WILD & SCENIC RIVERS CLIMATE CHANGE & CULTURAL … · 2016-09-08 · SUZANNE LEWIS • Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming MELIA LANE-KAMAHELE • Honolulu, Hawaii BRENT A. MITCHELL

WILD & SCENIC RIVERS

ISLE ROYALE: 50 YEARS OF A LANDMARK STUDY

CLIMATE CHANGE & CULTURAL HERITAGE

COMMERCIAL GRIZZLY VIEWING

The George Wright Forum 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 purposes of promoting the application of knowledge, fostering communication, 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 dedicated to the protection, preservation, and management of cultural and natural 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 Goa l

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).

© 2008 The George Wright Society, Inc. All rights reserved. (No copyright is claimed for previously published material reprinted herein.)

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.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.georgewright.org

http://www.georgewright.org/forum.html

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 4 0 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 system. 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.

The George Wright Forum 2

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 w a y

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

http://www.georgewright.org/strategic.html

mailto:[email protected]

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

http://www.georgewright.org/awards.html

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.


http://cms.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/wcpa/

http://www.georgewright.org/us_tentative_list.pdf

http://www.georgewright.org/231morgan.pdf

http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/Revl812Study.htm

The George Wright Forum6

Reassessing the National Park Service and theNational 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 more-over 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 aseries of studies, reports, and conferences to assess the current state and future of the nation-al park system. Each study to some extent reflected its political, social, cultural, and econom-ic environment. A critical review of these studies can tell us much about the significant chal-lenges the National Park Service and the parks have faced—and continue to face. Thoughvaried in scope and form, the reports all struggled with questions about the importance ofthe national parks and what the drafters and participants believed were the enduring corevalues that the parks represented. Their major findings and recommendations were remark-ably similar. Although the reports yielded some positive results, none resulted in fundamen-tal, enduring change. As the NPS Centennial approaches and discussion focuses on thefuture of the NPS and the park system, there is much that can be learned from a look back atthe strengths and weaknesses of these earlier studies and assessments.

State of the Parks–1980There had been several landmark stud-

ies of park natural resources in the 1960s,1

but the more contemporary reassessment ofthe NPS and the park system began in 1980when Congress directed the NPS to con-

duct a major review of the condition of itsparks. NPS officials used results from aquestionnaire that had been sent to parksuperintendents. The final product, State ofthe Parks–1980: A Report to Congress, re-flected the growing emphasis on an ecolog-


ical and scientific approach to park manage-ment that had occurred in the 1960s and1970s. It highlighted the damage caused byboth external and internal threats, such asthat caused by management failures and vis-itor use. NPS efforts to document the dam-age and manage the resources, it concluded,were inadequate. Alarmed by the nationalpress attention that the report received, sen-ior NPS and Interior department officialsbegan to have reservations and attempted tominimize its findings. The study made spe-cific proposals for improving natural re-source management but contained no firmcommitment that the NPS would act onthese proposals. In January 1981 the NPSsubmitted its formal response to Con-gress—a second State of the Parks report—in which the Park Service agreed to identifythe most critical threats and give them pri-ority for funding in the coming fiscal years.It also agreed to complete a resource man-agement plan for each park and implementa greatly expanded training program, whichwould promote a more professional cadreof natural resource managers.

The same month that the Park Servicesubmitted this mitigation report to Con-gress, President Ronald Reagan took officecalling for government austerity and conser-vative retrenchment. His secretary of theinterior, James G. Watt, shifted emphasisfrom wildlife and wilderness protection andpreservation to recreational development.During the Reagan administration, leader-ship in shaping the national park systemshifted from the executive branch to Con-gress. With little support from the adminis-tration, by 1982 Park Service leaders lostsome of their resolve and abandoned thereporting procedures recommended in thefirst State of the Parks report. State of the

Parks did prompt the NPS to develop train-ing courses in the 1980s to educate employ-ees in ecological management principlesand environmental laws, although this effortdeclined by the end of the decade. It alsoencouraged increases in funding andstaffing for scientific research and naturalresource management.

National Parks for a New GenerationMeanwhile, The Conservation Found-

ation undertook a comprehensive, three-year study focused primarily on land useissues. A multi-disciplinary team that in-cluded a land use and public land planner,an urban specialist, a social scientist, andattorneys visited more than sixty parks andinterviewed hundreds of individuals. NPSstaff assisted in the study, sharing informa-tion and insights. The final report, titledNational Parks for aNewGeneration: Visions,Realities, Prospects, published in 1985, pre-sented a critical portrait of the current stateof the parks and made specific recommen-dations for the future. The ConservationFoundation acknowledged that the parksystem had grown in size and complexity,and the needs of the parks had changed. Itoutlined three major concerns thatdemanded attention if the national parkswere to retain their “distinctive place inAmerican life”: improved stewardship ofpark resources, a new assessment of the roleof the private sector in the parks, and inno-vative strategies for creating the park systemof the future.2

As with the State of the Parks report,National Parks for a New Generation wasvery much a product of the contemporarypolitical, social, and economic climate. Thereport warned that pressures on parks weremounting, and the cumulative impact of

NPS Centennial Essay



heavy visitor use, deferred maintenance,and outside threats would “seriously dam-age parks unless checked.” The 1980s, itexplained, were “not a time of great expec-tations” for much-needed managementinnovations.3 Officials had placed moreemphasis on reducing federal expendituresthan on promoting park stewardship. Thewide-ranging report recommended broadinitiatives to preserve park resources andrespond to rising public expectations: a ten-year, $50 million comprehensive programcalled Preservation ’95 to protect parkresources; special attention to historic andcultural resources; and a campaign to com-bat external pressures in the parks.

National Parks for a New Generationenvisioned new and expanded roles for theprivate sector but with greater transparencyand improved oversight. It advocated a“more expansive” vision of the future inwhich many unprotected sites worthy ofpreservation would become part of thenational park system or protected in someother way. The report emphasized the needto address the backlog of private lands cur-rently located within park boundaries andhighlighted the need to improve and mod-ernize NPS management. National Parksfor a New Generation conceded that theincreased visitation and other pressures onthe park system made it increasingly diffi-cult to preserve traditional park values. Yetit was confident that the system couldaccommodate these demands and still fulfillits preservation mission. It challenged NPSleaders to advance a “broad and dynamic”vision that reflected the size and diversity ofthe park system, but defined that vision invague and narrow terms, emphasizing theindividual visitor experience. “Preservingpark resources more nearly unimpaired may

ultimately depend on more widespreadrespect, by an increasingly crowded anddeveloped nation, for the visitor experi-ences that are less and less available outsidethe national parks,” the report concluded.“In communicating to a wider audience theexperiences of awe, solitude, adventure,communion, repose, and reinvigoration tobe found in national parks, the conservationcommunity can aid the continuing evolu-tion of the park ideal to help preserve theparks for this and future generations.”4

The problems identified in these andother studies persisted.As the decade of the1980s closed, the NPS struggled withdeclining morale, the increasing complexityof the park system and programs, seriousfiscal constraints, and inadequate personneland organizational structures. The attemptto improve NPS scientific resource manage-ment through training, funding, and staffingas recommended in the various reports hadhad only partial success. Park Service lead-ers planned a major meeting of employeesand their partners to address some of thesegrowing challenges.

The Vail AgendaIn October 1991 the NPS convened a

75th Anniversary Symposium in Vail, Colo-rado, to analyze the problems facing theNPS and make recommendations thatwould help chart the agency’s course for the21st century as an organization, as stewardof the parks, as host to their visitors, and asan environmental leader—in effect toreassert its leadership role in shaping thenational park system. Working groupsfocused on four areas of NPS policy andmanagement: organizational renewal, parkuse and enjoyment, environmental leader-ship, and resource stewardship. Six strate-


gic objectives framed the work: resourcestewardship and protection, access andenjoyment, education and interpretation,proactive leadership, science and research,and professionalism.

The findings and recommendationsfrom the symposium were published in1992 as National Parks for the 21stCentury: The Vail Agenda. The Vail Agendarecognized that the Park Service’s “portfo-lio of parks” had expanded to include abroad array of sites—from scenic rivers tohistoric battlefields. The park system hadbeen constructed to serve many differentconstituencies and purposes, and theseconstituencies, whether backpackers,urbanites or others, measured the Park Ser-vice’s performance based on that aspect ofthe park system that had direct value tothem. Few understood or cared that theNPS mission was much broader. Yet, thereport noted, “Appreciation of the multi-faceted mandate of the Service is essential ifone is to effectively define what it means tobe a leader in this agency.”5

Echoing earlier studies, The VailAgenda found that the NPS budget hadfailed to keep pace with visitation andpointed to the immediate need for a massiveinvestment in organization and parks.However, NPS historian Bill Brown notedthat by failing to include cost figures forimplementing its recommendations, thereport remained “a wish list of 90 distinctrecommendations.” Also missing was aclear vision of how the national park systemas an institution should fit into an evolvingsociety. Nor was there a strong, directappeal for public support. Brown encour-aged the NPS draw upon its legislative man-date to state more emphatically “what theparks must be in our society, how they must

be nurtured with people and resources toaccomplish the social purposes that we as anation have agreed upon for them.” Whatthe Park Service needed, Brown concluded,was nothing less than “a national crusade.”6

Though the report included importantrecommendations concerning park use andenjoyment, its analysis was sometimes con-fusing and its recommendations related tonatural resources, such as the call for inven-torying and monitoring park resources,echoed those of earlier studies. Others top-ics included external threats, improvingcooperation with universities and managersof neighboring public or private lands, edu-cating the public about environmentalissues, increasing and professionalizingNPS staff, increasing funding for scienceand natural resource management, andsecuring a legislative mandate for scientificresearch in the parks. The Vail Agendaissued a challenge to the Park Service warn-ing that “the only failure will be inaction,” achallenge that continues to resonate.7 At theclose of the Vail meeting, NPS DirectorJames M. Ridenour voiced a similar con-cern: “It is clear to me that we will need anongoing commitment and process to keepour collective feet to the fire to make surethat our efforts do not just generate anotherreport to gather dust on a shelf.”8 Yet for allthe bold objectives, the problems outlinedwere all ones that the NPS had been reluc-tant to address. Although the reportprompted some agency restructuring,Interior officials and agency leaders showedlittle enthusiasm for major change.

Preserving Nature in the National ParksProblems with natural resource man-

agement received even greater scrutiny afterthe Vail symposium. For example, the




National Academy of Sciences came outwith a critical report called Science and theNational Parks in 1992. In 1997 NPSHistorian Richard West Sellars publishedPreserving Nature in the National Parks: AHistory. This well-documented, carefullycrafted history of NPS natural resourcemanagement revealed that the NPS hadbeen negligent in the extreme when it cameto pursuing a core function of its mission:preserving natural resources unimpaired forthe enjoyment of future generations.9

Unlike previous studies, PreservingNature in the National Parks inspired asubstantial institutional response. In Aug-ust 1999 Park Service leaders announced amajor initiative, the Natural ResourceChallenge, to substantially improve the waythe NPS managed the natural resourcesunder its care. The NPS appealed to Con-gress and within the first few years of theChallenge, had garnered an increase ofapproximately $80 million in base fundingfor natural resource management andresearch in the parks. Since its inception,the Natural Resource Challenge has sub-stantially increased the role of science in thePark Service’s decision-making, revitalizedand expanded its natural resource pro-grams, strengthened its partnerships withthe scientific community, and shared itsknowledge with educational institutions.Although the Natural Resource Challengehas proven successful, there has been nosimilar initiative or effort on behalf of cul-tural resources.

Rethinking the National Parksfor the 21st Century

As the Natural Resource Challengegathered momentum, in late 1999 NPS Dir-ector Robert G. Stanton asked the National

Park System Advisory Board to address thecomplex, “multi-dimensional” mission ofthe NPS and make recommendations forthe future and to prepare a report on the“purposes and prospects” for the NPS inthe coming decades. More succinct andfocused than previous studies, Rethinkingthe National Parks for the 21st Century: AReport of the National Park System AdvisoryBoard, which came out in 2001, reiteratedthe Park Service’s founding mission: toensure that these places would never beimpaired and would be available to “inspireand inform future generations.” It called onleaders “to re-examine the ‘enjoymentequals support’ equation” and to enhancethe public’s understanding of and apprecia-tion for the importance of resource protec-tion. The Advisory Board sought to take a“fresh look” at the NPS within the existingsocial, political, and economic context andto identify ways that the NPS could betterserve the American public. It framed a moreexpansive social contract. Parks, it warned,could no longer be thought of “as islandswith little or no connection, cultural or eco-logical, to their surroundings.”10

The Advisory Board recommendedthat the NPS increase its commitment toeducation; encourage the study and publicdiscussion of the American past and linkpark sites to the broader themes of Ameri-can history; focus more attention on theconservation of natural systems and biodi-versity; adopt and advance the principles ofsustainability; actively explore and empha-size the connections between native cul-tures and the parks; encourage collabora-tion among park and recreation systemsfrom the local to the federal level to promotea widely accessible outdoor recreation net-work; and develop a more diverse work-


force. The recommendations reflected theimpact of the large number of cultural andhistoric sites that had come into the parksystem during the 1990s and the mountingpressure on park boundaries. It also reflect-ed the agency’s increased program respon-sibilities and greater emphasis on educationand environmentalism. The study encour-aged the NPS to reaffirm the meaning andvalue of parks, conservation, and recreationand to expand the education and researchrole of the parks. Expressing its vision forthe NPS, the report concluded, “By caringfor the parks and conveying the park ethic,we care for ourselves and act on behalf ofthe future. The larger purpose of this mis-sion is to build a citizenry that is committedto conserving its heritage and its home onearth.” The report sparked little response.11

Discovery 2000As the new century opened, the pro-

cess of reassessment continued. In the fall of2000, Director Stanton convened a majorservicewide conference in St. Louis, Mis-souri, called “Discovery 2000.”More inclu-sive than traditional superintendents’ meet-ings, it included partners; representativesfrom various federal, state, and local agen-cies; Indian tribes; concessionaires; non-profit organizations; and foreign parks.There was greater representation of womenand minorities than in the past. The statedgoal of the conference was to develop avision of the NPS role in the life of thenation in the 21st century; to inspire andinvigorate the Park Service, its partners, andthe public about this vision; and to developnew leadership to meet future challenges.The dialogue was to focus on the long-termfuture of the Park Service and the park sys-tem. The format was a mix of inspirational

plenary sessions, with such distinguishedguest speakers as scientist E.O.Wilson andhistorian John Hope Franklin, and smallgroup sessions and workshops where par-ticipants engaged in spirited discussions ona variety of pressing topics.

The conference came at a time of mod-est expansion, budget increases, and signif-icant change. Yet, the problems the ParkService faced, the problems the NPS and itspartners tackled at the conference, wereremarkably similar to those a decade earlier:development around park borders, invasivenon-native species, air pollution, and dete-riorating roads and facilities. The confer-ence was organized around four familiarthemes: cultural resource stewardship, nat-ural resource stewardship, education, andleadership. Participants discussed educa-tion, resource protection, the role of sci-ence, biodiversity, threats from outside parkboundaries, demographic changes, leader-ship, environmentalism, and sustainability.But, as with many of the earlier efforts, par-ticipants left with no clearly articulated planor agenda to guide real reform. Developinga clear agenda for the 21st century hadnever been the conference’s purpose. Asnoted earlier, one of the major goals of theconference was to inspire, and by any meas-ure it succeeded in this. However, inspira-tion alone would not be enough to promptdramatic change, and the momentum gen-erated at the conference soon waned.12

Since 1980 the various studies andconferences discussed above have repeated-ly highlighted concerns related to educa-tion, leadership and management, threatsfrom outside park boundaries, the role ofscience, environmentalism, and the need to


improve resource stewardship. The reportslaid out a vision for the NPS and the parksystem that often fell short, just as the ParkService fell short in its response. Some ofthese reports recommended that the NPSdevelop a comprehensive program to inven-tory parks’ natural resources and monitortheir condition over time. The Park Servicerepeatedly expressed its intent to do this,but made little progress.

State of the Parks–1980, for example,highlighted the need for improvements indetermining what cultural and naturalresources existed in each park, their currentcondition, and the degree to which theywere threatened. In its response, the NPScalled for resource management plans toidentify the condition of each park’sresources and the problems managingthem. Yet, between 1987 and 1996 theGeneral Accounting Office (now the Gov-ernment Accountability Office) reportedthree times that the Park Service had madeonly limited progress in fulfilling therequirements for information and monitor-ing identified in 1980.13

Another recurring theme from thesereports and conferences was lack of ade-quate funding. However, with few excep-tions the reports failed to detail the specificcosts associated with their findings and rec-ommendations. Except for PreservingNature in the National Parks, none calledfor or sparked a major campaign to secureadditional funds. None appealed directly tothe American public for support. Noneactively enlisted the grassroots supportwithin the Park Service that is so critical tosuccess. None fully addressed the funda-mental question of what the national parksshould be and should mean in a rapidlychanging society. None were able to effec-tively and powerfully assert the NPS pur-

pose. Though there were repeated refer-ences to “the park ideal” and “park values,”most failed to articulate a clear vision andmission for the Park Service and the parksystem. To be fair, the NPS’s mission andresponsibilities had become so complexthat the authors of these studies might havefound producing a single mission statementor statement of park values simply too diffi-cult.

Why did these studies and reportskeep revisiting many of the same issues?Why were the problems and concerns iden-tified in the reports not addressed moreforcefully? The answer is not entirely clear.Certainly budget constraints and inade-quate political support were factors. Someof the responsibility lay with the NPS andits own resistance to change. Park Serviceleaders seem to have absorbed the reportsand made modest changes, but then retreat-ed to their comfortable cultural behavioralpatterns. In addition, most of the studiesfailed to include any requirement foraccountability or milestones against whichprogress could be judged.

Yet, as we have seen, the reports alsohad some positive impacts.Most important-ly, they focused attention on the criticalissues affecting the Park Service and theparks. They articulated the pressing prob-lems and challenges in clear and sometimescompelling ways. In some instances, theyresulted in organizational change, budgetincreases, and improved training. Yet noneprompted long-term, fundamental change.As the system grew larger and more com-plex, the challenge of addressing the issuesnoted above only became greater. The VailAgenda set out to answer the question“Why would a nation want a system ofnational parks?” as a way of defining thepurpose of the National Park Service. The





question remains as challenging, relevant,and urgent today as at any time in the ParkService’s history.

The NPS mission has grown wellbeyond what founders Stephen Mather andHorace Albright envisioned; it has becomemuch more complex than preserving andmanaging park sites. The Park Service nowhas responsibility for managing a broadrange of programs, and its legislative man-date has grown to include clean air andwater, protection of archeological re-sources, historic preservation, endangeredspecies, wild and scenic rivers, 40 nationalheritage areas, large cooperative landscapeprojects, and environmental protection.The national park system has expandedfrom managing a collection of the great sce-nic parks to administering hundreds ofdiverse sites and programs and participat-ing in civic and social pursuits. As the mis-sion has grown in complexity, so too has theenormousness of the issues the Park Service

must face. At the same time, change andgrowth have also created a new context ofopportunity, one in which boldness, creativ-ity, and a new set of skills will be required.

