tion, additional sponsors were needed. By retired, he turned the project over to the late 1960s, Linn was in Washington, Peterson who had by then secured an aca- D.C., leading the science program of the demic post and a new home for the NPS, and he began to provide a modest wolf–moose project at Michigan Techno- grant each year to support continuing logical University (MTU) in Houghton, research on wolves and moose at Isle Roy- also the mainland headquarters of the park. ale. Linn was already at MTU, having estab- But the original ten-year duration of lished a Cooperative Park Studies Unit the study was over by 1968, and the one- there with himself as unit leader. Linn time minister-turned-attorney and now would soon retire from his NPS position, powerful long-time director of the National but not from his involvement with the Isle Park Service, George Hartzog, instructed Royale wolf–moose project. Linn to oversee its conclusion—in other In 1981, newly inaugurated President words, to terminate it. As Allen recalled it in Ronald Reagan appointed James Watt as the early 1970s, Linn quietly ignored the secretary of the interior. Given Watt’s directive, and in fact continued to provide record and beliefs, the environmental com- annual grants from his science budget.3 munity was both outraged and horrified. In By 1974 Allen had made no secret of the face of a perceived threat, however, the his intention to retire the next year, and one appointment of Watt also served to coalesce of Linn’s own science administrators in the the environmental community in powerful NPS (who shall remain nameless) em- ways. For the post of assistant secretary for Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 101 fish, wildlife, and parks, Watt appointed G. The only person who left the island, howev- Ray Arnett, a geologist from the petroleum er, was the NPS staffer. Croll agreed to look industry who gained distinction in 1956 for the other way as Peterson explained that he the initial discovery of oil in Alaska (on a would be staying to complete the surveys, as national wildlife refuge, no less—the Kenai intended, and Glaser and Smith would be National Moose Range) and who had previ- staying as well. ously been the director of the California So far, so good; but this committed the Department of Fish and Game under Rea- project to spending money it did not have. gan when he was the state’s governor.4 It Enter Linn one more time. In a wonderfully was not long before Arnett, an avowed wolf- roundabout manner, he saved the day. Linn hater, crossed paths with the wolf–moose contacted (probably through Durward Al- research at Isle Royale. His signature was len) Nathaniel Reed, one of Arnett’s prede- required on the annual contract between cessors in the Nixon–Ford years, and Reed NPS and MTU that by then provided in turn contacted Amos Eno, vice-president $30,000 to carry out the winter counts of of the National Audubon Society, who wolves and moose. Such paperwork typical- knew Arnett well enough to give him a call. ly dragged on for weeks or months. As nor- Meanwhile, the Washington-based Defend- mal, the 1983 winter study began in ers of Wildlife began to prepare testimony January without the signed contract: on yet another example of political interfer- Peterson, an NPS staffer, pilot Don Glaser, ence, to be used in the congressional budg- and student assistant Doug Smith all work- et hearings for the Interior department. ing on the island (Figure 4). Isle Royale That proved unnecessary, as Eno persuad- Chief Ranger Stu Croll called one evening ed Arnett that the wolf–moose project was by radiophone with some “unpleasant not an appropriate vehicle for his agenda. A news.”Not only did Arnett refuse to author- period of bureaucratic track covering fol- ize NPS funding, he demanded the lowed, and Isle Royale National Park Su- wolf–moose project be immediately termi- perintendent Don Brown flew to Washing- nated. Croll explained that all personnel ton for a personal audience with Arnett. would have to leave the island, and he Brown reported that Arnett’s office sported arranged to have the Forest Service supply airplane, a ski- equipped Beaver, pick everyone up at the first opportunity. Croll expressed sincere regret at seeing everything end in this manner. The Beaver soon arrived. Figure 4. Winter study pilot Don Glaser and researcher Doug Smith. Photo provided by George Desort. 102 The George Wright Forum walls lined with trophy mounts of animal Royale wolf–moose project requires a line- heads and a wolf skin on the floor. After age of interest. The Isle Royale project has enduring the requisite chitchat with Arnett, that. From Bob Linn to Durward Allen to Brown emerged with the original $30,000. Rolf Peterson to John Vucetich (Figure 5), For Bob Linn, Isle Royale was quite individual scientists have taken a personal simply the finest place on Earth. The final interest in this particular project; have made twenty-five years of professional activity it the focus of their life’s work.5 But this sort found him establishing the George Wright of interest is exceptionally rare in science. Society, dedicated to research and educa- Scientists do not typically spend their tion in parks and preserves around the careers unpacking the mysteries of a single world. But Linn always tried to be as close place or a single relationship, and academia as possible to Isle Royale (which explains does not typically reward or encourage sci- why the office of the George Wright Society entists whose sense of place is so strong. is in Hancock, Michigan, a few city blocks Ultimately, the interest of the re- from the mainland headquarters of Isle searchers must also transfer to, and spark, Royale National Park). The island was the interest of the public—another tough never far from his thoughts. audience, especially when the project is largely about an animal with which we have The challenge of long-term ecological a troubled past (and present). Fortunately, research the Isle Royale project has been quite suc- While long-term research such as the cessful in impressing both the scientific Isle Royale wolf–moose project happens, it community and the public. From unusual does not “just happen.” In fact, it rarely findings—such as the impact scavengers happens at all. When it does, what are the like ravens have on wolf pack size (Vucetich conditions that allow for long-term re- et al. 2004), to the surprising role parasites search? The 1986 Institute of Ecosystem such as winter ticks might play in the dyna- Studies study cited above indicates that, mics of the system (Vucetich and Peterson other than the enthusiasm of some individ- 2007)—to intentional and extensive public ual, there really are no clear and specific outreach,6 the story of the wolf–moose proj- conditions that describe or predict success ect has captured a broad interest. (Strayer et al. 1986). We would suggest, But interest, no matter how rich and however, there are three critical and under- nurtured, is not enough. Long-term studies appreciated, but necessary,conditions: con- end, and, according to the 1986 Institute of ditions so precarious that they explain why Ecosystem Studies paper, they end regard- long-term research is so rare. less of interest by scientists, regardless of The first requirement of a successful interest by the public, and regardless of long-term study is interest. Without the important scientific findings. They end enduring interest of some researcher—a because of other factors: “It is perhaps sig- researcher with vision, a researcher willing nificant that none of the long-term studies