As the NPS reflects on its role and pur-pose in anticipation of its second century,what can we learn from these earlier assess-ment efforts and their outcomes? Itbecomes clear that significant fundamentalchange will require broad vision, bold lead-ership, outside-the-box thinking, a cleararticulation of goals, careful planning, clearstandards of accountability, a detailed budg-et that provides adequate funding, grass-roots public support, a strong support basewithin NPS, and thoughtful, close collabo-ration with its partners. Any vision for thenext century clearly must focus on morethan preserving the individual visitor expe-rience; it must be firmly linked to the com-mon good. The NPS and its partners mustcontinue to develop and embrace a broaderview of what the national parks are for.

AcknowledgmentsThe author would like to thank Richard West Sellars, Dwight Pitcaithley, Loran Fraser,

and Rolf Diamant, who reviewed the manuscript and provided valuable comments.

Endnotes1. 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 theNational 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.

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 HistoryOffice 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 to2007. 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 thoughtson the National Park Service, its centennial, and the future of America’s national parksystem. Write us at [email protected] and we’ll post your comments on ourCentennial webpage (www.georgewright.org/nps2016.html).


Celebrating 40 Years of theWild & Scenic Rivers Act:

An Evolution of River Protection Strategies ,

Growing up in the North Woods ofMichigan, I was surrounded by water. Fromcanoeing on the Au Sable River, to hikingalong the Tahquamenon, moving watershave been an important influence in my life.These rivers and streams were a consistentsource of exploration and discovery—bothan open schoolyard and a warehouse of lifelessons, in metaphor—that fed my curiosity,nourished my soul, and, at times, served asa refuge. Though I didn’t understand it atthe time, the rivers and the woods throughwhich they flowed were an important partof my own personal growth, development,and history. I am convinced that the time Ispent listening to the birds along the riverbanks, or watching the life cycles ebb andflow as the seasons progressed, are experi-ences that contribute to who I am today.The emotional connection and inspiration Ifelt then are resurrected each time I hear a

red-wing blackbird buzzing along a marsh,frogs singing in chorus, or the thump of abeaver tail hitting the water. I am remindedthat these and other such experiences aremy touchstone, a grounding point of refer-ence.

Collectively, just as for me individually,rivers are an important part of America’snatural and cultural heritage. They havebeen sources of physical sustenance andspiritual inspiration, provided an impetusfor human settlement, and served as pathsfor exploration, commerce, and travel. If weare to fully understand America’s history, itis imperative to fully understand the contri-butions that rivers have made to ournation’s growth, development, and conser-vation ethic. In many respects, rivers areanalogous to our wilderness areas,which, asRoderick Nash (Lawliss and Davis 2004)observes, are our historical documents—

Celebrating Forty Years of theWild and Scenic Rivers Act

Sue Jennings

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT IS AN IMPORTANT YEAR FOR RIVERS, marking as it does four decadesof protection provided by the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Given the importance ofrivers, both to individuals and the nation, it is an anniversary worth acknowledging.

our libraries and a living repository of histo-ry and knowledge that cannot be obtainedwithout direct, firsthand experiences. Theyare integral to who we are as a nation. Toallow our waterways to deteriorate is, toparaphrase Nash, equivalent to tearingpages from our most important historicaldocuments.

For four decades, the National Wildand Scenic Rivers Act has protected ournation’s most spectacular rivers and servesas an important tool for balancing develop-ment and preservation. From the Allagash,Delaware, and Obed, to the Missouri, Mer-ced, Snake, and Trinity, the stories of ournation’s signature rivers are preserved bythis pioneering law. Championed by Sena-tor Frank Church of Idaho, and signed intolaw by President Lyndon B. Johnson onOctober 2, 1968, the act declares that

. . . certain selected rivers of the Nationwhich, with their immediate environ-ments, possess outstandingly remark-able scenic, recreational, geologic, fishand wildlife, historic, cultural or othersimilar values, shall be preserved infree-flowing condition, and that theyand their immediate environmentsshall be protected for the benefit andenjoyment of present and future gener-ations.

Notable for safeguarding the specialcharacter of certain rivers, the act purpose-fully strives to balance development withpermanent protection for the country’s out-standing free-flowing rivers and their asso-ciated values. In doing so, it establishes avisionary template for a collaborativeapproach to river protection involving fed-eral, state, and local partners.

The act emerged following nearly twodecades of bitter controversy over the pro-

posed construction of hydroelectric damswithin Hells Canyon along the Snake River.The dispute propelled Senator Church intoan 18-year battle that would define hiscareer (Ewert 2001). The drama at HellsCanyon involved one of the largest acciden-tal fish kills in our nation’s history, alongwith an unusual lawsuit where the Depart-ment of the Interior sued the Federal PowerCommission (asserting a proposed projectwould have adverse affects on fish andwildlife resources), and resulted in a his-toric Supreme Court decision where thedefinition of the public good was expandedto include environmental values (Ashworth1977; Ewert 2001). During this period,similar controversies were playing out in theWest and across the nation. Likewise, in-creasing levels of education,personal income,and awareness helped spawn a greater inter-

Wild and Scenic Rivers


Obed Wild and Scenic River, Tennessee. Photocourtesy of NPS.



est in environmental issues. The nation’senvironmental conscience was re-emerginginto a modern environmental movement,which challenged the premise of sustainablehydropower. The stars could not havealigned more perfectly. The time was ripefor a new direction in managing our nation’sriver resources.

As we approach the 40th anniversaryof the act, it is an appropriate time to reflecton where we have been and where we aretoday, and to renew our commitment toriver protection beyond the next 40 years.

The Snake River and theHells Canyon controversy

Along the northern border betweenOregon and Idaho, the Snake River hascarved out sheer vertical cliffs through arugged landscape, making a stunning gorgedeeper than the Grand Canyon. Desolateand seemingly impenetrable, the walls ofHells Canyon rise up an astounding 7,900feet, and, in some places, are less than fivemiles apart. The canyon features dramaticchanges in vegetation, supports a variety ofwildlife, and offers stunning vistas of Idahoand Oregon from the rim. In addition to adiverse array of plants and animals, theSnake was home to extraordinary salmonruns—at one time it produced nearly 40%of all the salmon and steelhead in the Col-umbia River Basin (Ewert 2001).

The canyon has an equally rich cultur-al history. Home to Native Americans andthe subject of Nez Perce legend, the gorge isa storehouse of prehistoric artifacts, petro-glyphs, and other important archeologicalrelics. In more recent times, several explor-ers came through the area in search of trans-portation routes. Captain Meriwether Lewis,as part of the Lewis and Clark expedition,described the area as a “high broken moun-

tainous country” where the river bankswere “in most places solid and perpendicu-lar rocks, which rise to a great hight [sic]”(Lewis et al. 2002). Further attesting to thecanyon’s difficult landscape, members ofthis historic expedition were convinced by aShoshone chief that the river and moun-tains were inaccessible (Ashworth 1977).Later, in the 1830s, after arriving at HellsCanyon as part of an expedition to theAmerican West, U.S. Army Captain Benja-min Bonneville observed: “Nothing we hadever gazed upon in any other region couldfor a moment compare in wild majesty andimpressive sternness with the series ofscenes which here at every turn astonishedour senses and filled us with awe anddelight” (Ewert 2001). Unsettled, rugged,and remote, Bonneville and other explorerswere forced to abandon the gorge time andagain. It wasn’t until gold was discovered inIdaho in the 1860s that a renewed interestin accessing the canyon emerged. Home-steaders, prospectors, and ranchers came toestablish mining towns and small communi-ties. With the conclusion of the Nez PerceWar of 1877, rapid development followed.It was not long after that plans were in placeto harness the immense hydroelectric po-tential of the Snake.

By the late 1940s and early 1950s, fed-eral dam construction was sweeping thenation. Large rivers were dammed, andeventually this remote gorge, with its fast-flowing waters, was seriously considered bythe federal government for its developmentpotential. During this period, the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and other federalagencies had completed feasibility studiesin the Columbia River basin, which includ-ed the Middle Snake River (Ashworth1977). Two federal dams, one at the HellsCanyon site and another downstream near

the confluence of the Salmon River, wereproposed. In 1952, yet another proposalemerged that advocated building a massivefederal dam at Hells Canyon Creek. Thisproposal would have been six feet shy of theHoover Dam in height and would havemaintained a reservoir storage capacity of4.4 million acre-feet of water, effectivelystagnating 93 miles of river behind the dam(Ewert 2001). Likewise, Idaho Power, a pri-vate company, was securing private owner-ship claims within Hells Canyon. By 1953,permit hearings were underway for a seriesof three privately owned dams within thegorge: the Brownlee, the Oxbow, and theHells Canyon. The controversy was begin-ning to boil. In the early 1950s, the concernwas not should the dams be built; rather, theissue pertained to ownership. Should thedams and their hydroelectric generatingpotential be publicly or privately owned?

Church, at the time of his election tothe Senate in 1956, supported federal damdevelopment. He felt strongly that the fed-eral government had the best long-termcapability for both protecting the region’swater rights and ensuring economic growth.Church asserted that federally fundedhydroelectric projects would save taxpayerdollars (Ewert 2001). Others supportedprivately owned and operated dams. How-ever, by this time, preservation of salmonand steelhead runs for their economic andcultural importance was gaining support, aswas protecting the canyon’s scenic valuesand associated public recreational opportu-nities. The debate over how to best develophydropower for economic growth, irriga-tion, and other needs soon intensified as theenvironmental movement grew. Churchstruggled with balancing his own beliefs,which favored development as an economic



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



growth stimulus, with those of a growingenvironmental movement within his ownstate and across the nation.

The Oxbow incidentFollowing a bitter battle between feder-

al and private interests, Idaho Power pre-vailed, and construction for the Hells Can-yon projects began in 1955. The BrownleeDam was completed in 1958, the OxbowDam in 1961, and the Hells Canyon Dam in1967. However, construction was not com-pleted without incident. As part of the per-mit condition for licensing, Idaho Powerwas required to ensure protection of theanadromous fishery. Idaho Power’s planwas to transport salmon around the 205-foot-high Oxbow Dam and release theminto the river as a means to maintain viableruns during construction. Unfortunately, in1958, the attempt failed and decimated theentire fall Chinook salmon and steelheadrun. This debacle, which included trap fail-ures, isolation of fish in an unaerated pooldownstream of the dam, and poorly organ-ized logistics, led to, according to one histo-rian, “one of the greatest anadromous fishdisasters in history” (Ewert 2001). TheU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was called into survey the damage, and according onereport “approximately 4,000 adult Chi-nook salmon and steelhead died on site”and “50 percent of the 14,000 salmon whichwere collected and transported around theproject did not survive to spawn. The suc-cess of the 3,700 steelhead trout whichwere passed remains to be determined. Inaddition to the environmental catastrophe,the monetary loss from their failure tospawn was literally incalculable” (Ewert2001) .

The Oxbow tragedy focused nationalattention on the limitations of dam technol-

ogy. The controversy surrounding theBrownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon damshad a significant impact on other dam con-struction. Elsewhere across the country thepublic was witnessing the unforeseeneffects of hydropower dams in other cher-ished locales—including the loss of recre-ational whitewater, important floodplainhabitat, and important Native Americansites. As the issue made its way through thecourts, public sentiment in support of theenvironment strengthened. Environmentalquality was rapidly becoming an integralpart of America’s perception of “the goodlife” and commensurate to a high standardof living (Ewert 2001). By the 1960s, thedebate between the environmental costsand economic benefits of hydropower wasraging. Litigation continued to follow onthe heels of licensing actions. In 1964, theproposed High Mountain Sheep Dam onthe Snake River (with both a private andpublicly funded option) was litigated. In ahighly unusual move, the Department of theInterior sued the Federal Power Commis-sion in an effort to protect salmon and steel-head from the negative impacts associatedwith impounding the Snake.The case madeit to the Supreme Court, where Justice Wil-liam O. Douglas, writing for the majority,interpreted the Federal Power Act to re-quire the consideration of alternatives tofederal development, including no develop-ment. Douglas wrote: “The test is whetherthe project will be in the public interest.And that determination can be made onlyafter an exploration of all issues . . . includ-ing future power demand and supply, alter-native sources of power, the public interestin preserving reaches of wild rivers and wil-derness areas, the preservation of anadro-mous fish for commercial and recreationalpurposes, and the protection of wildlife.”

(Ashworth 1977). The Supreme Courtrequired the Federal Power Commission toreconsider the application.

By the mid-1960s, there was sufficientpublic concern over the inexorable loss offree-flowing rivers to force change. Church,who witnessed the environmental lossesassociated with dams, began to share thisconcern. He wisely recognized that themounting public sentiment was creating “agroundswell of public concern for the fateof these majestic streams, many of themthreatened by dams which would foreverdestroy their beauty and ecology.” Churchwarned that “if we fail to give these rivers,which are assets of unique and incompara-ble value, statutory protection now, whilethere is still time, we shall have only our-selves to blame later, when time has runout.” The 20-year debate over the develop-ment or preservation of the 110-mile free-flowing stretch of the Snake in Hells Can-yon changed Frank Church (Ewert 2001).Clearly, his awareness and appreciation ofthe role of dams in the larger environmentalpicture deepened, as did his commitment to

balancing development and preservationand his skills in seeking reasonable solu-tions through consensus.

Passage of theWild and Scenic Rivers Act

InMarch 1965,Church introduced theNational Wild Rivers Bill, which prohibiteddams on certain select rivers. Fully support-ed by the Johnson administration, this land-mark legislation, designed to preserve for-ever in a free-flowing condition some of thenation’s most precious rivers, was signedinto law on October 2, 1968, as the NationalWild and Scenic Rivers Act.Officially knownas Public Law 90-542, Section 1(b) of theact expresses congressional policy for therivers of the United States:

The Congress declares that the estab-lished national policy of dam andother construction at appropriate sec-tions of the rivers of the United Statesneeds to be complemented by a policythat would preserve other selectedrivers or sections thereof in their free-



Aniakchak Wild and ScenicRiver, Alaska. Photo courtesyof Troy Hamon/NPS.



flowing condition to protect the waterquality of such rivers and to fulfillother vital conservation purposes.

Today, the act serves as the nation’sprimary river conservation authority. By es-tablishing a national wild and scenic riverssystem, the act established a policy that bal-ances the federal government’s role indamming and channelizing rivers for power,flood control, and agricultural purposeswith protection of the free-flowing characterand associated values of selected rivers forpresent and future generations.

Establishing a system of protectedrivers: How the act protects rivers

The legislation outlines how rivers be-come part of the national system, how theyare managed, what kinds of developmentscan occur within a river’s corridor, and howthe federal government and its partners cancooperatively share stewardship responsi-bilities (National Park Service 2007). TheBureau of Land Management (BLM), Na-tional Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS) and the U.S.Forest Service (USFS) are the four federalagencies responsible for administering, reg-ulating, and managing designated rivers inthe national system. In order to qualify forfederal designation, a river or river segmentmust be in a free-flowing condition, havegood water quality, and be deemed to haveone or more “outstandingly remarkable”scenic, recreational, geologic, hydrologic,fish,wildlife, ecological, historic/cultural, orother similar values. The act requires theestablishment of a boundary, classificationof river segments, and the development ofcomprehensive river management plan.

Segments may be added by Congress,

or a state may apply—through its gover-nor—to the secretary of the interior for des-ignation under section 2(a)(ii) of the Act.For state-administered rivers in the system,the state bears the primary responsibilityfor management through state and localstatutes and regulations. Where no federallands adjoin state-administered segments,the NPS has oversight responsibilities, and,on behalf of the secretary of the interior, isresponsible for evaluating impacts of cer-tain projects under section 7 of the act.

Once included, every river in thenational system is to be administered in amanner that will not only protect, butenhance the values that made it eligible forinclusion; namely, the river’s free-flowingcondition, its remarkable values, and waterquality.This is often referred to as the “anti-degradation, affirmative protection” clause.The act is nearly unique in requiring theimprovement of a protected natural re-source’s integrity, function, or condition.Importantly, the act establishes federalwater rights. The act does not specify thequantity of the right; the amount of the fed-eral right varies from river to river depend-ing on the river’s flows, its unappropriatedflows at the time of designation, and the val-ues for which it is being protected (Baldwin2001).

Recognizing the importance of a water-shed approach, Congress envisioned riverprotection to be accomplished by mutualcooperation on the part of federal, state,local, and private partners. As such, federalagencies may assist, advise, and cooperatewith states in the designation and manage-ment of rivers, and may seek opportunitiesfor sharing management responsibilitieswith states, political subdivisions, landown-ers, private organizations, or other partners.

Congress also recognized that river protec-tion does not always require public pur-chase and ownership of land. In someinstances, river values can be protected bymethods other than land acquisition (localzoning, restrictions on development onfloodplains or other sites where develop-ment is incompatible, or donations of devel-opment rights to land trusts).Most wild andscenic rivers are managed to accommodateand reflect local community and landownerinterests.

Importantly, section 7 of the act pro-vides the four administering agencies with apowerful regulatory tool. Often called theheart of river protection, section 7 serves asa prohibition or limitation on certain feder-ally assisted water resources projects. Theintent is to preserve designated rivers, as

well as congressionally authorized studyrivers, in their free-flowing condition and toprotect them from the harmful effects ofdams and other types of water resourcesprojects that involve construction withinthe river’s bed and banks. Additionally, sec-tion 7 prohibits federal agencies from ap-proving water resources projects that areproposed for locations above, below, or on atributary of a designated (or study) river(National Park Service 2007). As such,river-administering federal agencies serve ina regulatory capacity during the permitreview process by scientifically evaluatingproposed federally assisted water resourcesprojects that might affect designated orstudy rivers or their tributaries. Harmfulprojects can be denied. Because of its inher-ent veto authority, section 7 is an effective



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



action-forcing tool—early coordinationwith state, local, and private entities withinthe watershed is thus essential for projectimplementation to occur. Properly planned,most project proposals can be designed in amanner that avoids or minimizes impacts,yet is compatible with the goals of the act.

Celebrating decades of river protectionSince its passage in 1968, the act has

served as a visionary template for a nation-wide system of federal, state, and locallyprotected rivers providing a wide range ofbenefits to the American public. In itsentirety, the act is considered one of themost important pieces of conservation lawwe have. In contemplating this legislation toprotect our nation’s rivers, RepresentativeWilliam Anderson of Tennessee rightly

observed, “And I count myself more fortu-nate with each passing season to have re-course to these quiet, tree-strewn,untrimmedacres by the water. I would think it a sadcommentary on the quality of American lifeif . . . we could not secure for our generationand those to come the existence of . . . a sub-stantial remnant of a once great endowmentof wild and scenic rivers.” Indeed, we havemuch to celebrate.

Over the last 40 years, a great deal hastranspired. In 1968, there were eight inau-gural components in the national wild andscenic rivers system. The “original eight”comprised the Middle Fork of the Clear-water and the Middle Fork of the Salmon inIdaho, the Eleven Point in Missouri, theMiddle Fork of the Feather in California, theRio Grande in New Mexico, the Rogue in

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

Oregon, the St. Croix in Minnesota andWisconsin, and the Wolf in Wisconsin.Since then, an astounding 11,290 mileswithin 165 rivers have been included in thenational system. Significant fisheries, ripari-an corridors, and recreational opportunitiesare among the outstanding values protectedon rivers such as the Skagit, Trinity, andNoatak. The natural beauty of New Eng-land is reflected in the Allagash, Farming-ton, and Westfield rivers. The clean, pris-tine waters of the Big Darby, Namekagon,and St. Croix serve as important refugia forfederally listed species. History aboundswhere traces of prehistoric communities areprotected along the John Day, Snake, andRio Grande. Appalachia’s rich cultural his-tory comes alive along the Bluestone andGully. As a result of this legislation, riversthat have played a fundamental role in shap-ing our nation’s history, such as the Mis-souri and Merced, are preserved forever.

Importantly, the formation of theInteragency Wild and Scenic Rivers Co-ordinating Council in 1995 has greatly im-proved interagency coordination among thefour federal agencies charged with adminis-tering the act. A model for interagencycooperation, the work of the council hasresulted in the production of technicalpapers, guidance documents, and trainingcurricula that assist agency staff to fulfill therequirements of the act. Today, the councilcontinues to address a broad range ofemerging issues, provides technical expert-ise to river managers, and serves as a vitalresource to local governments and non-profit organizations on the intricacies of theact.

Charting a new courseYet, with the passage of time, it has

become clear that our management ap-

proach needs to be refurbished in order tomake it relevant and sustainable. Certainly,taking full advantage of all the act’s provi-sions has proven to be difficult. The act hascomplex requirements influencing the man-agement of resources and resource attrib-utes as varied as water quantity and quality,minerals, agriculture, fisheries, archeologi-cal resources, and varied forms of recre-ation. The range of involved jurisdictionsand ownership further compounds thecomplexities of the act. Consequently, effec-tive implementation of the act has been achallenge to agency personnel with shrink-ing budgets and staff, and can be confusingto the public. Key issues demand attentionrelating to regulatory responsibilities, re-source stewardship, and river policy.

In the face of global climate change,droughts and flooding, accelerated wetlandlosses, and water quality and quantity issuesare becoming grave. Already, water wars,once heard of only in the western states,have come to the heartland along the Nio-brara and Missouri rivers, and are brewingin the East. As demand increases for waterfor agricultural, hydropower, and energydevelopment, the pressures on our nation’sriver resources continue to intensify. Therapid proliferation of energy corridors,wind turbines, cell towers, and other devel-opments within river watersheds have leftagencies and partners unable to respond.Our nation’s wild and scenic rivers mayvery well become important repositories orrefugia for fish and other aquatic resources,and riparian habitats along rivers could pro-vide important corridors for movement ofspecies. Already, the largest group of endan-gered species in the United States—mus-sels, fish, and crayfish—depends on a habi-tat of clean, abundant water. These species’continued decline could well be a harbinger





of intensifying conflicts associated withwater management if we fail to respond.

Forty years after the passage of the act,the time is once again ripe to bring riverstewardship into the forefront of the nation-al consciousness—a time to re-evaluate cur-rent management policy and approaches,and to chart a bold new course for the next40 years. First and foremost, we mustencourage efforts that promote our rivers asvaluable assets, fundamental to our nation’shealth, safety, and way of life. This goesbeyond balancing today’s developmenttrends and resource pressures with preser-vation goals; our challenge is to integrateriver protection and consideration of envi-ronmental services into our economic equa-tion.

Second, we need to re-invigorate ourconstituents so they become tomorrow’sriver champions. Our efforts need to focuson educating, inspiring, cultivating, andmotivating a generation of youngsters (andadults) so that they fully understand thevalue of rivers. We need to cultivate advo-cates who view rivers from an ecologicalperspective, who understand their role inour nation’s history, and who value rivers asa source of physical sustenance and spiritu-al inspiration.

In his introduction to A Sand CountyAlmanac, Aldo Leopold wrote that “con-servation is getting nowhere because it isincompatible with our Abrahamic conceptof land.We abuse land because we regard itas a commodity belonging to us. When wesee land as a community to which webelong,we may begin to use it with love andrespect. . . . That ‘land is a community’ isthe basic concept of ecology, but that ‘landis to be loved and respected’ is an extensionof ethics.” We need to revive our land, andwater, ethic.

Third, our management approachesshould focus on enhancements—how torestore systems and undo the mistakes ofthe past. Such a focus could take advantageof this generation’s incredible energy andenthusiasm for new technologies and inno-vation and direct it toward developing inno-vative river and watershed restoration tech-nologies.

Finally, we need to work towards build-ing environmental coalitions with non-tra-ditional partners, including business andindustry. There is an incredible opportuni-ty in this arena to develop an economy thatvalues healthy resources while diversifyingour portfolio of supporters.

As we celebrate 40 years of the Wildand Scenic Rivers Act, I invite you to answerthe call of the river. Jump in and engage inthe ongoing conversations with river scien-tists and historians, resource managers andpolicy analysts, educators and interpreters.Reach out to non-traditional partners andseek innovative ways to restore our water-sheds. Look for opportunities within thelocal community and beyond to institution-alize environmental standards and ensurethese standards and core values are notabdicated. Insist on an educational systemthat produces environmentally literate stu-dents—it is imperative that today’s youthare given an opportunity to get out to theriver’s edge, to learn about streams in theirown back yard, and to understand theirwatershed. Only then will they begin toconnect rivers to their own history and theirpersonal lives, to associate rivers as anessential link to their future, and thusrestore culture.This is the type of land ethicthat leads the way to sustainable co-exis-tence. Like the vocal groups that propelledFrank Church into being an advocate forrivers, and others who were instrumental in

our landmark environmental protectionlaws, without an educated, inspired, andvocal constituency to advance an idea, we

could very well lose what so many haveworked so hard to achieve.



ReferencesAshworth, William. 1977. Hells Canyon: Man, land, and history in the deepest gorge on

earth. American Heritage (April). Online atwww.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 theHells Canyon controversy.Montana 51 (spring), 36–51.

Lawliss, Lucy, and Tim Davis. 2004.Wilderness state of mind: An interview with RoderickNash. 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. Journalentry of August 14, 1805. In The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Gary E.Moulton, ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Online athttp://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 ofthe Wild and Scenic Rivers Task Force to the National Leadership Council. Internalagency 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]


It was the threat of a 610,000-kilowattpower plant inOak ParkHeights,Minnesota,proposed in the 1960s, which triggeredaction leading to designation of the St.Croix National Scenic Riverway, one of thefirst eight rivers designated as part of the1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The riv-erway includes the St. Croix River and amajor tributary, the Namekagon.

Other river development proposalshad been debated since the 1800s, includ-ing an idea that persisted for decades toconnect Lake Superior with the Mississippivia the Namekagon and St. Croix Rivers. Asearly as 1870, the U.S.Army Corps of Engi-neers had considered damming the LowerSt. Croix to create a reservoir and controlnavigation on the Mississippi (Merritt1979:72–77, 289).

By the late 1920s, Northern StatesPower Company (now part of Xcel Energy)had acquired almost 30,000 acres along theSt. Croix for power-generating facilities. Inthe 1940s, struggling farm cooperatives innorthern Wisconsin and Minnesota wantedthe Corps of Engineers to create a “littleTVA of the north” along the St. Croix

River. The Izaak Walton League was instru-mental in fighting off this proposal (Kara-manski 1993:29–30, 33).

By 1953, there were 23 dams andhydroelectric plants in the St. Croix Basin,including five small dams on the upperNamekagon River. However, the middleand lower St. Croix remained a free-flowingNorth Woods stream, popular among can-oeists and anglers (Karamanski 1993:38).

By the 1960s, the Twin Cities metro-politan area was growing rapidly, extendingfarther out from the core cities of Minnea-polis and St. Paul. Blufftop, floodplain andfarmland property along the St. Croix wasbeing subdivided for homes and commer-cial developments. Ever more people werecoming to the river to swim, boat, fish, sail,water-ski, canoe, camp, and enjoy thescenery.

The Oak Park Heights plant, proposedby Northern States Power, would have beenone of the largest in the nation, and it set offa firestorm of public opposition. Activistsformed the Save the St. Croix Committee,with representatives from both Wisconsinand Minnesota (Karamanski 1993:50).

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. CroixNational Scenic Riverway passes through a variety of jurisdictions and is managed coopera-tively by federal, state, and local entities (Figure 1). The course of management at the river-way over the past 40 years illustrates the challenges of multiple-jurisdiction management, thesuccesses that can be attributed to its wild and scenic status, and current issues.

The notion that the St. Croix andNamekagon deserved protection was notnew. But not until the late 1950s did theserivers come to be perceived as national,rather than local, resources.

A newspaper editor in Chisago Coun-ty, Minnesota, was among the early advo-cates for national protection, writing in1958: “If Mr. Public has a place or places toplay in the future, now is the time to consol-idate all efforts here in the upper Midwestand ask for a gigantic St. Croix FederalPark, perhaps named the ‘River of PioneersNational Park’” (Norelius 1958).

Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelsonfirst championed the cause of St. Croix andNamekagon protection in response to thecontroversial Oak Park Heights power plant

proposal. At a January 1965 hearing inresponse to the proposal, he made a movingappeal for river protection, stating: “Callthe roll of the great American rivers of thepast . . . the mighty Hudson, the thermallypolluted Delaware, the Ohio, the Missis-sippi, the Missouri, and even the Minne-sota. . . . The story in each case is the same:they died for their country” (Nelson 1965).

In the national political arena, Nelsonwas joined byWalter Mondale, then a juniorsenator from Minnesota (and later, vicepresident), to introduce a 1965 senate bill(S. 897) to establish a St. Croix NationalScenic Waterway (Karamanski 1993:73–75). Both men had ties to the rivers andtheir dedication to protection would be life-long.



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



The 1965 bill passed the Senate, butwas laid over in the House. Controversyhad developed, largely over concerns aboutpossible condemnation of land by theNational Park Service. In 1967, Nelson andMondale again introduced legislation tocreate a St. Croix National Scenic Riverway(S. 368). Representative Joseph Karthintroduced a companion bill in the Houseof Representatives. The Nelson/Mondaleand Karth bills were virtually identical toone another and to the earlier S. 897.

At the same time, Nelson and Mondalewere backing efforts to enact national riverprotection legislation. When it becameapparent that a national bill had momen-tum, they used that as a vehicle for the St.Croix legislation. As a result, the St. CroixRiver upstream of the communities ofTaylors Falls (Minnesota) and St. CroixFalls (across the river in Wisconsin), alongwith the entire Namekagon River, were des-ignated as the 252-mile St. Croix NationalScenic Riverway in the 1968 Wild andScenic Rivers Act.

The lower 52 miles of the St. Croix(downstream of Taylors Falls/St. CroixFalls) were not included in the original des-ignation. The National Park Service (NPS)was concerned that this stretch of river, par-ticularly the last 25 miles before the conflu-ence with the Mississippi River (known asLake St. Croix), did not have wild and sce-nic river characteristics because of its lake-like quality and the level of existing devel-opment.

The governors of Wisconsin andMinnesota petitioned the secretary of interi-or to include the lower 52 miles in the fed-eral wild and scenic rivers system, andCongress designated the Lower St. CroixNational Scenic Riverway in 1972, withdirection that the states would have man-

agement responsibility for the Lake St.Croix stretch of river and NPS responsibil-ity for the remaining 27 miles.

While there were two separate designa-tions, the entire Namekagon and St. CroixRivers are considered the St. Croix Na-tional Scenic Riverway. The Namekagonand St. Croix above Taylors Falls/St. CroixFalls are referred to as the Upper St. Croix;the Lower St. Croix is the river downstreamof these two communities.

At the time of designation, supporterswere concerned primarily with maintainingfree flow, protecting scenic resources, elimi-nating industrial pollution, and preventingloss of public access and recreationalopportunities. Early management focusedon acquiring land and scenic easementswithin the riverway boundary, removingstructures, and developing landings, camp-sites, visitor centers and other public facili-ties. Over the years,NPS initiated programsfor facility maintenance, resource protec-tion, interpretation, and resource manage-ment. Today, river management has evolvedto address a host of concerns that likelywere not in the forefront of people’s mindsforty years ago.

Mixed land ownership and multiplemanagement entities

The St. Croix and Namekagon riversflow through multiple jurisdictions. Thewild and scenic boundary is roughly a quar-ter-mile on either side of the river and,with-in the 252-mile federally administered por-tion of the riverway, encompasses about97,500 acres, including land and water sur-face. Of this, NPS has acquired 20,503acres (above the ordinary high water line) infee simple at a cost of $37.3 million, andholds easement interests in about 14,137acres of privately owned land (above the

ordinary high water line) at a cost of $8.6million. The remainder of land within theboundary is a mix of other public land(about 28,000 acres), municipal and privateland, and Indian trust land. Thus, NPS hasdirect management authority over onlyabout one-fifth of the riverway.

A variety of other entities own,manage,regulate, or have other interests in land andfacilities within the riverway boundary,including the following federal, state, tribaland local government agencies:

• Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-sources (land use, water quality, wild-life areas, state parks, state forests, pub-lic landings, trails, law enforcement);

• Minnesota Department of Natural Re-sources (land use, state parks, landings,law enforcement);

• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(water quality);

• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(wetlands, in-stream disturbance);

• U.S. Forest Service (a small portion ofthe Chequamegon National Forest);

• Eleven counties (private land use,forests, parks, landings, roads, bridges,trails, law enforcement);

• Thirty-three townships and sevenmunicipalities (private land use, roads,parks, docks, landings, trails, lawenforcement);

• Indian tribes (Indian trust lands andtreaty rights for traditional resourceuses);

• Transportation agencies (roads andbridges);

• Utilities (electrical transmission lines,oil and gas pipelines, cell towers); and

• Private landowners (residences, retreatcenters, camps, docks).

It is essential for NPS to work with these

other parties when wild and scenic rivermanagement intersects with their interestsand activities, or visa versa.

Cooperative managementThe riverway is managed through a

variety of formal and informal partnerships.For example, separate management com-missions are in place for the lower andupper portions of the riverway. NPS,Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-sources, and Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources are represented on theLower St. Croix Commission. These threeagencies, along with Xcel Energy (formerlyNorthern States Power Company, whichdonated significant acreage for the river-way) comprise the Upper St. Croix Man-agement Commission, which addressesmanagement of the Namekagon and the St.Croix above Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls.

Land use on non-public lands withinthe riverway is governed by state and localgovernments. The states have establishedspecial riverway land use regulations thatmust be adopted and implemented by localunits of government for both the federal andstate-administered portions of the LowerSt. Croix. There are no riverway-specificland use regulations on the Upper St.Croix, although state wetland, shoreland,and land use regulations apply.

NPS has no legal authority over localland use. Our role is to support the statesand “encourage” local governments or indi-vidual landowners to follow land use prac-tices that will protect the river. We mustinteract with the various local governmentson a regular basis, attending town boardand city council meetings where river-relat-ed matters are on the agenda, communicat-ing regularly with local zoning officials,reviewing proposals for subdivisions, cell





towers, wind towers, gravel mining, roads,and other developments, and otherwiseengaging in matters affecting the river. Weare frequently asked why we “can’t dosomething” about an issue and, despite thefact that we exercise no authority, are oftenheld accountable if there’s a decision unfa-vorable to the river.

In addition to the two managementcommissions, a number of coordinatinggroups and less formal partnerships are inplace to address specific resources or re-source issues at the field level. Some exam-ples:

• The St. Croix Basin Water ResourcesPlanning Team has pooled resources to

conduct extensive research on waterquality and take cooperative action toprotect water quality (Figure 2). Mem-bers include NPS, U.S. GeologicalSurvey, the Minnesota and Wisconsindepartments of natural resources, Min-nesota Pollution Control Agency, theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, theTwin Cities Metropolitan Council, theScience Museum of Minnesota/St.Croix Watershed Research Station,several counties, soil and water conser-vation districts, and nonprofit organi-zations.

• The Interagency Mussel CoordinationTeam, comprising staff from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish

Figure 2. Maintaining good water quality is crucial to the survival of freshwater species such as mus-sels. 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 theboat. Photo courtesy of the author.

and Wildlife Service, the state naturalresource departments, and the LacCourte Oreilles Indian community, isworking to control the spread of zebramussels, protect the riverway’s 40-plusspecies of native freshwater mussels,and propagate and reintroduce twothreatened and endangered species offreshwater mussels.

• The St.Croix Conservation Collabora-tive meets regularly to share informa-tion on methods of protecting land andcoordinating land acquisition and landprotection efforts of various land trustsand agencies. The group has estab-lished priority areas for land protectionwithin the watershed.

• An interagency Fisheries Committeeformed to develop a fisheries manage-ment plan for the riverway and is coop-erating to carry out research and habi-tat improvement projects.

• NPS and state park biologists worktogether to control invasive plants,monitor rare plants, and carry outrestoration projects.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service andNPS staff are pooling resources tocarry out prescribed burns.

• A Lower St. Croix Partnerships Team,comprising local government represen-tatives, meets every other month to re-view land use decisions that have beenmade by individual communities, witha goal of achieving consistency inimplementing riverway land use rules.

• Law enforcement officers from NPS,the states, counties, and local govern-ments meet regularly about fishing,hunting, boating and other regulationsand coordinate response to emergen-cies and enforcement needs.

Use and limitations of easementsFor a number of years following desig-

nation of the riverway, NPS emphasizedprotecting land within the park. The Wildand Scenic Rivers Act allows fee-simpleacquisition of up to 320 acres/mile. WhereNPS was unable to acquire land in fee sim-ple, because of the acreage limitation or anunwilling seller, purchase of scenic ease-ments offered an alternative method of landprotection. In the acquisition heyday, asmany as ten NPS lands specialists wereworking at St. Croix. As more land was pro-tected, the acquisition needs diminishedand so did the lands staff. However, thework did not end with purchase of the ease-ments.

Today, NPS holds 1,163 scenic ease-ments within the riverway—about 37% ofthe scenic easements in the entire nationalpark system. It holds an additional 65 river-way conservation easements (about 1.5% ofthe system total). At the time of enactmentof the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, ease-ments were a relatively new tool that,because of acreage limitations on fee owner-ship, offered a means to protect more landwithin the riverway boundary. In retrospect,their limitations are apparent, not onlybecause NPS is geared more to managingland held in fee-simple title than easements,but also because the easements provideonly partial protection.

The St. Croix’s scenic easements donot prohibit subdivision or developmentthat conforms to local land use regulations.They place conditions on activities thatwould diminish the integrity of the viewfrom the river, such as cutting vegetation orbuilding a structure that would be visible,but they do not address ecological integrityby protecting rare or sensitive habitat.





With funding from the St. Croix ValleyCommunity Foundation, NPS currently isworking with the West Wisconsin LandTrust to update the easement records byresearching county lands data for informa-tion on tract subdivision and current own-ership. With this information, we will beable to communicate with the landownersto encourage private stewardship and builda stronger relationship with the riverway.

Water quality protectionThe Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was

crafted largely in response to concernsabout industrial pollution directly enteringrivers. Today, there is widespread recogni-tion that the health of a river depends on thehealth of its watershed.

The St. Croix has long been consid-ered pristine, in part because of its wild andscenic river designation. The water quality,along with the scenery, is what has attractedrecreational use for generations, and peoplehave taken it for granted.