to take a chance—no long-term study would that we studied were terminated voluntarily happen. But this kind of interest is required because the PI [principal investigator] felt for any study, long- or short-term. A suc- that the study no longer justified the cost. cessful long-term study such as the Isle Studies were stopped by funding difficul- Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 103 Figure 5. Researchers Rolf O. Peterson and John A. Vucetich. Photo courtesy of George Desort. ties and retirement of the PI, but never for mitted to the project in 1976 has remained lack of important research questions” essentially unchanged—though inflation (Strayer et al. 1986:13). calculators indicate that its worth in 2007 The second necessary condition for a was roughly $8,085, or less than one-third successful long-term study is money. Scien- its original value. Federal sources of funding tific research is an expensive endeavor. can change (that is, “shrink”) given the Long-term research is “expensive multi- fancy of an administration not interested in plied by long-term.” The case of the Isle scientific research generally, or more inter- Royale wolf–moose project, however, is ested in funding other projects. Because of interesting because its annual budget is only limited funding, the Isle Royale project can a fraction of that of many other ecological pursue answers to but a small handful of the studies. And yet the contributions of the fascinating and important questions that Isle Royale project are comparable to those bubble up year after year. Of course, the real of other significant research projects. tragedy of underfunded long-term science Despite its relatively high return, however, is for society. Given that critical knowledge the Isle Royale project remains financially and insight about living sustainably (a long- limited. If funded at a higher level, the Isle term proposition) comes at least in part Royale project would undoubtedly produce from long-term studies, and given the cur- even more valuable knowledge and interest. rent necessity of understanding what sus- But money is fickle. The $30,000 that tainable living might look like, we might the National Park Service originally com- well be underfunding the very science that 104 The George Wright Forum we need most in today’s world. In short, moose. The final chapter of Peterson 1995 because of the financial strains on long-term chronicles how a difference in wilderness projects, we should never assume that ideology between researchers and the NPS because a project has lasted for fifty years might have allowed the wolves of Isle that it will last fifty more—or even for one Royale to die out, and the project to end, more! during the 1990s. The Isle Royale project is Third, successful long-term study not alone in this way. Other long-term requires the ability to weather the periodic research projects have failed, or their con- threat of zealous ideologies and the tyranni- tinuation has been threatened, by tyrannical cal administrators who sometimes evoke administrations and ideologies that are them. As we saw above, there have been at opposed to certain kinds of knowledge least two close calls for the Isle Royale proj- about the environment (Fraidenburg ect on these grounds. In addition to the 2007). attempted post-Allen NPS “takeover” of the We have all learned that ideological project that was, by all appearances, simply righteousness coupled with power knows a raw abuse of power, G. Ray Arnett no limits and is seldom subject to negotia- expressed a willingness to quash serious tion. Of course, ideology coupled with scientific research in the name of a ideology intellectual honesty allows for reconcilia- suggesting wolves are some sort of evil tion. Reconciliation here might be found in incarnate (making the work of wolf research an understanding of what ideologies are, somehow devilish). However, a different set how they determine our thoughts and of ideologies—one suggesting either that actions, and a recognition that other ideolo- predators such as wolves have an effect on gies can also be motivated by, and result in, ecosystems (Ripple and Beschta 2005; the care and protection of nature. Hebblewhite et al. 2005) or one that When considering the challenges to assumes that predators are critical compo- long-term research, both with wolves and nents of healthy ecosystems (Leopold moose on Isle Royale and elsewhere, there 1949:129–133), coupled with the recent are two sorts of tragedies lurking: one prag- “greening” of a variety of the world’s reli- matic and one ethical. First, the value of gions (Taylor 2005), for instance—might long-term research is simply not duplicable mean that work focused on predation is also elsewhere with shorter-term projects. work serving to care for the creation. Additionally, long-term ecological research More recently, unsophisticated ideolo- seems an absolutely vital component of gies about the nature of wilderness can and understanding those long-term processes have interfered with environmental research that might help secure our continued long- in this project and elsewhere (Callicott and term existence and the well-being of the Nelson 1998; Nelson and Callicott 2008). planet. However, because of the reasons But is this really a threat to the project? It is suggested above, and perhaps many others, not uncommon to meet an NPS employee long-term research is under great pressure, who projects his or her personal interpreta- subject to diminishing support, and inap- tion of “wilderness” onto research projects, propriately devalued (Keeling 2008). As or who feels that the public is too interested was noted back in 1981 on the pages of this in research on Isle Royale’s wolves and very journal: “As land use intensifies and Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 105 research funding dries up, we face a regres- for an entire lifetime. Moreover, given the sion in ecological inquiry at the very time desire of contemporary environmental we need it most” (Peterson 1981). Nearly ethics to be consistent with, and informed thirty years later this is truer than ever. by, the images of nature represented by Second, there is an ethical tragedy ecology, and given that a fifty-year image of prompted by a paucity of long-term ecolog- wolf–moose relationships is wildly different ical research. Aldo Leopold (1949:203) from that which we would have assumed if suggests that “all ethics so far evolved rest the project had been halted after only five upon a single premise: that the individual is years (see Figure 6), the longevity of the a member of a community of interdepend- project informs environmental ethics in ent parts.” If Leopold is correct, if we ex- important ways. The Isle Royale wolf– tend moral consideration only to those moose project, then, takes on an unantici- within our perceived community and the pated, yet important, moral significance. community as such—that is, if the develop- Regionally, Isle Royale is known for ment of a “sense of place” is a critical part of fishing and boating. Nationally, Isle Royale the development of a rich environmental is a wilderness-backpacking destination. ethic—then, although environmental scien- However, on the international scene, Isle tists are important for the defense of natural Royale is known for essentially one thing places, many or most of the best scientists (which is one more than many places): its do not manifest this strong sense of place; long-term study of the wolf–moose preda- the kind of sense that holds one’s interest tor–prey system. But such a project is at the