This year, both Minnesota and Wis-consin designated Lake St. Croix, the far-thest downstream portion of the riverway, asan “impaired”water, because levels of phos-phorus and chlorophyll a exceed CleanWater Act standards. It was a wake-up call.

Research carried out by the intera-gency St. Croix Basin Water ResourcesPlanning Team over the last decade has pro-vided a wealth of information about waterquality.We now know that 80% of the nutri-ent and sediment loading to the St. Croix isfrom nonpoint sources, such as agricultureand stormwater runoff (St. Croix BasinWater Resources Planning Team 2004:5).

The Basin Team’s research has furtherdetermined that a 20% reduction in phos-

phorus loading will return water quality tothe condition of the 1940s, prior to majoragricultural development in the watershed.Based on this information, in 2006, Minne-sota and Wisconsin entered into an agree-ment to work to achieve a 20% nutrientreduction goal (St. Croix Basin Water Re-sources Planning Team 2004:6).

While the “impaired” listing is dis-tressing, it requires establishment of a totalmaximum daily load (TMDL) for phospho-rus entering the St. Croix. This will be animportant step toward restoration of waterquality.

Because NPS has no regulatory author-ity over either private land use or waterquality, it is imperative to work with the var-ious agencies that have this role. The BasinTeam provides a forum for cooperation andis leading efforts to set a TMDL.

In 2007, through its Great Lakesinventory and monitoring (I&M) program,NPS began comprehensive water qualitysampling at 13 sites along the Namekagonand St. Croix rivers. NPS funds samplingevery other year, but the St. Croix ValleyCommunity Foundation provided fundingfor sampling in 2008. Through the BasinTeam, NPS monitoring is being coordinat-ed with that being done by other agenciesalong the riverway and key tributaries.

The work to establish a TMDL re-ceived a boost recently with notificationthat the St. Croix will receive 2008 NPSCentennial cost-share funding to develop awatershed model that predicts nutrient andsediment loading. The $200,000 NPSfunding for this project will be matchedwith contributions from the Twin CitiesMetropolitan Council and the MinnesotaPollution Control Agency. The modelingwill be done by the Science Museum of

Minnesota’s St. Croix Watershed ResearchStation.

The futureJust as those who crafted the 1968

Wild and Scenic Rivers legislation couldnot have predicted everything that would beinvolved in managing rivers in 2008, wecannot foresee the complexities and chal-lenges of river management in 2048. Afterall, how many of us imagined that one dayhuman beings would tear across stream-beds on all-terrain vehicles, submerged andusing snorkels?

Since the riverway’s designation, NPSand its partners have developed extensiveknowledge about its resources. These tworivers support a wonderful diversity ofspecies, including 350 vascular plants, 265lichens, 270 birds, 218 aquatic inverte-brates, 18 amphibians, 14 reptiles, 60 mam-mals, 40 native mussels, 70-plus species offish, and more than 40 listed species. Now,we must be concerned about how climatechange will affect the ecology of the river-way and management of these resources.

Three research projects currentlyunderway by U.S. Geological Survey teamswill add to our knowledge of water qualityand its effect on the riverway’s threatened

and endangered and native mussels andother aquatic life. One team is sampling forthe presence of pharmaceuticals and chem-icals in personal care products entering theriver from several wastewater dischargepoints. Another team is studying the move-ment of nutrients through backwaters. Thethird team is studying the effect of foodquality on unionid mussel survival andgrowth rate.

Researchers from Macalester Collegein St. Paul, Minnesota, are studying theimpact of an increasing amount of fine sed-iment that is being deposited in an areaidentified as habitat essential for the recov-ery of Higgins’ eye pearly mussels (anendangered species; Figure 3).

As human population grows, so toowill demands for recreation (Figure 4), aswell as the need to respond to evolving out-door interests and new technology. NPSstatistics indicate that visits to St. CroixNational Scenic Riverway grew from413,305 in 1996 to 523,588 in 2007 (NPS2008). The NPS data represent the numberof visits to NPS landings and other facilitiesbut do not consider riverway use originat-ing from non-NPS facilities, such as stateboat launches, state parks and forests, coun-ty forests, public marinas, private docks,

and other facilities.As part of a new Lower St.

Croix management plan beingimplemented this summer, NPShas placed more restrictions on



Figure 3. Higgins’ eye pearly mussel(Lampsilis higginsii), one of the river-way’s two endangered mussel spe-cies. Research is underway by theU.S. Geological Survey to determinesediment impacts on mussels in a crit-ical habitat area. Photo courtesy ofNPS.



where people can camp and the size ofgroups; this is in response to resource dam-age, use conflicts, and concern that withoutmore active management, river users wouldno longer have the type of recreationalexperience intended for a wild and scenicriver.

NPS interpreters are introducing pro-grams that provide new ways to experiencethe Riverway—virtual geocaching, forexample. We must continue to find ways toengage people with this resource in order tohave public support for its continued pro-tection.

At the St. Croix, there is a sense ofurgency about stepping up river protectionefforts. In early May 2008, former vice pres-ident Mondale convened 60 leaders of com-munities, nonprofit organizations, andagencies involved in management and pro-tection of the St. Croix and Namekagonrivers. His invitation letter articulated thecurrent concerns:

The assaults on the St. Croix water-shed by development, run-off and lossof habitat put at risk the ribbon ofRiverway we protected 40 years ago.Without a renewed commitment toprotection of the river and its water-

shed, we could lose the most uniqueNational Wild and Scenic River in thenation. While there is much excellenteffort underway on the St. Croix, weneed to do more—and we need to do itnow (Mondale 2008).

For a day, meeting attendees, some ofwhom had been involved in securing the St.Croix’s wild and scenic river designation,discussed strategies for addressing the is-sues of today. They are exploring formationof an organization to promote river andwatershed stewardship. All recognize thatthe National Park Service and its variousmanagement partners are not, by them-selves, able to adequately protect the St.Croix and Namekagon.

The threats to the St. Croix NationalScenic Riverway are not unique. River man-agers throughout the country are dealingwith development pressure, water qualityprotection, water rights, easement manage-ment, land protection, threatened andendangered species protection, the need tomanage use more intensively, exotic speciescontrol, the uncertainties of climate change,and many other challenges.

There is a need to renew commitmentto the St. Croix Riverway and other wild

Figure 4. A number of businesses rentcanoes throughout the riverway. Severalyears ago, NPS began requiring that out-fitters obtain commercial use permits.Some businesses had operated fordecades, since before the riverway wasestablished, making it challenging toimplement this requirement. This is a typi-cal scene on the Lower St. Croix on asummer weekend. Photo courtesy of NPS.

and scenic rivers, whether managed by theNational Park Service or another agency. Alarge part of today’s public was not yet bornwhen the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act andother environmental laws of the late 1960sand early 1970s were passed, and they havelittle knowledge of the conditions that led toefforts to protect some rivers in a free-flow-ing, unimpaired state. Others assume thatonce a river has been designated, it is pro-tected and needs no additional support. Asmanagers, we need to see that these specialplaces have continued relevance in a chang-ing world.

The National Park Service will benefitfrom a renewed commitment to the wildand scenic rivers it is charged to care for. AnNPS task force was formed several years agoto assess the status of NPS wild and scenicriver management and develop recommen-dations for the future. The task force hascompleted its report, which includes a rec-

ommendation to establish a wild and scenicrivers program to provide servicewide poli-cy and management guidance.

The exodus of baby-boomer profes-sionals from river management agencies iswell underway. New and younger employ-ees need opportunities to develop expert-ise, and we need to pass on institutionalmemory that can be a touchstone for futuremanagement. Partnerships with states andother entities need renewed attention toensure that commitments to shared man-agement survive over time.

Those who float, paddle, fish, or other-wise enjoy a wild and scenic river can be itsbest advocates, if managers can effectivelycommunicate the significance of the riverand the actions that are needed to protect itsunique characteristics. I’d like every personwho comes to the St.Croix and Namekagonto have an experience so special that they’llbecome a friend for life.



ReferencesMerritt, 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 atwww.pca.state.mn.us/publications/reports/stcroixbasin-phosreport04.pdf.

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


The only river included in the initiallegislation from the private-lands-dominat-ed northeastern United States was theAllagash, which was proposed as the inau-gural component of a class of “state-admin-istered” wild and scenic rivers under sec-tion 2(a)(ii) of the act (pending anticipatedapplication by Maine’s governor). Absentthe unique Allagash resolution, none of theoriginal components of the system werefound in the Northeast—not surprisinggiven the relative lack of federal lands, thedensity of the population, and the region’sprevalence of communities based aroundtheir rivers. And yet, the act clearly antici-pated that such rivers should be consideredand included,with specific provisions limit-ing land acquisition authority on riverswhere communities had enacted “compati-ble” zoning (section 6(c)), and encouraginglocal and state participation in administra-tion and management (sections 10 and 11).

Early designation effortsEarly congressionally authorized stud-

ies of potential wild and scenic rivers in theprivate-lands, community-based setting ofthe populated Northeast all failed to resultin designation. These early studies, includ-ing the Housatonic (Connecticut), EastBranch Fish Creek (New York), Wood/Pawcatuck (Rhode Island), and others, uni-formly failed to embrace the planning andassistance provisions of the act to solve thefundamental questions of how to protectnational river values on private lands with-out a massive federal acquisition campaign.

The studies resulted in questions, notanswers, such as:

• How do you protect identified “out-standingly remarkable” values of a riverwhen they are not on public lands?

• How will local, state, and federal juris-dictions coordinate?

Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers

Jamie Fosburgh, Joe DiBello, and Fred Akers

Revisiting the Wild and Scenic Rivers ActTHE NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM was established through enactment of Pub-lic Law 90-542 in October 1968.TheWild and Scenic Rivers Act is a visionary piece of leg-islation, laying the framework for a national system of rivers protected from federal develop-ment projects under section 7 of the act, as well as prompting states and local river protec-tion efforts with federal assistance and incentives under section 11 of the act. The main pur-pose 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, possessoutstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, orother similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and theirimmediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present andfuture generations.

• What is the role of landowners?• Who is in charge?• How will coordination occur?• Who has the funding responsibility?• What is the federal role?• Will there be condemnation authority?• What local zoning or other non-federalprotection standards will be sufficient?

Partnership innovation emergesCongress amended the Wild and Sce-

nic Rivers Act in the late 1970s, and againlater, to limit federal land acquisition andmandate cooperative federal, state, and localplanning conservation efforts, whichopened the door to management innovationand collaboration. At about the same time,planners with the Department of the Interi-or in the East were using civic engagementto work in partnership with various privateand government experts and states andlocal governments interested in river con-servation. In these activities, no federalmanagement or designation was promisedor expected, but the planners nonethelessutilized the assistance authorities found insections 10 and 11 of the Wild and ScenicRivers Act. This principle would soon bedeveloped and formalized as the NationalPark Service (NPS) Rivers,Trails, and Con-servation Assistance Program.

As top-down and more collaborative,locally driven planning and managementapproaches began to meld and blend, ariver conservation model built on alterna-tives to direct federal management andadministration began to take form.

In 1984, Rolf Diamant and GlennEugster, who at the time were land use plan-ners with NPS from Boston and Phila-delphia, respectively, and Chris Duerksen,who was an attorney and senior associate atThe Conservation Foundation, published A

Citizen’s Guide to River Conservation. This“how-to” book emphasizes building multi-interest citizens’ coalitions through commu-nity involvement in river and stream conser-vation efforts. This book has been and con-tinues to be used as an important referencefor the study and designation of many wildand scenic rivers using the local partnershipplanning model.

Pioneering wild and scenic river effortsSeveral pioneering efforts picked up

the challenge, and in different ways, havelaid the groundwork for a new approach towild and scenic rivers on non-federal lands.

Upper Delaware River (New York/Pennsylvania; 1978). The designation ofthe Upper Delaware River in 1978 (Figure1) was the first time that Congress had des-ignated a river with an (almost complete)prohibition against federal land acquisitionand yet a mandate to NPS. Congress direct-ed NPS to achieve Upper Delaware Rivermanagement and protection goals anddevelop the management plan for the river,in coordination with local communitiesorganized into an advisory committee. Thedevelopment of the plan was completed in1986, but was controversial and difficult inthe post-designation setting.

The Upper Delaware National ScenicRecreational River was the place where the



Figure 1. Upper Delaware National ScenicRecreational River. Photo courtesy of NPS.



concept of a partnership river took form.Stakeholder conflicts required a team ofpractitioners skilled in working with com-munity leaders to design a process to devel-op a community-based management plan.Here is where the NPS planners refined andfurther learned the lessons of balancing fed-eral management with state and local needsand those of the private sector to meet therequirements of the Wild and Scenic RiversAct, and to conserve the river and managerecreational use in partnership.

In 1986, the Upper Delaware NationalScenic and Recreational River managementplan was completed. One of the lessonslearned is that there is a need for communi-ty and resident engagement throughout theplanning process. Another observationmade was that it is important to discussriver management in addition to eligibilityduring the study process. If river manage-ment plans could be developed prior todesignation, more understanding, accept-ance, and broader consideration of alterna-tives would occur and the federal or NPSrole would be better and more appropriate-ly defined.

Wildcat Brook (New Hampshire;1984 study, 1988 designation; Figure 2).Spurred by the threat of unwanted hydro-electric development, the town of Jackson,New Hampshire, successfully partnered

with members of Congress and NPS on theauthorization of a new kind of wild and sce-nic river study—one that would answer thequestions that thwarted earlier unsuccessfuldesignation efforts by developing andimplementing a successful river conserva-tion plan as the centerpiece of the studyprocess.

The plan, developed by the town withsupport of NPS and a specially formed localadvisory committee, identified and imple-mented local zoning, conservation ease-ments, and riverfront restoration elementsnecessary to protect the river’s special val-ues. The Wildcat Brook river conservationplan in turn became the basis of federal leg-islation in 1988 to designate the Wildcat asa component of the national system—withthe support of landowners, local and stateofficials, and the federal government.

Westfield River (Massachusetts;1993). Planning for the Westfield River(Figure 3) utilized a similar approach, butone that took advantage of the built-inmechanisms of section 2(a)(ii) of the act tolimit and define the federal role.The criticalelement still was to complete the plan inpartnership with local communities andlandowners prior to designation. For theWestfield, this was accomplished throughthe assistance of NPS acting under theRivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance

Figure 2. Scenic Wildcat Brook at Jackson, NewHampshire. Photo courtesy of the authors.

Figure 3. Westfield Wild and Scenic River. Photocourtesy of Chris Curtis.

Program (rather than under a congression-ally authorized study), and through stateplanning grants.

Chris Curtis, of the Pioneer ValleyPlanning Commission, initiated this pro-cess in 1984, also choosing to form a local-ly based advisory committee to assist indeveloping the conservation plan. In 1992,Massachusetts Governor William Weldsubmitted a completed greenway plan tothe secretary of the interior with the sup-port of local communities, landowners, andstate and federal officials. The submittedplan was the basis of the Westfield’s desig-nation in 1993 as a state-administered com-ponent of the national wild and scenic riverssystem.

Great Egg Harbor River (New Jersey;1992). The Great Egg Harbor River wasstudied and designated as part of thenational wild and scenic rivers system byCongress in 1992 based on its outstanding-ly remarkable cultural, historic, recreation-al, and natural resource values, therebybecoming a cooperatively managed unit of

the national park system. The Great EggHarbor was the first national wild and sce-nic river to incorporate an extensive tidalestuary (Figure 4). The primary partnerswere local conservation advocates, resi-dents, four counties, and 12 municipalities.Through citizen advocacy, all 12 municipal-ities resolved to recognize that their eco-nomic and cultural vitality were supportedby their close proximity to the Great EggHarbor River and designated tributaries.They also recognized that the health of theGreat Egg Harbor River is dependent uponthe economic, cultural, and environmentalpolicies of its surrounding municipalities.As a result of this recognition, they agreedto participate in the designation processand long-term management of the river.

With NPS, county and state agencies,and local advocates, these municipalitiesformed the Great Egg Harbor River Plan-ning Committee. Through participation inthis committee, the municipalities assistedin the preparation of local river manage-ment plans and a comprehensive manage-



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



ment plan for the long-term managementand protection of the federally designatedsegments of the Great Egg Harbor Riverand its tributaries.

This planning process identified theneed to continue a formal organization tomonitor implementation of the comprehen-sive management plan and assist the 12municipalities, individually and collectively,in dealing with matters concerning theGreat Egg Harbor River system. The citi-zen advocates incorporated and became theGreat Egg Harbor Watershed Association,which was written into the managementplan as the “host organization.” It wasagreed that the 12 municipalities and theGreat Egg Harbor Watershed Associationwould establish the Great Egg Harbor Na-tional Scenic and Recreational RiverCouncil. The council’s role is to provideongoing monitoring, coordination, andassistance in implementing the comprehen-sive management plan to the participatingmunicipalities and NPS. While the earliercases involved partnerships, the Great EggHarbor River was the first true partnershipwild and scenic river (PSWR), and its rivercouncil process is used as a model for otherPWSR river councils and committees.

Fulfilling the model: PWSR designationstoday

With a refined planning and manage-ment approach established around alterna-tives to direct federal management andadministration, NPS has been called on toaddress a growing demand for wild and sce-nic river protection for “private landsrivers” in more urban environments on theEast Coast. Starting in 1986, Congress hasauthorized NPS eligibility studies for 12river systems in seven states from NewHampshire to Florida.

Partnership wild and scenic rivers, asthey are now referred to, share the followingcommon principles and management sys-tems:

• No federal ownership or managementof lands (and federal ownership is notauthorized in legislation or recom-mended in the management plan)

• Administration of the designation andimplementation of the managementplan is accomplished through a broad-ly participatory “council” or “commit-tee” organized and convened for eachriver specifically for this purpose.

• Land use continues to be governed bylocal communities and states throughexisting laws, regulations and authori-ties.

• The river management plan is writtenand implemented through a broadlyparticipatory process involving guid-ance from locally based representa-tives. The plan is locally developedwith NPS assistance and is locallyapproved prior to federal designation(as a part of the feasibility study). Theplan, locally approved and endorsed byrelevant state and federal authorities,forms the basis of the designation andguides subsequent management.

• The costs and responsibilities associat-ed with managing and protecting riverresources are shared among all of thepartners—local, state, federal, and non-governmental. Landowner participa-tion and volunteerism is an essentialelement of the partnership and viewedas the backbone of success.

As the administering agency, NPS isresponsible for implementing section 7 ofthe Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, reviewingprojects that are federally funded, spon-

sored or licensed to ensure consistency inpreserving identified “outstandingly re-markable values” for which the river wasdesignated. This responsibility is coordi-nated with each river’s council or commit-tee. NPS is also authorized to provide tech-nical and financial assistance to river organ-izations.

What is distinctive about these designa-tions (Table 1) is the reliance on federal,state, local partnerships in river manage-ment and conservation. The designatedrivers are administered by NPS but thepartnership organizations are responsiblefor day-to-day management. They are simi-lar to national park units in that there arespecific NPS management and administra-tive responsibilities and line-item operatingappropriations for each of the areas. Thedifference between these areas and tradi-tional units of the national park system isthat there is minimal federal ownership anda reliance on cooperation and partnership

with other government and private organi-zations.

Another key factor to the dynamicnature of PWSRs is the growing and activeleadership role that Congress plays in theprocess. Based on local grassroots interestand concern for river conservation, over thelast 20 years members of Congress fromseven East Coast states have repeatedlyintroduced and pushed Congress to passbills to study and designate almost a dozenrivers with over 500 river miles. And thesesame members of Congress have developedan informal partnership to work together tosupport more stewardship funding for themanagement implementation and long-termprotection of these PWSRs.

Paralleling this leadership in Congress,local partners from each PWSR haveformed a national network, called “Part-nershipWild and Scenic Rivers,” that worksto support the needs of this growing pro-gram and ensure the success of PWSRs.



Table 1. Partnership wild and scenic rivers.



River conservation challenges andopportunities for today and tomorrow

The PWSRs have established a modelfor successful adaptation of the Wild andScenic Rivers Act to a community-based,private-lands setting. In 2007, the AshInstitute for Democratic Governance andInnovation at Harvard University’s John F.Kennedy School of Government namedPWSRs to its list of the top 50 governmentinnovations linking citizens with importantpublic services. Legislation to conductVermont’s first-ever wild and scenic riverstudy (for the Missisquoi River), which isbased on the partnership model, is alsopending, and the success of the upperFarmington River designation has prompt-ed a newly authorized study of the remain-der of that river system. In May 2008, in the40th anniversary year of the national wildand scenic rivers system, Congress has fit-tingly enacted protection for the nation’snewest wild and scenic river, based on thePWSR approach: 25.3 miles of the Eight-mile River in Connecticut.

There are many more valuable rivers toprotect in our country, and the partnership

model is an intelligent and cost-effectiveone for the conservation of hundreds ofmiles of rivers and thousands of acres ofriparian land at a small fraction of the cost offull acquisition. By working together withCongress, federal agencies, state govern-ments, local governments, non-governmen-tal organizations, private landowners, andcitizens, we should be able to unlock thedoor to including many more rivers in thenational wild and scenic rivers system.

The PWSR approach complements thestill-active and important consideration ofwild and scenic river designations predom-inantly on federal lands of the Bureau ofLandManagement,U.S. Forest Service, andNational Park Service, where hundreds ofdeserving rivers lie within the boundaries ofestablished federal areas. As we celebratethe 40th anniversary of the national wildand scenic rivers system and look forwardto the 50th and beyond, the PWSR ap-proach offers the promise and potential tofill out the national system by creating a suc-cessful mechanism to manage and protectimportant rivers outside the federaldomain.

ReferencesCoyle, 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 StateAction.Washington, D.C.: American Rivers.

Diamant, Rolf J., Glenn J. Eugster, and Christopher J. Duerksen. 1984. A Citizen’s Guide toRiver Conservation.Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation.

Interagency Wild and Scenic River Coordinating Council. 1996. Protecting River Values onNon-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 riverconservation. Special issue of Trends 31:4.

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, NewJersey 08346; [email protected]




Qualifying 2(a)(ii) rivers are includedin the national system following an eligibili-ty study that comes at the request of a stategovernor. They are managed by the statewithout cost to the federal government, al-though technical assistance is permissibleand encouraged. The 2(a)(ii) rivers must bemanaged to protect and enhance their free-flowing condition, water quality, and out-standingly remarkable values. The state orlocal administering agency is responsiblefor establishing boundaries, classifying theriver, and protecting water quality and rivervalues. Section 2(a)(ii) is ideally suited torivers where there is a strong tradition ofstate or local management and protection.

To date, 19 river segments, represent-ing over 1,800 miles of protected river(NPS 2007), have been designated throughsection 2(a)(ii) of the Wild and ScenicRivers Act.Those rivers offer a set of advan-tages and challenges that distinguish themfrom their congressionally designatedcousins. Benefits include the possibility of amuch shortened designation time-frameand greater ease of designation where thereare concerns about federal management;contributions to community pride, involve-ment, and economies; and increased riverprotection owing to multiple levels ofinvolvement. Challenges include thosefaced by other rivers, such as development

2(a)(ii)-Designated National Wild and Scenic Rivers:The Confluence of Local Management and FederalProtection

Lauren Koshere

THIS PAPER EXAMINES A SPECIAL CLASS OF WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS: those designated undersection 2(a)(ii) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Using a case study, it highlights the bene-fits of this type of designation and also the challenges that such rivers face.

Unlike other national conservation programs, such as the national wilderness system ornational 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 theact, including protection from the harmful effects of federal water resource projects. Thissection was the result of a considerable evolution in thinking by Congress: it allows the gov-ernor of a state both to apply to the secretary of the interior for national designation and toserve as the principal manager of the river. With this provision, Congress expressed a clearintent to encourage the states to share in the responsibility of preserving selected rivers of thenation. In fact, the House report expressed the hope that “all the states will become activepartners in the development of the national Scenic Rivers System” (Haas 2007).

impacts, as well as shifting state prioritiesand funding shortfalls. The case studybelow will look at these in detail.

Why 2(a)(ii)? A case study of Ohio’sLittle Miami River

If rivers designated under section2(a)(ii) receive the same protection as con-gressionally designated rivers but requirefunding from state and local agencies, whatmakes the 2(a)(ii) designation more suitableor appealing for a particular river than con-gressional designation and its accompany-ing federal funding? While not representa-tive of all 2(a)(ii) rivers in the national wildand scenic rivers system, the generally suc-cessful outcomes of Ohio’s wild and scenicrivers program reveal the advantages of des-ignation through section 2(a)(ii).

The mainstem of southern Ohio’sLittle Miami River, the first in the state tobecome a national wild and scenic river,runs 105 miles through a 1.1-million-acrewatershed before joining the Ohio River(Figures 1 and 2). Though the watershed isprimarily made up of agricultural land, italso includes developing regions east of theCincinnati–Dayton metropolitan area.Three million people live within thirty min-utes of the river, and the Little Miamiaquifer is tapped by twelve communitiesalong its mainstem.

Benefits to the states andlocal communities. Importantly,2(a)(ii) rivers offer unique benefitsto the state(s) and communitiesthrough which they run. First,there are benefits related to thedesignation process itself. One ofthese benefits is its brevity: desig-

nation by the secretary of the interior maytake less time than congressional action(Haas 2007). Thus, if a state desires toinclude a river in the national system withina particular period, the 2(a)(ii) designationprocess may appeal most. If there is a threat,such as a dam or otherwise, a state can actquickly to ensure protection. Moreover,once a river enters the national systemunder section 2(a)(ii), the local and stateagencies shouldering the managementresponsibilities often have access to federaltechnical assistance for their river protec-tion programs. For example, on the LittleMiami, federal resource agencies such asthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or Na-tional Park Service have provided impor-tant technical assistance in streambank sta-bilization techniques and the developmentof a comprehensive river management plan.

While there has been little use of emi-nent domain for congressionally authorizedwild and scenic rivers, in some cases thereare nonetheless fears of federal acquisition.Since the federal government is specificallyprohibited from expending funds on sec-tion 2(a)(ii) rivers, using this type of desig-nation can be easier where such fears exist.

The growth of state-level river manage-ment and protection programs is an impor-tant benefit to states with 2(a)(ii) rivers. For



Figure 1. The Little Miami River. Photocourtesy of Ronald Levi.



example, following the passage of the act in1968, Ohio modeled its existing state-levelscenic rivers program after the national pro-gram. Because of that program, Ohio nowprotects sections of 13 rivers and their trib-utaries—754 stream miles in total at thestate level (Gable 2008). Of those 13 rivers,three have met the criteria for inclusion inthe national system pursuant to section2(a)(ii): the Little Miami River, the LittleBeaver Creek complex, and the Big andLittle Darby creeks. Though those riverswere first protected by the provisions ofOhio’s state-level scenic rivers program,local agencies and groups petitioned thegovernor to seek secretarial designation.

Ohio rivers designated under section2(a)(ii) have contributed significantly tolocal communities’ identity, tourism, andeconomic growth, primarily because of theattention that comes from a national wildand scenic river designation. When a2(a)(ii) river is designated, one of the imme-diate benefits is a surge of local pride fromthe people who worked to protect the riverto the level requisite for designation. Evencitizens who did not participate actively inefforts toward a river’s national designationhave a sense of ownership when a local re-source is recognized with a national title.That pride often fosters appreciation,

which results in a shift of perspective: peo-ple come to see the river as an amenityworth protecting (Gable 2008).When morepeople are aware of and experience the pos-itive attributes of a river, they become likelyto see it as a local amenity. They growproud of the river, they appreciate it, andthey want to protect it.

Likewise, when viewed as a communi-ty amenity, tourism and river-based recre-ation opportunities expand locally. Fishing,canoeing, hiking, and other water-depend-ent activities offer undeniable benefits to thelocal economy. A 1999 study of the LittleMiami Bike Trail, for example, proved thatvisitors spent an average of over $13 pervisit to the trail on food, beverages, and autoexpenses (OKI 1999:31). Recreationopportunities are beneficial economically,but they also make the river accessible tolocal school groups, citizens, and out-of-state visitors. Again, Ohio’s Little MiamiRiver provides an example: canoeing drawsabout 100,000 people each year (Partee2008). That is 100,000 customers for theriver’s six canoe liveries and 100,000 peo-ple who annually benefit from the protec-tion afforded the Little Miami as a result ofits 2(a)(ii) wild and scenic river designation.According to Little Miami, Inc. (LMI), aprivate, non-profit land trust, 500,000 peo-ple recreate in some way along the LittleMiami every year.

State-level protections usually growfrom grassroots, community protectionefforts. Consequently, 2(a)(ii) designationoften requires attention at two legislativeand geographical levels—the local and thestate—before it gains protection throughthe federal act. Such multiple levels offernumerous opportunities for citizens livingwithin the watershed to maximize river pro-tection (Haas 2007) The local river man-

Figure 2. Railroad bridge over the Little Miami.Photo courtesy of Little Miami, Inc.

agement model detailed in section 2(a)(ii)fosters participation from the citizenswhose work helped establish state protec-tion in the first place. In some cases, thoseresidents organize local non-governmentalorganizations, citizen groups, and othernon-profit organizations that offer supple-mentary funds and volunteer time in thename of river protection. Though suchlocal organizations have no legal or deci-sion-making authority over the rivers, theymay cooperate with state and local manage-ment agencies in restoration and fundrais-ing efforts. Perhaps most significantly, theyrepresent a means for local people to partic-ipate and work in concert with the efforts ofstate and local management efforts.

LMI provides an excellent example ofsuch an organization. Founded in 1967,LMI was the key local advocate for theLittle Miami’s inclusion in the national wildand scenic river system and Ohio’s statescenic river program. Over the years, LMIhas exerted considerable influence in thewatershed of the river. The organizationalso played a lead role in the passage of theLittle Miami Forest Preserve law in Ohio.Funded by the support of over 500 memberfamilies and individuals, as well as founda-tion grants, LMI has co-funded a study ofendangered mussels in the Little Miamiwatershed and created the Little MiamiScenic River and Trail Center in Loveland,Ohio—a site that educated close to 15,000visitors in 2007, its first full year of opera-tion.

Eric Partee, LMI’s executive director,calls the organization a “land trust plus.” Itacts as a traditional land trust by securingconservation easements and acquiringlands, but it also pays attention to details ofwater quality and uses persuasion to

address local issues relating to zoning, taxa-tion, and development. For example, LMIsuccessfully presented a case before theOhio Supreme Court for the establishmentof property tax exemption for conservationlands in Ohio. As the pressures of develop-ment threaten riparian zones, maintainingwater quality and a viable habitat corridorare principal goals of LMI—especiallyimportant because the Little Miami sup-ports habitat for six state and/or federallyendangered and threatened aquatic species(Partee 2008).

Though LMI has no legal authorityover the river, the organization seeks mutu-al benefiting opportunities, and operateswith what Partee describes as a “cordial,but firm” position in its response to localissues. That means working in a close part-nership with local officials and zoning andplanning staff to encourage developers toimplement sustainable practices that benefitboth the river and development goals. Par-tee observes of LMI’s approach, “We’vegotten enough inroads with developers andthe development community that they haveat least some degree of comfort to call us”before they plan projects that may seriouslyimpact the river (Partee 2008).

More than just attracting people forriver-based recreation opportunities, state-supported 2(a)(ii) river designations have apositive effect on the community by engag-ing local municipalities and zoning com-missions. In some cases, the Ohio Depart-ment of Natural Resources (ODNR) pro-vides matching dollars to park districts orconservation projects that support state-level conservation goals on 2(a)(ii) rivers. Incontrast, the federal management andadministration of congressionally designat-ed rivers often limits river managers’ influ-





ence on local zoning. On 2(a)(ii) rivers inOhio, these cooperative conservation proj-ects, most often funded by grants receivedby the state, benefit all parties because theyrequire limited investment from the stateand are implemented through a local part-ner (Gable 2008).

Benefits to the river. The example ofthe Little Miami embodies one of the mostimportant set of advantages associated with2(a)(ii) designation: a river gains protection.Because the 2(a)(ii) designation processresults in a river having both state and fed-eral legislative protections, there is greateropportunity to focus attention andresources on the river.And, as Eric Partee ofLMI believes, “it’s always best to layer theprotection. The more layers, the better.”Healso points out that the dual requirements ofboth state- and federal-level protection cri-teria act as a system of checks and balancesfor each other, ensuring that designatedrivers receive the full attention they deservefrom both state and federal agencies (Partee2008) Similarly, Bob Gable, scenic riversprogram manager at ODNR, observes thatbecause of this dynamic, national designa-tion of Ohio’s rivers was a natural out-growth of local action. Under 2(a)(ii), with-out the protection of the state first, a rivercould not be protected as a national wildand scenic river (Gable 2008).

In the case of the Little Miami River,local involvement led to expansion of theportion of the river and its adjacent landsbeing protected. Though the upper LittleMiami was designated in 1973, the lowerreaches did not meet eligibility require-ments because of water quality issues andthe magnitude of visual intrusions along thecorridor. This attracted attention andsparked the communities along the river to

organize. Following a tremendous grass-roots effort at the local, regional, and statelevels, citizens worked to clean up the lowersection, remove abandoned buildings, andestablish local ordinances to protect thecorridor. In 1980, the state re-petitioned thesecretary of the interior, and, following fur-ther review, the lower Little Miami Riverwas designated. This has been the first andonly instance when a segment was firstdenied inclusion into the system and laterdeemed eligible.

ODNR cooperates with riverfrontproperty owners to help them with riparianland management issues and forest restora-tion (Gable 2008). LMI, in turn, hasworked to secure riparian protection withacquisitions and conservation easements.Since the upper river’s designation as anational wild and scenic river, LMI hasacquired more than fifty nature preservesalong the Little Miami, which amount toalmost 2,000 acres of riparian forest land.Today, nearly half of forests along the banksof the Little Miami are protected throughland ownership or conservation easementsheld by LMI and other conservation enti-ties; nearly a quarter of the riparian forestsremaining are protected by local zoningordinances.

Benefits to the nation. Finally, section2(a)(ii) provides an additional pathway foreligible rivers that would not otherwise beincluded in the national system. First, con-gressional action can be difficult to obtain,which means secretarial designation morequickly. Also, as noted above, the 2(a)(ii)local management model often appealswhen there is local concern over federal reg-ulation. By providing an alternative in in-stances when congressional designationmay not be suitable, 2(a)(ii) rivers thereby

boost the number of protected river miles—and all at no or very little expense to the fed-eral government (Haas 2007).

Challenges for 2(a)(ii) riversThough 2(a)(ii) river success stories

serve as useful models for river manage-ment, these rivers nevertheless are facingchallenges. As with so many rivers acrossthe country, watershed developmentaround 2(a)(ii) rivers is a principal concern.Developments such as housing projects,road construction, and commercial usesthreaten rivers by increasing the number ofimpermeable surfaces in a watershed,increasing the temperature and volume ofrunoff, contributing more pollution to thewater, and increasing turbidity. While theseissues are not unique to 2(a)(ii) rivers, theycan overwhelm state programs and staff thatare already taking on additional responsibil-ities.

A second challenge is the public’s ten-dency to misunderstand state and federalauthority over private riverfront propertyrights. Though the act specifically prohibitsthe federal government from condemningland adjacent to a 2(a)(ii) river, somelandowners express concern over potentialfederal condemnation. In those instances,state management agencies must confrontthe misconception that a federal designa-tion removes or limits private propertyrights. While this may make 2(a)(ii) desig-nation somewhat less difficult than othernational wild and scenic river designation, itnonetheless poses a challenge. In Ohio, theonly regulatory authority held by the state isover publicly funded projects within a1,000-foot corridor of the 2(a)(ii) river. Astate must devote significant time and ener-gy at all levels to make the extent and limits

of its authority clear (Gable 2008).Additionally, due to their federal pro-

tection and local management, 2(a)(ii) riversmay lead to uncertainty about the distribu-tion of funding and management responsi-bilities. This requires a substantial, long-term commitment on the part of the state toensure the river is managed to the federalstandard. However, as state and local agen-cies are reorganized and budgets are modi-fied under changing political climates, thecommitment becomes blurred with com-peting state priorities, and confusion mayrise about who is responsible for what man-agement actions and what costs (Haas2007).

LMI’S Eric Partee points out that statebudgets cannot always commit theresources needed to protect a river, which iswhy local non-governmental cooperation isso beneficial on 2(a)(ii) rivers (Partee2008). In the case of the Little Miami River,LMI’s efforts and resources have helpedsupplement funds allocated from the state.

A related challenge for 2(a)(ii) riversemerges as a result of changing times.Whena river is first designated as part of thenational system, theWild and Scenic RiversAct requires that a comprehensive rivermanagement plan (CRMP) be developedfor it. The CRMP, which must be complet-ed within three full fiscal years of designa-tion, should clearly articulate the river’soutstandingly remarkable values and identi-fy management goals, requirements, andresponsibilities. The CRMP should alsoprovide a management framework forwhen, where, and what types of develop-ment can occur; express guidelines for theintensity of development; and establishzoning recommendations. Moreover, thedocument should address how conflicts





will be resolved, provide strategies to reachlong-term goals, and establish a monitoringprogram. While CRMPs are critical to rivermanagement, the act does not include a pro-vision that they be updated; as a result,management strategies may not receive thereview they deserve when changes occur inthe federal, state, and local political climatesand in the watersheds of the rivers them-selves (Jennings 2008).

Strategies for future successAs 2(a)(ii) rivers and their managers

face these challenges, what are the best pol-icy strategies to promote protection into thefuture? What lessons have been learned?

Bob Gable believes that public educa-tion is critical. When local landownersunderstand the value and benefits of pro-tected rivers, they support the establish-ment of sustainable programs that can ben-efit all. Through public meetings, hearings,and presentations, agencies can help locallandowners understand the facts and goalsof protection.

Gable also believes in the necessity ofwhat grows from educational efforts: coop-eration and trust between local residentsand the agencies involved. Establishingtrust takes time, of course, and “where peo-ple are skeptical,” Gable observes, “it takesmore time.” But that time is worth the trustthat emerges when different parties reach anunderstanding of each other’s individualaims. As Gable has learned, a river benefitsmost when people understand and trusteach other (Gable 2008).