Figure 6. Fifty years (1959–2008) of wolf and moose fluctuations on Isle Royale National Park, Lake Superior, USA.

106 The George Wright Forum mercy of many burdens: creative, financial, both questions. ideological, to name only a few. Hence, in Isle Royale is the only place where addition to being precious (from the Latin humans have monitored, for any serious pretiosus, meaning “costly, valuable”) it is length of time, the mortality rates of a wolf also precarious (from the Latin precarius, population not exposed to human causes of meaning “obtained by asking or praying”). death (Figure 7). This kind of knowledge is And anything possessing these qualities valuable for managers aiming to promote should not be taken for granted. wolf viability and maintain human-caused mortality at appropriately low levels. The findings and applications: What Ironically, knowledge about natural rates of knowledge have we gained? wolf mortality is also valuable for the efficient reduction or even overexploitation of There is a widespread perception wolf populations. among scientists involved in long-term One of the primary reasons humans studies that long-term studies often despotize wolf populations is because too produce important serendipitous find- many humans perceive that wolves threaten ings. our ability to enjoy the highest possible — Strayer et al. 1986:21 rates of hunting—hunting for deer, elk, Two great concerns for wolf managers moose, and caribou, the species upon are “How much human-caused mortality which wolves’ survival depend. Conse- can a viable wolf population sustain?” and quently, “How do wolves affect prey?” is “How do wolves affect the prey populations considered by many a critical management that humans also want to hunt?” Though question. Over the years, the Isle Royale humans do not exploit wolves or moose on wolf–moose project has continued to con- Isle Royale, the wolf–moose project of Isle tribute important understanding on this Royale has provided important insight on topic. In the early years of the project, we

Figure 7. A lone wolf traverses a shoreline at Isle Royale National Park. Photo courtesy of George Desort, Rolf O. Peterson, and John A. Vucetich. Source: www.isleroyalewolf.org.

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 107 discovered that wolves are selective preda- all the factors affecting short-term fluctua- tors, tending to focus their predation on tions in moose abundance, wolves are the moose that are young, old, or sick (Peterson least important (Vucetich and Peterson 1977). Subsequently, we learned that 2004b). Climatic factors (such as summer wolves tend to kill more when winters are heat and winter severity) are much more severe and when moose are abundant (Post important. Most importantly, most of the et al. 1999; Post et al. 2002; Vucetich et al. fluctuations in moose abundance are 2002). These discoveries suggested wolves attributable to factors that we have yet to are the proximate, but not ultimate, cause of identify (Figure 8). These observations most moose deaths (Vucetich and Peterson highlight limitations of our knowledge 2004b). That is, wolves seemed to have rel- about how wolves affect moose on Isle atively little impact on moose abundance. Royale, despite their being well studied. To Then, quite by accident, we made an some, this limitation suggests that our abili- observation giving a very different impres- ty to control many wildlife populations is sion. In the early 1980s, wolves declined less precise and reliable than commonly catastrophically due to a disease. Shortly thought. To these people, the suggestion is afterward, moose increased to an incredibly not unjustified pessimism, but a reasonable high abundance (McLaren and Peterson conclusion to draw from fifty years of 1994), only to crash shortly thereafter due research (Vucetich and Peterson, in press). to the combined effects of a severe winter, a Though we are grateful for the oppor- tick outbreak, and a catastrophic food tunity to have made these contributions to shortage. Most recently, we learned that of science, there are two ironies about better

Figure 8. A moose feeds on moss at Isle Royale National Park. Photo courtesy of George Desort.