That trust and understanding betweenparties reflects what Eric Partee of LMIbelieves is critical to management success: acommitment to protection on a local level(Partee 2008). From his analysis and fromGable’s, then, it is clear that successful2(a)(ii) river management must reside at theintersection of federal protection and localcommitment. The river inhabiting that con-fluence is armed with the authority of feder-al protection and the support and energy oflocal agencies and communities. That riveris a 2(a)(ii) river.

ReferencesHaas, Dan. 2007. Designating rivers through Section 2(a)(ii) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers

Act. In InteragencyWild 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]

In 2000, a jointly developed andapproved management plan identified ob-jectives and guidelines to protect the area’snatural and cultural resources. The planfurther identified the essential conditions toallow for commercial grizzly bear viewing inthe protected area. After fulfilling these con-ditions, a controlled pilot bear-viewing trialstarted in Fishing Branch Protected Area infall 2006.

This paper will document the stepstaken over the last ten years to prepare forcommercial bear viewing at Fishing BranchProtected Area. Comparisons will be madeto other bear-viewing operations in Alaskaand northern British Columbia. The paperwill conclude with a summary of lessonslearned related to cooperatively preparingfor and managing such activities in remotewilderness areas.

This case study demonstrates the posi-tive role land claims can have in promoting

conservation and the effectiveness of part-nerships in protected areas management,especially related to the development of anew, highly specialized activity within thewilderness-tourism industry.

Geographic, historic, and politicalcontext

The Yukon is one of Canada’s threenorthern territories and spans an area fromthe Northern Rockies in British Columbiato the Beaufort Sea. While large in area(450,000 km2), the territory is sparsely pop-ulated (30,000). First Nations (a termwhich denotes most of Canada’s indige-nous peoples) make up about a fifth of thepopulation. The city of Whitehorse is theservice center and seat of government forthe Yukon. Fifteen small, predominatelyFirst Nation villages are scattered across theterritory. The small Vuntut Gwitchin FirstNation community of Old Crow is located


Commercial Grizzly Bear Viewing in theFishing Branch (Ni’iinlii Njik) Protected Area,Yukon, Canada

Erik Val

IntroductionOVER THE LAST TWO DECADES, THE SETTLEMENT OF FIRST NATIONS LAND CLAIMS inCanada’s northern territories has led to the creation of national and territorial parks and pro-tected areas. Located in the Yukon Territory, Fishing Branch (Ni’iinlii Njik) Protected Areais conserved through the 1995 Vuntut Gwitchin Final Claim Agreement. The 6,500-km2

area protects cultural and natural resources, most notably unusually high concentrations ofsalmon 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 asan ecological unit by the Yukon and Vuntut Gwitchin governments.


in the northern Yukon on the PorcupineRiver. Fishing Branch Protected Area islocated 100 km south of Old Crow andcrosses the Arctic Circle (Figures 1 and 2).

Over the last two decades, comprehen-sive negotiations have been conductedacross northern Canada to settle FirstNation and Inuit land claims. Similar to theeffect that the 1971 Alaska Native ClaimsSettlement Act had in creating over 100million acres of protected areas through the1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Con-servation Act, settled land claims in theYukon also have created large tracts of pro-tected areas. Land claims have established

new or confirmed existing national and ter-ritorial parks, park reserves, heritage rivers,national wildlife areas, and territorial habi-tat protection areas. These areas total about61,500 km2, or some 13% of the territory.Settled claims also define the managementobjectives for these protected areas, cooper-ative management regimes for governmentand First Nations, and how First Nationscan benefit economically from protectedarea establishment and operations.

In 1995, the Vuntut Gwitchin FirstNation of Old Crow settled its land claims.The settlement included the creation of a170-km2 territorial ecological reserve on the

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

Fishing Branch River pursuant to theYukon Parks and Land Certainty Act. Alsothrough the claim, an additional 140 km2 ofFirst Nation settlement land was added tothis protected area.This addition is a signif-icant contribution to conservation and is agroundbreaking first in Canada, if notNorth America.

Together, these protected areas arecooperatively managed by the Yukon andVuntut Gwitchin governments under ajointly developed management plan, whichwas approved in 2000. The primary objec-tive of the plan is to manage the area as anecological unit to protect the full diversity ofwildlife (particularly salmon and grizzlybears) in a Beringian karst landscape.Whilewildlife protection is the priority, the planalso recognizes the possibility of introdu-cing commercial grizzly bear viewing as ameans to provide visitor opportunities, pro-

mote ecological awareness and wildernesstourism, and provide economic benefits forthe First Nation.

In 2004, an additional 6,200-km2 terri-torial wilderness preserve and habitat pro-tection area was added to the ecologicalreserve and the settlement lands (see Figure1).The two governments also collaborative-ly developed a management plan for thesetwo protected areas.

The ecological and cultural significanceof Fishing Branch Protected Area

The Fishing Branch River is located inthe Ogilvie Mountains of northern Yukon,and is of exceptional ecological signifi-cance. It is the seasonal gathering place forgrizzly bears that come to feed on salmon(Figure 3). Spawning salmon depend on theconstant water temperatures of the river,which wells up through the karst substrate.


Figure 2. The Yukon Parks’ ranger station and bear-viewing facility located along the Fishing BranchRiver at the base of Bear Cave Mountain (extreme left of photo). © 2008 Fritz Mueller, all rightsreserved. Used by permission of the photographer.


Karst landscapes develop over millennia aslimestone is eroded by water. This dissolu-tion process results in towers, fissures, sink-holes, complex underground drainage sys-tems, and caves, all of which help to main-tain the constant annual water temperatures(Figure 4). This provides unusually late butideal salmon spawning conditions, whichstart in mid-September and continue untillate October or early November (Figure 5).The constant water temperature also cre-ates a micro-climate that affects the river val-ley’s vegetation and wildlife habitats, there-by increasing the biodiversity of the area.

The Fishing Branch area is also of cul-tural significance. The area was not coveredin the last Ice Age and the cold, dry environ-ment in the ancient karst caves in the sur-rounding mountains are optimal for pre-serving organic matter. The caves containevidence of human occupation that date to

the last Ice Age. Altered caribou and mam-moth bones located in an area northwest ofthe Fishing Branch have been dated toabout 25,000 years ago and may be the old-est known traces of human occupation inNorth America.

For thousands of years, the VuntutGwitchin, who now live in the communityof Old Crow, have depended on the land forall aspects of life.The elders call the FishingBranch River Ni’iinlii Njik, “where the fishspawn,” and have considered the area as thesource of life and food. The continuation ofthe Gwitchin culture is based on traditionalsubsistence harvesting, which in turndepends on a healthy, stable ecosystem,such as is found at the Fishing Branch.

Preparations for commercial grizzlybear viewing

The Vuntut Gwitchin Land Claim

Figure 3. One of the annually returning grizzly bears fishing for chum salmon in front of the viewingfacilities along the Fishing Branch River. © 2008 Fritz Mueller, all rights reserved. Used by permissionof the photographer.

Figure 4. One of many caves located on Bear Cave Mountain used by bears as dens in the fall afterthe salmon run on the Fishing Branch River. © 2008 Fritz Mueller, all rights reserved. Used by permis-sion of the photographer.



Figure 5. The “ice bear”: Unique to the Fishing Branch River, the fall salmon run provides late-seasonfeeding opportunities for grizzly bears that become encrusted in ice and jingle as they move. © 2008Fritz Mueller, all rights reserved. Used by permission of the photographer.

Agreement defines the management objec-tives for Fishing Branch Protected Area,which includes the protection of the fulldiversity of wildlife, particularly salmon andgrizzly bears. The claim also identified theneed for visitor services, learning opportu-nities, public education, and economicopportunities for the First Nation.

Based on these broad objectives, theprotected area management plan states thatwhile bear viewing is secondary to protec-tion of wildlife and its habitat, effectivelymanaged viewing has the potential to (1)increase public understanding and appreci-ation of bears and bear ecology, (2) increasepublic understanding of appropriatehuman behavior in bear habitat, and (3)under controlled circumstances, increasetourism and provide economic benefits.

To ensure effective management of theprotected area, a Committee of ManagingAgencies (CMA) has been established, rep-resenting the Yukon and Vuntut Gwitchingovernments and includes Yukon Parks, theterritorial Fish and Wildlife Branch, thelocal Renewable Resources Council, andthe federal Department of Fisheries andOceans (which operates a fish-countingweir downstream from the viewing site).When required, the Archaeological Surveyof Canada and the territorial HeritageBranch participate on the CMA.

Themanagement plan defined the con-ditions and operational guidelines relatedto preparing for commercial bear-viewingoperations.The CMA oversaw these prepa-rations to ensure that the managementplan’s conditions and guidelines were fol-lowed. These conditions and guidelinesinclude:

Visitor access and use. Visitor accessto the settlement lands and ecologicalreserve during the bear-viewing season

(September 1 to November 1) is by permitonly and limited to a maximum of five per-sons per day (four visitors and one guide)with a maximum stay of seven days (Figure6). This approach maintains the wildernesscharacter of the area; avoids disturbance tofish, bears, and other wildlife; and limits theneed for facility development.

Qualified bear-viewing guide.During the viewing season, visitors arerequired to use the services of a qualifiedbear-viewing guide who is permitted to pro-vide such services. This approach providesa safe and high-quality wilderness experi-ence.

Bear–human risk management plan.Before bear-viewing operations could start,


Figure 6. Bear-viewing activities at the FishingBranch River are limited to five individuals, includ-ing the guide, for up to one week at a time inSeptember and October. © 2008 Fritz Mueller,all rights reserved. Used by permission of thephotographer.


a detailed bear–human risk managementplan was required, as was a controlled pilottrial. The operational and emergency pro-cedures defined in the plan are designedprimarily to (1) minimize the adverse effectof human activities on bears and salmon, (2)minimize the probability of conflictbetween bears and humans, and (3) provideinformation on how to respond appropri-ately if a conflict between humans and bearsoccurs.

Bear behavior research and monitor-ing. Research and monitoring is an essen-tial part of assessing and evaluating whethermanagement principles and operationalprocedures are being effectively implement-ed. Three years of research were undertak-en by a graduate student from Simon FraserUniversity before viewing operations start-

ed. This research documented bear andsalmon populations and baseline patternsof bear behavior in the viewing area, anddeveloped a bear behavior data-collectionprotocol. These data will be used in thefuture to assess the impact, if any, of viewingoperations on bear behavior, primarily onspatial and temporal patterns of feeding.

Limited facility development. Con-sistent with the management principles andin keeping with the wilderness character ofthe area, facility development was been keptto a minimum, consisting of a main cabin/wash house, two sleeping cabins, an out-house, and high-storage cache (Figure 7).Built and owned by the Yukon government,these facilities support several activities,including (1) year-round management op-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 toa private sector–First Nation joint venture to provide grizzly bear-viewing activities according to ahuman–bear risk management plan. © 2008 Fritz Mueller, all rights reserved. Used by permission ofthe photographer.

fall under lease to an operator, and (3) non-commercial activity at other times of theyear that supports research, monitoring,and public education.

Bear-hunting prohibition. In order toprotect the bear population in the ecologi-cal reserve and settlement lands, no residentor non-resident non-aboriginal harvestingis permitted.While having the right to hunt,the First Nation has voluntarily closed thearea to bear and moose hunting by its peo-ple.

In addition to the required steps iden-tified in the management plan, a number ofother initiatives were undertaken prior toviewing operations starting, as follows:

Commercial joint venture. To effec-tively and safely provide bear-viewingopportunities, a First Nation–private sectorjoint venture, Bear Cave Mountain Eco-Adventures, was created. This joint ventureis managed by a bear-viewing guide withover 20 years of experience and who isfamiliar with area. He has partnered withthe Vuntut Gwitchin Development Corpor-ation, the business arm of the First Nation.

Bear-viewing plan. A commercialbear-viewing plan was developed by thejoint venture to demonstrate how the busi-ness would start the trial operation and thencontinue into full operations in the future.This plan is closely linked to the opera-tional and emergency procedures describedin the bear–human risk management plan.

Use permit.Under the Parks and Cer-tainty Act, Yukon Parks regulates activitiesand development in territorial parksthrough the issuance of permits. To preparefor this, the Yukon Department of Justiceundertook a thorough review of thebear–human risk management plan. As amatter of due diligence, the review ensuredthat all requirements of the plan were

recorded as legal terms and conditions ofthe activity permit. The permit was issuedto the joint venture to allow trial operationsto start in September 2006.

Partnerships leading to commercialbear viewing

Table 1 summarizes the key steps andpartnerships leading to the creation of bear-viewing operations at Fishing Branch Pro-tected Area. This process started in 1995with the settlement of the Vuntut GwitchinLand Claim Agreement and continued toSeptember 2006 when trial operationsstarted. Throughout the process, the part-ners, including the First Nation and Yukongovernments, Simon Fraser University, andthe professional bear consultant and experi-enced bear-viewing guide mentionedabove, were able to learn about the initiativein depth and share the experience of work-ing together towards a common goal.

Critical factors in the development ofthis activity hinged around the nature ofbear behavior, the careful planning and con-struction of facilities, and controllinghuman activity. The protected area and riskmanagement plans provided the steps toprepare for the operation.Outside expertiseto complete these steps was critical in theprocess. Analyzing the experience of similaractivities elsewhere was valuable. Facilitydevelopment demanded careful planningand sensitive construction practices andscheduling. Similarly, the comprehensivebear–human risk management plan wasessential to achieving a level of confidencein the bear-viewing plan and to providingdefinite guidelines for visitor operations.Monitoring the activity will be equally criti-cal in addressing operational concerns andissues at all stages to ensure visitor safetyand protection of the bears.



Table1.ActivitiesandpartnershipsleadingtocommercialbearviewingatFishingBranchProtectedArea.

Comparative analysis of viewing sitesin Alaska, British Columbia, and Yukon

In order to compare the managementcontrols and safeguards developed for theFishing Branch operations, 13 other bear-viewing sites in Alaska and BritishColumbia were assessed. The work wasprepared as part of the bear-monitoringbenchmark and protocol developmentresearch undertaken by Simon Fraser Uni-versity. Only sites where the primary activi-ty is bear viewing related to spawningsalmon were considered. Both viewing siteconditions and management regimes werecompared.

The results showed the following simi-larities and differences between FishingBranch and the other sites, using 14 differ-ent characteristics:

Accessibility. Along with one othersite in British Columbia, Fishing Branch isthe most difficult and expensive to access,as visitors can only arrive by expensivecharter helicopter. Most of the other sitesare accessible by float plane or boat. Onlytwo can be reached by road.

Infrastructure. Viewing and lodginginfrastructure, as well as physical barriers toreduce bear–human interactions,were com-pared. About half the sites have all threeforms of infrastructure.The other half oper-ate on a day-use basis without lodgings. AtFishing Branch, viewing is conducted pri-marily from riverbanks without physicalbarriers, with modest visitor infrastructure.

Agency staff/qualified guides. Onlytwo of the 14 sites have no agency staff toorient or guide visitors and have no require-ment for visitors to use viewing guides.Fishing Branch has no agency staff on site,but is one of five sites that requires the useof a qualified bear viewing guide.

Bear viewing as primary use. Fishing

Branch is one of only three sites where bearviewing was the primary and originaldesigned use of the site when established.Bear viewing evolved over time in about halfof the other sites.

Managing agencies.All sites are eithermanaged by federal, provincial, state, or ter-ritorial agencies. Fishing Branch is one offour that also includes a First Nation incooperatively managing the site, and is oneof two sites where First Nations’ lands areused in the viewing operation. As notedabove, the commercial viewing operation isjointly owned by a First Nation develop-ment corporation and a qualified bear-view-ing guide.

Access rules.Almost all 14 sites, includ-ing Fishing Branch, have rules and regula-tions controlling visitor movements whenon site. Fishing Branch is one of only foursites that strictly controls visitor access andrequires viewers to be accompanied by aguide at all times.

Viewing regulations.Daily visitor lim-its vary among the 14 sites, from aminimumof four to a maximum of 64, with FishingBranch along with one other British Col-umbia site having the lowest. Six sites haveno daily limits at all. Four provide only day-viewing opportunities, with others beingmulti-day, including Fishing Branch. Threehave a permit reservation system to controlvisitor numbers, while five self-manage,including Fishing Branch, which is permit-ted under strict operating conditions,including those governing visitor numbers.Half the sites have daily viewing schedules,while the others, including Fishing Branch,allow viewing only during daylight hours.

User fees. The six sites that have adaily user fee charge between CDN$10.00and $87.50. Fishing Branch is among theeight sites that do not charge a daily user fee



per se. However, the all-inclusive commer-cial guiding fee for Fishing Branch is high,at about $1,500 per day per client. A$1,500 lease fee is paid by the commercialoperator for the eight-week use of park facil-ities.

Education/safety/interpretive pro-grams.Only one of the 14 sites provides noprior or onsite education, safety, or inter-pretive information programming. Theother sites, including Fishing Branch, pro-vide safety information that generallyencompasses viewer movement and behav-ior, including encounter response and foodstorage and disposal. Information providedat Fishing Branch by the guide alsoincludes how to respond to emergencies,viewer obligations and camp duties, and, asan ecotourism operation, extensive naturalhistory of the bears, salmon, and otherspecies, as well as cultural history of thearea and First Nations.

Viewing distances. Five sites havestipulated minimum viewing distances,which vary from 3 to 100 m, with the aver-age being 30–50 m. Five sites, includingFishing Branch, have variable distancesestablished by the guide dependent on thetolerance of individual bears—which,among other factors, is determined by view-er numbers.

Habituation. The Fishing Branch isone of seven sites that uses bear habituation(i.e., getting bears used to people, not foodconditioning) as a means to improve view-ing quality and bear–human safety. Five ofthose seven sites, including Fishing Branch,use qualified viewing guides to undertakehabituation. Seven sites do not have anactive habituation program.

Monitoring program.Only five of thefourteen sites, including Fishing Branch,have ongoing monitoring programs to

measure the impact of viewing on bearbehavior. The Fishing Branch program isbased on three years of bear behaviorresearch that led to the development of adata collection protocol, which the guideuses during viewing operations.

Emergency procedures. Eight of the14 sites have established procedures torespond to a bear mauling, including victimassistance procedures, information record-ing, communications/notification proto-cols, and post-incident reporting. Beingisolated with only one guide, FishingBranch viewers are made aware of emer-gency procedures and have quick access toa detailed onsite response manual and satel-lite phone/ HF radio.

Other permitted activities. Only fivesites, including Fishing Branch, prohibitother uses, such as angling and sport andsubsistence bear hunting. Three sites allowonly angling. Four allow both sport andsubsistence bear hunting. The size of bearhunting closure areas vary from 4 to 14,000km2. For Fishing Branch, the mandatoryclosure area is 300 km2 around the immedi-ate viewing site, and is voluntary in an addi-tional surrounding 6,000 km2.