108 The George Wright Forum understanding of “how wolves affect prey.” of science. Is it primarily to control nature First, expecting an ecologist to study “how for the “easing of man’s estate,” as the predators affect prey” for the purpose of famous philosopher Francis Bacon suggest- knowing more about how to control them ed more than 400 years ago? Or, is it prima- may be like expecting an astronomer to rily to generate wonderment about the nat- study how the stars move for the purpose of ural world—the kind of wonderment that better controlling their movement. Learn- can transform and enlighten our under- ing to better live with and appreciate how standing about how we ought to relate to nature is unpredictable and uncontrollable the natural world (a view roughly held by may deserve more attention than being fix- the famous 20th-century philosopher of sci- ated with controlling nature. The second ence Karl Popper)?7 If the latter is the irony is that “how wolves affect prey abun- greater purpose of science, the Isle Royale dance” is important for justifying two man- wolf–moose project has, we hope, con- agement interests that are, to say the least, tributed valuable knowledge. Moreover, oddly juxtaposed. The justification of wolf given a variety of surprising and unex- control—killing wolves to maximize hunt- plained results that have been observed ing of ungulates such as deer, moose, or from this relatively simple set of relation- elk—requires demonstrating that wolves ships, the Isle Royale project represents a have a profound effect on prey. However, warning about the futility and arrogance of the justification that wolf predation is a crit- placing too much value on science for the ical component of healthy ecosystems also purpose of predicting and controlling seems to require demonstrating that wolves ecosystems. have a profound effect on prey. Adding to The Isle Royale wolf–moose project the confusion, many argue that wolf popula- began fifty years ago, during the darkest tions should be recovered or left unexploit- hour for wolves in North America. The ed because wolves have little impact on prey mass slaughter perpetrated against wolves abundance. Again, the Isle Royale project required our vilifying them. The subse- contributed significantly to these scientific quent and quite phenomenal improvement discoveries, but how they influence man- in conditions for wolves required an anti- agement remains an open question. The dote for our vilification. That antidote was influence remains undetermined because knowledge. In the early years, the project we have yet to decide whether, where, how, gave people reason to replace destructive or why wolves should (or should not) be myths with real knowledge that portrayed hunted in the continental United States, wolves as they are: predators, a natural part and the question of how wolves affect ungu- of ecosystems, not villains. For example, the late prey abundance is seen as hugely Isle Royale wolf–moose project helped peo- important in decisions about this ethical ple see that wolves are not gluttonous, debate. wasteful killers. Instead, most wolves die The Isle Royale wolf–moose project young, and they die of starvation or by seems also to have contributed knowledge fighting for food. And, what wolves do not of quite a different kind. To understand eat, scavenger species—foxes, ravens, and what we mean by “different kinds of know- other resident bird species—depend on for ledge,” first ask yourself what is the purpose their survival. Ultimately, the Isle Royale Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 109 wolf–moose project created an awareness deepen. We know the most important that has contributed to a sea change in atti- events in the history of Isle Royale wolves tudes, allowing for wolves to begin their and moose are severe winters, disease, and recovery. tick outbreaks. These events are essentially More recently, as mentioned above, we unpredictable. Moreover, every five-year discovered a special relationship between period in the wolf–moose chronology wolves and ravens (Vucetich et al. 2004). seems to differ from every other five-year Specifically, a critical advantage of group period—and this seems true even after fifty living is that wolves lose substantially less years of observation (see Figure 6). Going food to scavengers such as ravens. Ravens further, the first twenty-five-year period of may be an important reason why wolves live the project was profoundly different from in packs—a trait otherwise uncommon the second. We have every reason to expect among carnivores. This discovery grabbed the next fifty years will differ substantially much press attention. But why? This know- from the first, but, strangely, we are in no ledge is certainly not valuable for control- position to say how (Vucetich et al., in ling anything in nature. Rather, the work is press). These and related observations sug- appreciated, we believe, because it high- gest the futility of trying to reliably predict lights a beautifully unexpected and intricate nature’s responses to our intense exploita- ecological connection. Our work also tion. grabbed press attention when we described The Isle Royale wolf–moose project how wolves and moose are affected by has generated many scientific facts about moose ticks, which in turn are influenced wolves and moose. In doing so, the project by climate. Connections like these are has also developed and shared with others a important because they can generate won- deep sense of place about Isle Royale’s ecol- derment, awe, and respect. ogy. From this, we believe, comes a knowl- Over the years, our sense and aware- edge that generates wonderment—the exact ness of Isle Royale’s complexity and unpre- kind of knowledge we may most need at this dictable nature has continued to grow and moment in time.

Ed. note: An earlier version of sections of this essay appears under three separate titles by these authors in the summer 2008 edition of International Wolf.

Endnotes 1. “[W]e pay close to $300,000.00 each biennium in bounty payments, a large portion of which is for timber wolves. The fact that this money is wasted as a game management measure does not alter the fact that it is hard cash” (Kimball letter to Fredine, July 27, 1956, copy in R.O.P. files). 2. The organizing meeting included Fredine, Linn, Allen, Mech, Douglas Pimlott (Univer- sity of Toronto), Milt Stenlund (Minnesota Department of Conservation), Laurits Krefting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and John Lewis (superintendent, Isle Royale National Park). 3. Years later, when asked about this matter, Linn denied it had ever happened. But that 110 The George Wright Forum was his manner of defusing controversy, which he had no stomach for—at least that is our interpretation. NPS historian Richard West Sellars agrees, and told R.O.P.by phone in 2006 that Allen’s report on the actions of Hartzog and Linn was probably accurate. 4. Arnett would resign from this post on November 23, 1984 citing “a strong desire to pursue business and conservation initiatives that have opened to me in this area [presum- ably in Washington DC] and in California.” Arnett would then go on to become the Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association in 1985 (though in 1986 he would be dismissed for, among other things, “personnel decisions on the basis of his personal interest rather than the interests of the Association.”) See Golden (1984) for an interesting glimpse of Arnett as Assistant Secretary. 5. Strayer et al. point out how critical the focus of the scientist (and, ultimately, of a string of scientists) is: “S.C. Kendeigh’s 27-year-long studies of bird populations ... ended when he retired in 1976, and Francis Evans believes that no one will take over studies of the Evans old-field when his work ends” (1986:5). According to Earl Werner (Werner 2008), current director of the George Reserve where the old-field site was located, “Indeed, Francis’ fear did come true. While others have worked on the old-field site nobody has followed up with the sort of data collection that Francis was doing.” Evans’ fifty-year study lasted from 1948 to 1997. Evans died in 2002. 6. Isle Royale researchers maintain an interactive website that gets over 17,000 hits per year, descriptions of the work and findings appear in hundreds of media outlets annually, and researchers personally present the work to more than 5,000 scientists and members of the public annually. 7. This later purpose of scientific inquiry is also consistent with the concept of traditional ecological knowledge. Pierotti and Wildcat (2000), for example, commenting on the purpose of ecological science from an American Indian perspective, when asked “What good is the work that you do?”, write: “This question contains the hidden assumption that if what we do does not directly benefit human beings in some way it is without value. We often answer that our work teaches us more about the other members of our community and how to live with them, but most people of Western heritage appear con- fused by this answer, and do not understand this point. In contrast, if we give this answer to Native American elders, they are completely satisfied, for they understand implicitly what we are trying to accomplish, and its significance to humans.”

References Allen, D.L. 1994, Wolves of Minong: Isle Royale’s Wild Community. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. [First published 1979 as Wolves of Minong: Their Vital Role in a Wild Community. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.] Callicott, J.B., and M.P.Nelson, eds. 1998. The Great New Wilderness Debate. Athens: Uni- versity of Georgia Press. Fraidenburg, M.E. 2007. Intelligent Courage: Natural Resource Careers that Make a Difference. Malabar, Fla.: Krieger. Golden, F.1984. A sharpshooter at Interior. Time (April 16). Online at www.time.com/time/ magazine/article/0,9171,954259-1,00.html. Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 111 Hebblewhite, M., C.A. White, C. Nietvelt, J.M. McKenzie, T.E. Hurd, J.M. Fryxell, S. Bayley, and P. C. Paquet. 2005. Human activity mediates a trophic cascade caused by wolves. Ecology 86, 2135–2144. Keeling, R. F. 2008. Recording Earth’s vital signs. Science 319, 1771–1772. Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac: And Sketches Here and There. New York: Ox- ford University Press. Line, L. 2008. The long view. Audubon (March-April). Online at http://audubonmaga- zine.org/features0803/wildlife.html. McLaren, B.E. and R.O. Peterson. 1994. Wolves, moose, and tree rings on Isle Royale. Science 266, 1555–1558. Mech, L.D. 2002. The Wolves of Isle Royale. Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific. [First published 1966 in the series Fauna of the National Parks of the United States no. 7. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service.] Nelson, M.P.,and J.B. Callicott, eds. 2008. The Wilderness Debate Rages On: Continuing the Great New Wilderness Debate. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Pierotti, R., and D. Wildcat. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge: The third alternative. Ecological Applications 10:5, 1333–1340. Peterson, R.O. 1977. Wolf Ecology and Prey Relationships on Isle Royale. Scientific Mono- graph no. 11. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. ———. 1981. Long-term research: An answer to “When are you going to quit?” The George Wright Forum 1:2, 35–38. ———. 2007. The Wolves of Isle Royale: A Broken Balance. Ann Arbor: University of Michi- gan Press. [Originally published 1995, Minocqua, Wis.: Willow Creek Press.] Post, E., R.O. Peterson, N.C. Stenseth, and B.E. McLaren. 1999. Ecosystem consequences of wolf behavioral response to climate. Nature 401, 905–907. Post, E., N.C. Stenseth, R.O. Peterson, J.A. Vucetich, and A.M. Ellis. 2002. Phase depend- ence and population cycles in a large-mammal predator–prey system. Ecology 83:11, 2997–3002. Ripple, W.J. and R.L. Beschta. 2005. Linking wolves and plants: Aldo Leopold on trophic cascades. BioScience 55:7, 613–621. Smith, D.W., R.O. Peterson, and D.B. Houston. 2003. Yellowstone after wolves. BioScience 53, 330–340. Strayer, D., J.S. Glitzenstein, C.G. Jones, J. Kolasa, G.E. Likens, M.J. McDonnell, G.G. Par- ker, and S.T.A. Pickett. 1986. Long-term Ecological Studies: An Illustrated Account of their Design, Operation, and Importance to Ecology. Occasional Publication no. 2. Mill- brook, N.Y.: Institute of Ecosystem Studies. Taylor, B.R., ed. 2005. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature. 2 vols. London: Thoem- mes Continuum. Vucetich, J.A. and R.O. Peterson. 2004a. Long-term population and predation dynamics of wolves on Isle Royale. In Biology and Conservation of Wild Canids. D. Macdonald and C. Sillero-Zubiri, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 281–292. ———. 2004b. The influence of prey consumption and demographic stochasticity on popu-