Overall comparative summaryCompared with 13 other sites, Fishing

Branch is one of the two smallest, withremote operations that provide highly con-trolled viewing conditions through themandatory use of a qualified bear-viewingguide at a relatively high (4:1) viewer-to-guide ratio. This allows variable viewingdistances without physical barriers, as theguide can identify individual bears and isfamiliar with their tolerance to viewers. As arelatively new, government–First Nation co-managed protected area, comprehensivepre-operational planning was possible, and

focused on preparing exclusively for bear-viewing activities. These preparationsincluded (1) developing a bear–human riskmanagement plan, (2) undertaking bearbehavior research and creating a monitor-ing program, and (3) approving a detailedcommercial bear-viewing plan.

Conclusion: Lessons learned related toplanning for commercial bear viewing

The 10-year process leading up tocommercial bear viewing at Fishing Branchdemonstrated a number of important les-sons learned:

Establish protected areas throughland claims. Settled land claims providedthe legislative means to establish the pro-tected area, which included the contribu-tion of First Nation-owned lands, a first inconservation in Canada, if not North Amer-ica. This provided an equal partnershipbetween the territorial and First Nation gov-ernments.

Develop management plans withFirst Nations. The joint development ofthe management plan ensured First Nations’participation in determining the objectivesfor the protected area, which included com-mercial viewing as a means to both protectthe bear and provide visitors safe viewingopportunities.

Cooperate and partner early.Taking acooperative, shared approach to planningand management was fundamental to suc-cess. Working with other key players (i.e.,the Vuntut Gwitchin Development Corpor-ation, the bear-viewing guide, Simon FraserUniversity, and the consulting bear expert)early on, and continuously throughout allstages of planning and operating, was cru-cial.

Apply the precautionary principle.Ameasured, conservative approach to an

activity such as bear viewing was essentialand used throughout the preparation ofboth management plans. In the absence offully knowing all implications, the precau-tionary principle was used by initially set-ting restrictive use limits and conditions.

Be comprehensive and patient. Allthat needed to be done was completed priorto starting operations, even as pressuremounted to start earlier when wildernesstour operators and photographers wantedto view bears before the planning was com-plete. The viewing operations will bephased in slowly. This will allow operatingand marketing programs to be tested andadjusted if necessary.

Build capacity through joint ven-tures. The commercial joint venture withthe viewing guide and the First Nationdevelopment corporation was encouragedand provided the expertise needed for safeoperations. The joint venture also will pro-vide the training and experience necessaryfor the First Nation to eventually assumecontrol of the operation.

Integrate planning and operations.Activities leading up to viewing operationswere interrelated and nested together. Thisapproached ensured that human–bear riskmanagement plan reflected the objectives ofthe overall management plan; that the bear-viewing plan reflected the operating condi-tions of the risk management plan; and thatthe terms and conditions of the activity per-mit reflected the requirements of the riskmanagement plan.

Involve legal counsel. Legal counselwas involved in preparing the activity per-mit to ensure a degree of due diligence bydemonstrating that all reasonable stepswere taken to minimize the risk related tothe operation. The exact operating proce-dures and protocols contained in the risk



management plan were used as the termsand conditions of the activity permit toensure consistency and clarity.

Government-owned facilities. Thefacilities were built and are owned by theYukon government. They were kept to aminimum and are leased for bear viewing to

the joint venture in the fall and are used forranger operations and research for the restof the year. Government ownership ensurescontrol over the facilities and, if required,makes it simpler for Yukon Parks to cancelor not renew the activity permit for non-compliance.

AcknowledgmentsSpecial thanks goes to Shelley Marshall, Master’s candidate, School of Resource and

Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, for her bear-behavior monitoringresearch, which included a thorough comparison of the Fishing Branch bear-viewing oper-ationwith 13 others in Alaska and northern BritishColumbia.Also, thanks go to Phil Timpany,operations manager and bear-viewing guide, Bear CaveMountain Eco-Adventures, and film-makerWildman Productions for taking and assembling the incredible bear and salmon videofootage 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 FirstNation government website, www.vgfn.ca.

ReferencesMarshall, 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 ProtectionArea 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]

WMF is a non-profit organizationbased in New York City that works to pro-tect and preserve cultural heritage sitesaround the world—sites of all types andfrom all periods. Setting an agenda for pro-tecting cultural heritage at that scale is achallenge, and in 1996, WMF launched aprogram that would allow it to gain theinformation it needed to see that larger pic-ture—the World Monuments Watch List of100 Most Endangered Sites.2 The WatchList has since become the main tool WMFuses to learn about the dangers posed tocultural heritage sites around the world. Tocreate the list, every two years WMF solicitsnominations from governments, non-gov-ernmental organizations (NGOs), universi-ties, grassroots organizations, and profes-

sionals in the field. From these nomina-tions, a panel of international experts—con-vened by, but independent of, WMF—selects a group of 100 sites that present asnapshot of the state of global cultural her-itage at a given time. Through the WatchList, WMF calls attention to and attractssupport for not only 100 individual places,but also key issues in the field. In the past,major themes of the list have includedissues such as conservation challenges inthe developing world, threats to culturalheritage in areas of armed conflict, and thechallenges of preserving Modern architec-ture. In addressing these challenges, WMFhas been able to draw on established meth-ods of the field of historic preservation.While each project and program presents


Climate Change and Cultural Heritage:Local Evidence, Global Responses

Michelle L. Berenfeld

RECOGNIZING THE URGENT THREATS TO BOTH NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES posed byglobal climate change, the World Monuments Fund (WMF) organized a panel discussion atthe 2007 George Wright Society Conference that gathered professionals in the fields of his-toric preservation, nature conservation, and green building and asked them to examine howthese disciplines could collaborate to develop strategies both for adapting to those impactsand mitigating those threats by sustaining built and natural environments.1

Climate Change and

Cultural Heritage . ,



unique challenges, for the most part theycan be addressed using familiar tools.

In 2008, however, the Watch List pre-sented WMF with a challenge that promis-es to change the way preservationists willhave to think about what we do: global cli-mate change. Although the specific threatsposed by climate change are familiar (water,bugs, soil erosion, etc.), and while politicsand economics have always affected cultur-al heritage conservation, climate change willexpand and exacerbate those known chal-lenges. More important, however, is that cli-mate change is not just a historic preserva-tion problem; it is perhaps the most far-reaching and wide-ranging problem of ourtime and will affect every sector of humanlife for years to come. It is for this reasonthat historic preservationists cannot affordto work in a vacuum, and to focus only onour specific concerns. At the same time,there are ways that the field of historicpreservation can make a positive differencein the world’s response to climate change,but in order to be effective, we must rethinkour methods—both in how we work andhow we explain our work to the public.

Environmental threats—both naturaland human-made—have long threatenedcultural sites. Monuments that have stoodon the Earth for centuries—enduring sym-bols such as the Great Wall of China or theaqueducts of the Roman empire—havealways suffered from exposure to wind andrain, and plain old age, and in the last centu-ry especially, new factors such as pollutionand other human-made environmental fac-tors have taken their toll. Addressing theseproblems has been difficult, but it has alsogiven preservationists experience—theexperience needed to address the larger-scale versions of these threats that comewith climate change.Historic buildings also

provide substantial, and thus far largelyunexamined, information about how andwhy the built environment survives or does-n’t over the long term. Therefore, in addi-tion to developing new strategies for adapt-ing and responding to climate changethreats, the field of historic preservationmust also focus attention on helping to con-vince the public to act to stop global warm-ing by raising awareness of the threatsposed to treasured monuments and historicplaces.

The 2008 World Monuments WatchList demonstrates that climate changeimpacts are already being felt today at cul-tural heritage sites around the world. Thesesites are only the canaries in the coal mine,however, and many more sites and citiesaround the world are vulnerable. Predict-ably, rising sea levels pose a substantialproblem. A large portion of the world’spopulation lives now and has always livedalong the coasts and in cities built alongmajor rivers, and so with them are many ofthe world’s cultural sites and historic cities.In addition to rising sea levels, changingweather patterns will also cause substantialdamage to historic buildings. Designed towithstand one set of environmental condi-tions, many historic structures will have tobe adapted to survive as those conditionschange. For instance, places that were oncedry will be wet, and vice versa; rising tem-peratures will pose threats to wooden build-ings in northern regions as termites andother pests are able survive at higher lati-tudes. As we consider global predictionsabout climate change impacts, it is clear thatsites on every continent are in danger—fromancient sites in Peru threatened by meltingglaciers to whole swaths of the Pacific Rimthat will be under water, and everything inbetween.

EvidenceIn examining cultural heritage sites on

the 2008 Watch List that are threatened bythe impacts of climate change, the most des-perate case seems to be Herschel Island, inthe Canadian Yukon. Located on the Beau-fort Sea near the border between Alaskaand Canada, Herschel Island is in thefastest-warming part of the world (Figure 1,no. 1).3 It is home to a historic whaling townfounded in the 19th century and an ancientInuit site that was settled some 1,000 yearsago (Figure 2).4 The warming of the oceanand the melting of sea ice in this region havecaused increasingly severe storms and sea-level rise, and, with them, coastal erosion.Rising waters are overtaking land onceoccupied by the historic wooden buildingsof the whaling village.Melting permafrost iscausing ground slumping, which is destroy-ing archeological remains and burials thatare being revealed by melting and retreatingsoil.

Herschel Island is currently includedon Canada’s World Heritage Tentative List,which is the precursor to nomination to theUNESCOWorld Heritage List, but the on-going losses at the site could prevent that

nomination from going forward.5 The Yu-kon government and the Yukon Historicaland Museums Association (YHMA) havebeen working to protect the cultural her-itage of Herschel Island, taking measuressuch as moving historic buildings backfrom the coastline and carrying out salvageexcavations. The nomination to the 2008Watch List, however, stated that previouslyestablished strategies would have to beadapted given the urgency and irreversiblenature of the threats posed to the site by cli-mate change. The caretakers of HerschelIsland are now focused almost entirely onsalvage measures and documentation of thesite so that some record of its history will bepreserved for the future.They are undertak-ing scientific documentation of the build-ings and sites and a documentary film proj-ect is being developed to record the cultureand traditions of the place.6

There are many more sites farthersouth that are not so far along as HerschelIsland, but which face similar challenges orwill soon. The problems of warming seasand the resulting more-violent storms areexpected to threaten many coastal townsand sites in northern Europe, for instance.



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



In Norway, a picturesque fishing village atSandviken Bay (a 2006 Watch Site), nearBergen, is located in an area that is predict-ed to experience increasingly violent seasand winds (Figure 1, no. 2).7 Melting per-mafrost is a growing problem in northernlatitudes, and many large cities and townsare vulnerable as the ground beneath themshifts and melts.8 Even in more temperateclimes, some of Europe’s oldest and mostrevered sites are threatened by rising seasand coastal erosion.On the Outer Hebridesof Scotland, for instance, the archeologicalremains of Norse settlements from theMiddle Ages are quickly disappearing as aresult of eroding coastlines. In Baleshare,the problem is so acute that archeologists

have appealed to the local community tohelp them record them before they aregone.9

At the other end of the Earth, in Ant-arctica, the bases built by the early explor-ers of the continent remain exactly as theywere left at the beginning of the last century,complete with jars of mustard on pantryshelves and socks hanging on laundry lines(Figure 3). These explorers’ huts are timecapsules of another age, filled with undilut-ed information about the lives of the menwho built them and the adventures theyhad. In the winter of 2007, the hut ofCaptain Robert Falcon Scott was bombard-ed with more than 100 tons of snow overthe course of a few months, far more than

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

had previously been recorded, thoughtby some to be caused by warming tem-peratures. Interestingly, our knowledgeof historic levels of precipitation isbased in part on the records that theoriginal explorers kept. They wereinterested in climate science andrecorded some of the first scientific dataon climate fluctuations in Antarctica—information that is used to track climatechange today.

The inclusion of the explorers’huts on the 2008 Watch List was metwith skepticism from some members ofthe public, and WMF was contacted byone scientist who pointed out that theincreased snowfall might have beencaused by factors other than globalwarming.10 On the other hand, we alsoheard objections based on the idea thatAntarctica was not melting “that fast,” i.e.,that it would be at least 50 years until sub-stantial portions of the land ice on the con-tinent would melt. As the caretakers of sitesthat are hundreds, if not thousands of yearsold, preservationists must view a threat ofloss in fifty years as imminent. Indeed, thefact that we can point to changes that arerooted in the time scale of human historymay be our most effective strategy in sup-porting public action to halt climate change.

Not all climate change threats are aboutice and snow and water lines. In Africa,huge areas of the content, and particularlythe wide strip of land known as the Sahel,are experiencing drought and desertifica-tion, and when it does rain, it often rainsmore intensely.11 Increasingly dramatic

shifts between wet and dry and hot and coldacross the Sahel and in other parts of Africaare also wreaking havoc on agriculture andpeople, as well as cultural heritage.

The Chinguetti Mosque, inMauritania,was founded in the 9th century and wasonce a stop on the caravan trade routethrough Africa (Figure 1, no. 3; Figure 4). Itwas also an important center of Islam, andtoday a major collection of medieval Islamicmanuscripts is housed there. AWorld Heri-tage site that was first included on theWatch List in 2006, the Chinguetti Mosqueis now threatened by desertification, whichbrings with it not just encroaching sandsthat cover and erode building material, butalso the danger of flash flooding.12 Whenheavy rain falls in these areas, the dry earthand sand cannot absorb water quickly



Figure 3. Interior view of Ernest Shackleton’shut, Antarctica. Photo courtesy of World Mon-uments Fund.



enough and it rushes through the site andinto buildings, causing dangerous condi-tions as well as damage.13

Also in West Africa, another WorldHeritage site, known as the megalithic cir-cles of Senegal and Gambia, is also threat-ened by drought and dramatic wet–drycycles. The vast area covered by theseremarkable assemblages has suffered drought

and increasingly dramatic temperature fluc-tuations in recent years (Figure 1, no. 4;Figure 5). The sharp changes in tempera-ture and humidity have caused many of thestones to crack, but more damaging for thisunique landscape is soil erosion. Droughthas caused a substantial loss of vegetationand, with it, soil erosion, which is exacer-bated when it does rain. The significance

Figure 4. Chinguetti Mosque, Mauritania. Photo courtesy of World MonumentsFund.

and grandeur of the megalithic circles, likethose of Stonehenge and other Neolithicsites around the world, depends in largepart on their arrangement within the land-scape. As the soil beneath them weakensand moves, however, stones topple over—leaving piles of rocks, in essence—anddestroying much of the meaning and visualimpact of the monuments.

In the Himalayan region of northernIndia, traditional temples and towns appearas simple mud and wood structures set in aspectacular landscape (Figure 1, no. 5; Fig-ure 6). Inside, these apparently humblebuildings have beautiful and complex int-eriors, decorated with elaborate paintingsand brightly colored sculpture (Figure 7). Atraditionally arid climate, this region usedto experience rain largely as light sprinkles,but in recent years the area has experienced

short, but heavy, downpours that the tradi-tional mud structures are simply notequipped to withstand.14 In the longer term,these temples and towns are also threatenedby melting glaciers of the Himalayas, whichwill themselves cause flooding throughrunoff and glacial lakes bursting theirbanks. The experience of getting to thesebuildings, along with their setting in thenatural landscape, are closely tied to theirsignificance and purpose. As we thinkabout how to preserve the cultural heritageof this region, it is important to considerthis context. If we wait too long to act, wemay be forced to take emergency measuresthat will have a dramatic effect on this con-text—such as the construction of incongru-ous shelters or the extraction of preciousinterior paintings and sculpture for theirprotection or dispersal to museums. These



Figure 5. Megalithic circles in Senegal. Photo courtesy of World Monuments Fund.



sorts of salvage responses will dramaticallyalter these sites, and the meaning for thepeople who built and use them, and tothose who journey to see them, would belost.

In another part of Indian subcontinent,the low-lying nation of Bangladesh hasalways struggled with flooding. The his-toric city of Sonargaon, which containsthousands of extraordinary and elaboratebuildings constructed by aristocrats andkings in the Middle Ages (Figure 1, no. 6;Figure 8), has been deteriorating for yearsbecause of neglect and lack of resources,but this deterioration is also exacerbated byflooding caused by the loss of natural barri-ers—such as mangrove forests—and by ris-

ing seas. Bangladesh is also one of the mostvulnerable countries in the world when itcomes to climate change, both as a result of

Figure 6 (above). General view of the town ofLeh, India. Figure 7 (right). Interior decoration atthe Sumda Chunn temple in Ladakh, India.Photos courtesy of World Monuments Fund.

its geography and its economic status. Evenconservative estimates of future sea levelrise would result in flooding that would dis-place tens of millions of people in Bangla-desh.15 Flooding on this scale, combinedwith the poverty and lack of infrastructurein this densely populated country, willcause a humanitarian crisis of enormousproportions, and by that point, the protec-tion of cultural heritage sites may no longerbe feasible.

As we consider these issues, we needonly look to Louisiana for an example ofsuch a scenario. New Orleans, which ishome to one of the largest collections of his-toric buildings in the country, presents acase study (Figure 1, no. 7). New Orleans isnot only a cautionary tale of natural disas-ters waiting to happen—and possibly morefrequently and with greater severity as the

Earth warms—it is also an example of howcultural heritage can and will be lost inthose disasters if we don’t prepare for them,and, how deeply that loss will be felt.Thousands of the distinctive houses of NewOrleans were damaged by Hurricane Katri-na, but many more have been destroyedsince the storm through short-sighted dem-olition in the effort to clean up. Now, a sub-stantial part of the fabric of the city—itscharacter and history and one of the reasonspeople want to go there—has been lost.Now that the disaster has passed, the peo-ple who lived in New Orleans before thestorm want to return to their brightly col-ored shotgun houses and Creole cottages.In addition, the distinctive built environ-ment is a key attraction for visitors, whosefunds fuel an important economic engine ofthe city.



Figure 8. A flooded historic building in Sonargaon, Bangladesh. Photo courtesy of World MonumentsFund.



The historic buildings of New Orleansare not simply charming for tourists andresidents, however; they are also practicalarchitectural responses to the climate—builtup on piers in case of floods (of normal lev-els), constructed out of cypress wood thatcomes from the nearby swamps and is moreresistant to damage caused by humidity, andmade with high ceilings and windows thatprovide cross breezes in hot weather.Tearing down and replacing these houseswith buildings that could be constructedanywhere not only destroys the character ofthe city and its history, but is also bad envi-ronmental strategy.

ResponsesA key challenge of addressing the

threats posed by climate change is how toconvince people to act collectively towardsa common goal and to do so without thepromise of immediate or visible results.Indeed, if effective, much of the actionrequired to halt global warming will havelittle or no discernible effect for most peo-ple, as the goal of these actions is in largepart to prevent change. Convincing peopleto radically change their behavior in orderto maintain the status quo is an exceedinglydifficult task.

Climate change is a global threat, butpreservation, like politics, is local. Most ofthe work of historic preservation is done onthe state, city, or even neighborhood level,and it has long been difficult to coordinateefforts on a wider scale—to agree on priori-ties, and to make collective decisions aboutwhat to spend our money and time on, andon what to save and what to sacrifice. Inorder to effectively prepare for and adapt tothe impacts of climate change and to usehistoric preservation as a means for mitiga-tion of its effects, however, preservation-

ists—and natural conservationists—mustthink differently and work together in newways.