112 The George Wright Forum lation growth rate of Isle Royale wolves (Canis lupus). Oikos 107, 309–320. ———. 2004c. The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and abiotic factors on the moose (Alces alces) population of Isle Royale. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 271, 183–189. ———. 2007. Ecological Studies of Wolves on Isle Royale: 2006–07 Annual Report. Hough- ton: Michigan Technological University. ———. In press. Wolf and moose dynamics on Isle Royale. In Recovery of Gray Wolves in the Great Lakes Region of the United States: An Endangered Species Success Story. A.P.Wyd- even and T.Van Deelen, eds. New York: Springer-Verlag. Vucetich, J.A., R.O. Peterson, and M.P. Nelson. In press. Will the future of Isle Royale wolves and moose always differ from our sense of their past? In The World of Wolves: New Perspectives on Ecology, Behaviour, and Policy. M. Musiani, L. Boitani, and P. Paquet, eds. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. Vucetich, J.A., R.O. Peterson, and C.L. Schaefer. 2002. The effect of prey and predator den- sities on wolf predation. Ecology 83:11, 3003–3013. Vucetich, J.A., R.O. Peterson, and T.A.Waite. 2004. Raven scavenging favours group forag- ing in wolves. Animal Behaviour 67, 1117–1126. Werner, Earl. 2008. Personal communication with M.P.N., May 18.

Michael P. Nelson, Lyman Briggs College, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife & Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48825; [email protected] Rolf O. Peterson, School of Forest Resources and Environmental Sciences, Michigan Tech- nological University, Houghton, Michigan 49931; [email protected] John A. Vucetich, School of Forest Resources and Environmental Sciences, Michigan Tech- nological University, Houghton, Michigan 49931; [email protected]

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 113 FOR OVER 25 YEARS, the George Wright Society has been about one thing: CARING FOR PROTECTED AREAS.

The heart of the GWS is our support for professions that promote sci ence, scholarship, and understanding in parks, protected natural areas, historic places, and cultural sites. We bring it all together in ways nobody else does. If you care about parks, won't you please join the GWS community of professionals? Membership includes a subscription to The George Wright Forum and discounts at the biennial GWS Conference. Use this form or join on-line at vrww.georgewright.org.

name

affiliation

address

city, state/prov, zip/postal code

work phone; work fax

expertise (name up to 4 areas)

regular $55/yr ($65*) supporting $150/yr ($160*) institution $110/yr ($120*) life $1,000 ($1,000*) full-time student $25/yr ($25*) library subscription $55/yr ($65 *)

* Prices marked with an asterisk apply to addresses outside of North America. Library subscriptions are available

to libraries only, and include a subscription to The George Wright Forum only (no additional membership benefits).

check enclosed please charge my Visa / MasterCard / AMEX

card number

expiration date (MM/YY) 3-digit security code (back of card)

signature

MAIL TO: George Wright Society, P.O. Box 65, Hancock, Ml 49930-0065 USA or FAX TO: 1-906-487-9405 >»»»»»»» thank you! 114 The George Wright Forum GEORGE P.O. Box 65 Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065 WRIGHT USA SOCIETY www.georgewright.org

caring for protected areas