This presents a number of challenges,but it is clear from some examples of howwe are working today that new approachesare necessary. One such example is the con-servation project now under way at FortJefferson in the Dry Tortugas (Figure 1, no.8). Constructed on a spit of land off thesouthern tip of Florida and part of DryTortugas National Park, Fort Jefferson is theobject of a multi-year, multi-million-dollarconservation effort led by the National ParkService.16 Fort Jefferson is endangered byexposure to salt air, rusting internal metalstructures, and the eroding ground onwhich it was built. This building is one ofmany coastal historic sites in the U.S. thatare threatened by rising sea levels and otherthreats posed by climate change, andalthough many sites may be protected fromthose threats through thoughtful conserva-tion and maintenance, it is important thatwe consider the question of how to allocateresources for these efforts. Predictionsabout climate change impacts would seemto indicate that Fort Jefferson is likely bothto experience significant further damage asa result of increasingly severe hurricanesand storms, and, by the end of the century,to be frequently flooded if not largely underwater.17 With sites like this in mind, thequestion of allocating resources must beexpanded to consider new factors. Forinstance, New Orleans is a city of hundredsof thousands of people that is also in dangerand already suffering, and many more his-toric places where people live and visitaround the country and the world, andwhich could arguably be considered moreimportant to human history, are also vulner-able. In addition to historical significance,

the cultural heritage community’s responseto climate change must take into accounthow historic sites contribute to or are partof the human habitat, and how protectingthem may support efforts to adapt to andmitigate climate change threats overall. Thisincludes incorporating historic sites intosustainable development and economicplanning. This is particularly important aswe consider the potential impacts on majorcities such as London and New York. InLondon, the Thames Barrier already worksto keep that river from overflowing its banksand flooding the city—and there are con-cerns about how long it will continue to beable to do so.18 In New York, much of thecity was built on reclaimed land, and dense-ly populated areas—not to mention interna-tional airports that move millions of peopleand tons of goods each day—already are ator close to sea level. These and other citiesall contain historic sites that are threatenedby climate change, and which will onlybecome more vulnerable as humanitarianand economic concerns grow more urgent.

It is time for the cultural heritage com-munity—together with governments,NGOs, and other stakeholders—to makesome hard decisions. One way to do thiswould be to undertake a sort of “triage” forcultural heritage, in which three main cate-gories of sites are identified:

• Sites that are doomed.• Sites that are so important that we arewilling to save them at almost any cost.

• Sites that could be saved if we planahead and consider climate change inconservation efforts.

For those sites that are doomed, wemust accept these losses rather than investtime and money in them. Like the caretak-ers of Herschel Island are already doing, we

need to stop trying to shore up doomedplaces and start documenting them now, orelse we will lose them from history forever.

For those sites that must be saved at allcosts, we have to start thinking about thisnow, and try to build some kind of consen-sus about what places humanity simply can-not live without—and for which we are will-ing to take heroic measures to protect.These sorts of heroic measures have beentaken before, but they are expensive and canbe controversial. A few decades ago, withthe construction of the Aswan Dam insouthern Egypt, many ancient monumentswere going to be flooded and the worlddecided that it was worth it to literally movemountains to save the great temple of AbuSimbel, built by the pharaoh Ramses in thesecond millennium BC. The temple at AbuSimbel was originally sited on a spot alongthe Nile meant to impress Nubians sailingup to Egypt.To protect it from flooding thatwould come with the construction of theAswan Dam, the temple was moved toanother site.The imposing royal message tothe Nubians was sacrificed, but Ramses andhis temple were saved.

In Venice, a city that has been strug-gling with water since the day it was built,huge engineering projects to protect the cityare underway—giant floodgates and break-waters are being built to protect it. Howlong this will hold off the waters is anyone’sguess.19 The time is now to begin to identi-fy these save-at-all-costs sites around theworld and determine which are the mostvulnerable to climate change impacts.

The third category—those sites thatcan be protected through strategic planningand interventions—is the largest and themost complex. It includes the many sitesaround the world that require conservationand protection for many of the usual rea-





sons—neglect, lack of resources, exposure,old age—but which will suffer more dramat-ically as a result of climate change. Theseinclude such places as Kilwa Kisiwani inTanzania, where WMF is developing itsfirst project that specifically seeks toaddress climate change impacts on a cultur-al site by demonstrating new ways toapproach cultural resources within theirnatural environments (Figure 1, no. 9). Kil-wa is a World Heritage site on the east coastof Tanzania that was occupied from theMiddle Ages through the Colonial era. Pre-served there are the ruins of early palaces,forts, houses, and a mosque, all set within apicturesque seaside landscape (Figure 9).

The buildings at Kilwa are deteriorat-ing as a result of coastal erosion and expo-sure to salt air and wind. These problemswill be exacerbated by global warming andrising sea levels, but right now they are also

caused by the loss of the natural protectivebarrier along the coast—mangrove forests.WMF is working with the Tanzanians topreserve the Gereza Fort at Kilwa and torestore mangrove barriers at the same time.While this probably won’t save the site forcenturies, WMF chose this project to serveas an example of the new way that we haveto think about cultural heritage preserva-tion—shoring up the sites of Kilwa withoutaddressing the land beneath them is point-less. If we can demonstrate successful alter-natives, however, perhaps we will be able toencourage our colleagues, governments,and supporters to think this way aboutother places and work with us to makesmart decisions in the future.

This is just one example of the types ofintegrated, multidisciplinary approachesthat historic preservationists need to con-sider and develop. If we want to preserve

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

our cultural heritage in its natural habitat,which happens to also be our own, we mustapproach the work of cultural heritagepreservation from new angles. We have toask ourselves: Do we want to experience thewonders of the world in the future as theircreators did—in the deserts, jungles, plains,and cities in which they were built—or dowe want to consign them to museums anddisplay cases, or risk losing them complete-ly? The answer for those of us charged withpreserving cultural and natural heritage isclear, but we have a long way to go toexplain these threats and their conse-quences to the wider public.

An important part of our efforts tochange the way the cultural heritage field aswell as public policy address the threatsposed by climate change will be specialists’ability to demonstrate that preserving exist-ing historic buildings is an inherently“green” activity. There is much to learnfrom those human-made structures thathave survived for generations, includinghow to design for repair and maintenanceinstead of replacement, how to build struc-tures that are well-suited to their naturalenvironment, and how traditional methodsand locally available resources can supportsustainable construction along with eco-nomic and community development.

Effective public education and changedepends on collaboration.The cultural her-itage preservation and environmental con-servation movements share a common mis-sion to protect and sustain existingresources; however, there has been limitedcollaboration between the two disciplines.The threats posed by global climate changepresent us with the need and opportunity to

develop an integrated approach to preserv-ing and sustaining the built and naturalenvironments by pooling our resources,consolidating our efforts, and sharing ourskills and experience to further our sharedgoals. Such an effort would bring togetherthe fields of nature conservation, culturalheritage preservation, and sustainabledevelopment to develop strategies that willincrease public interest and awareness ofefforts to address climate change threats;gather and disseminate information aboutclimate change threats to cultural and natu-ral resources among public and profession-als; and undertake projects that demon-strate core principles and strategies.

Additionally, on the issue of mitigationof climate change threats, while it is impor-tant for cultural and natural heritage profes-sionals to set an example by reducing ourown carbon footprints, there is much morethat we have to contribute.The work of her-itage conservation itself can also contributesubstantially to mitigation efforts. The envi-ronmental benefits of preserving historicbuildings are many, including the simplefact of reusing and repairing instead ofreplacing existing structures, as well as theadvantages of using traditional, locallysourced materials that are well suited tolocal environments and therefore requirefewer resources to heat and cool and main-tain. It is also essential that we more system-atically integrate natural and cultural her-itage conservation, that is, undertake proj-ects that focus on the conservation of cul-tural sites along with the natural environ-ment that surrounds them. In short, wehave much to learn, but also much to teach,and the time to act is now.





Endnotes1. The panelists were Rebecca Beavers, coastal geologist, Geologic Resources Division,

Natural Resource Program Center, National Park Service; Dinu Bumbaru, policy direc-tor for Heritage Montreal and secretary general of ICOMOS International; and CharlesAllen III, assistant director for external relations of the Center for BioenvironmentalResearch (CBR), Tulane and Xavier Universities, and president of the Holy CrossNeighborhood Association of New Orleans, Louisiana. The session was organized andchaired by the author.

2. Information about WMF, the Watch program, and individual sites on the list are avail-able 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 unoccupiedapartment building cited increasingly severe weather caused by global warming as a fac-tor 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 devel-opment of predictions remains a subject of some debate among climate scientists. For anoverview of some of the questions that continue to be debated, see IPCC 2077c, 663and 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 alsoIPCC 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—wasoutfitted 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 author-ities 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.

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 aboutincreased 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 andUlam 2005–2006, 28–29. For a case study on Venice by the UNESCOWorld HeritageCentre, see Colette et al. 2007, 70–71.

ReferencesAnisimov,O., and S. Reneva. 2006. Permafrost and changing climate: The Russian perspec-

tive. 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 andBangladesh: The Way Forward. Online at www.ben-center.org/ClimateChange-BCAS.htm.

Berglund, N. 2007. Climate change contributed to building’s collapse. Oslo: AftenpostenMultimedia A/S, 9 January.

Cassar,M., et al. 2007.Climate Change and World Heritage: Report on Predicting and Man-aging Impacts of Climate Change onWorld Heritage and Strategy to Assist States Partiesto Implement Appropriate Management Responses. A. Colette, ed. Paris: UNESCOWorld 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. UNESCOWorld 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 cli-

mate 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 his-toric expedition huts of Ross Island, Antarctica. International Biodeterioration andBiodegradation 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. Contributionof 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 ClimateChange 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working GroupII 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, 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). InClimate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.Contribution ofWorkingGroup II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange.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 AssessmentReport 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.: CambridgeUniversity 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, Adaptationand Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Reportof 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.: CambridgeUniversity Press, 433–467.

Jamiolkowski,M.,with A.Ulam. 2005–2006.TheMOSEGates. 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 sealevel in coastal wetlands. Ecological Applications 7:3, 770–801.

Ministry of Energy and Minerals, Tanzania. 1999. Climate Change Mitigation in SouthernAfrica: Tanzania Country Study. The Centre for Energy, Environment, Science andTechnology. Online at http://uneprisoe.org/EconomicsGHG/Tanzania.pdf.

Monaghan,A.J.,D.H.Bromwich, and D.P. Schneider. 2008.Twentieth-century Antarctic airtemperature and snowfall simulations by IPCC climate models. Geophysical ResearchLetters 35.

Monaghan, A.J., D.H. Bromwich, W. Chapman, and J.C. Comiso. 2008. Recent variabilityand 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-

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 (BrownUniversity; formerly ofWorldMonuments Fund), 490 AngellStreet, Apartment 216F, Providence, Rhode Island 02906; [email protected]




At the center of this activity has beenthe Holy Cross Neighborhood Association(HCNA) of the Holy Cross neighborhoodof the Lower 9th ward. It has been joined byits principal academic partner, the Tulane/Xavier Center for Bioenvironmental Re-search (CBR).

HCNA is your all-American neighbor-hood organization of the Holy Cross neigh-borhood of New Orleans. Founded in1981, HCNA’s mission is to improve theliving conditions and serve the needs of itsresidents, preserve cultural and architectur-al heritage, serve as a clearinghouse forinformation, and actively represent theinterests of the neighborhood in dealingswith city, state, and federal agencies, privatebusinesses, community organizations, andindividuals, for the purpose of improvingthe community.

CBR is a research and training partner-ship between Tulane and Xavier universi-ties. Its mission is to conduct and coordi-nate interdisciplinary research and learningto enhance global understanding of envi-ronmental issues, provide solutionsthrough innovative applications and com-munication, and inform policy and prac-tice.

Another premier partner in the HolyCross/Lower 9th post-Katrina recovery hasbeen the World Monuments Fund (WMF).WMF’s support has come in the form ofactual financial contributions and volunteereffort, as well as recently listing the HolyCross Historic District, along with all ofNew Orleans’ historic neighborhoods, onWMF’s 2008 Watch List of 100 Most En-dangered Sites. Through this list, WMFcalls attention to and helps attract addition-

Sustain the 9!:Greening of the Holy Cross/Lower 9th Community

Charles E. Allen III

IntroductionTHE LOWER 9TH WARD, JUST AS MUCH OF NEW ORLEANS BEFORE HURRICANE KATRINA, hasbeen a community with poor energy efficiency and limited investment in environmental sus-tainable architecture and infrastructure. Residents of the Holy Cross/Lower 9th ward payhigh utility bills for homes that are not properly weatherized or insulated. Residential con-struction investments during the post-Katrina recovery period have brought about anunprecedented opportunity to increase the awareness of area residents as to what it means tobe energy efficient and sustainable. City-mandated, neighborhood-level strategic planning inthe Holy Cross/Lower 9th community has increased residents’ desires to understand moreabout what these concepts mean. And, as we undertake this project, we will explore howother communities have prepared more effectively for future environmental shocks as part ofan overall comparative recovery analysis (Campanella et al. 2004).

al support for this local community as it fur-ther works to recover itself in a green sus-tainable manner.

Sustainable planningFrom February to June 2006, with the

help of CBR staff and supported by fundingfrom the U.S. Department of Energy via theLouisiana Department of Natural Resources,the Holy Cross/Lower 9th communityundertook a strategic planning process thatfocused on energy-efficient, sustainablerecovery post-Katrina. A result of this plan-ning process, a recovery plan was devel-oped, known as Sustainable Restoration:Holy Cross Historic District & Lower 9thWard. Contained in this plan are recom-mendations from residents of the Lower9th, including Holy Cross, on the recon-struction, repair and restoration of theirneighborhood. The report is divided intofour main sections. The first, “UrbanDesign and the Built Environment,” is fol-lowed by recommendations in three cate-gories traditionally associated with sustain-able development: “Economy,” “Environ-ment,” and “Quality of Life.”

Sustainable practicesBuilding on the ideas envisioned by the

community in the Holy Cross/Lower 9thsustainable restoration plan, HCNA, withfunding from Mercy Corps and the BlueMoon Fund, has established a project calledthe Lower 9th Ward Center for SustainableEngagement and Development (CSED).CSED’s mission is to increase the aware-ness and understanding of Lower 9th wardresidents regarding energy efficiency andenvironmental sustainability during thepost-Katrina disaster recovery and invest-ment period. CSED also works to assist

returning Lower 9th residents with re-sources and training on rebuilding theirhomes energy efficiently through communi-ty bulk purchasing, enabling acquisition oflow- or no-cost rebuilding materials for res-idents.

An ultimate intent of this project is toinstill in residents an interest in knowingwhether a product or substance that theywill be using in their personal rebuilding isharmful or not to their own health and thatof the environment (McDonough andBraungart 2002).

Numerous groups and individuals haveapproached the Lower 9th communityrecently to assist residents in the monumen-tal strategic planning that they have beenrequired to go through to prove communityviability. These same groups and individu-als will be the principal ones bringing infor-mation on green sustainable developmentand energy efficiency. The Office of theFederal Environmental Executive defines“green building” (an important componentof sustainable development) as the practiceof (1) increasing the efficiency with whichbuildings and their sites use energy, water,and materials, and (2) reducing buildingimpacts on human health and the environ-ment, through better location, design, con-struction, operation, maintenance, andremoval—the complete building life cycle(Cassidy et al. 2003).

Potential implications for policyTo ensure that the relevance of this sus-

tainable recovery work extends beyond theLower 9th neighborhood and NewOrleans,qualitative and quantitative research toolsare being utilized to monitor and evaluatethe Lower 9th community’s recovery.Through questionnaires, the CSED and





CBR are routinely assessing residents’knowledge relative to sustainable recovery,and trying to determine the uptake of sus-tainable practices and identify any limits toimplementation of such practices. This sur-vey tool will be developed with input fromstate agencies, local and national non-profitorganizations, and community leaders.Once completed, the results will be com-piled in a report for submission to theRAND Gulf States Policy Institute andshared with local residents and stakehold-ers. The sustainable development andgreen building sector has rarely focused onthe working class and minority communi-ties in the United States. Lessons learnedfrom this community-driven recovery effortwill highlight current strengths and weak-nesses of policy incentives and inform non-profit organizations beginning to work withthese communities. More importantly, theinformation gathered from residents and

stakeholders will help further influence thecourse of action, shaping energy and envi-ronmental policy in the region.

ConclusionWith the enormous degree of devasta-

tion that occurred as a result of HurricaneKatrina, theNewOrleans area and the Lower9th ward in particular have the great oppor-tunity to rebuild and re-develop its commu-nity with an emphasis on sustainability andenergy efficiency. It is anticipated that thiscommunity-driven recovery, developed andimplemented in the Lower 9th Ward, willbe replicable in neighborhoods throughoutNew Orleans, and across the U.S., with thepotential to yield a more energy-efficient,environmentally attentive, and sustainablecommunity for all coastal communities andregions as a whole. And, New Orleans andthe Gulf Coast, led by the Holy Cross/Lower 9th, could become that city and

region that care did not forget.ReferencesCampanella, 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), 1430Tulane Avenue, Box SL-3, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112-2699; [email protected]

This paper will discuss what steps havealready been taken to uphold the Park Ser-vice’s mission to “preserve unimpaired thenatural and cultural resources and values ofthe national park system. . .” (NPS 2007a).In particular, we discuss how cultural re-sources are being impacted by observedchanges in climate and discuss how weexpect cultural resources to be affected overthe next century, based on projections bythe Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC).

Fort Massachusetts in Gulf IslandsNational Seashore and Cape Hatteras Light-house in Cape Hatteras National Seashorewill be used here as examples of large-scalemeasures that are being taken to preservecultural resources that would otherwise belost to a changing climate.

Literature reviewWhen many of us think of climate

change and cultural resources, we maythink of the cultural resources that are cur-rently endangered by rising sea level in

some of the oldest cities of the world, suchas Venice or London. In early 2007,UNESCO listed twenty-six examples ofWorld Heritage sites (out of 830 total) thatare threatened by climate change(UNESCO 2007). These sites representareas of global significance that are immedi-ately at risk from changing climatic condi-tions. The list is categorized based onwhether the sites are (1) glaciers, (2) areasof high marine biodiversity, (3) areas of highterrestrial biodiversity, (4) archeologicalsites, or (5) historic cities and settlements.

While these sites are important, theyare merely examples of well-known sitesthat need protection. The question of howwe protect those sites has been the subjectof a number of reports and research con-ducted by various players, including thoseat multinational (e.g., UNESCO 2006,2007), national (e.g., Cassar 2005) and aca-demic (e.g., Dietz et al. 2003; Wallach2005; Hassler 2006) scales.However, whilethe ecological impacts of climate changehave been discussed extensively in the liter-


Protecting Cultural Resources inCoastal 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 arelocated around 26,000 historic structures. One hundred fifty areas under Park Service man-agement are designated as “cultural landscapes.” The impact of climate change on culturalresources will challenge many resource managers, in particular those responsible for protect-ing America’s heritage in national parks. Rising sea level and projected increases in averageannual temperatures will undoubtedly impact many parks’ natural resources, which have ledsome to ask, “What is being done to protect cultural resources from climate change?”



ature, Carter et al. (2001) have found anydiscussion of resource management andsustainability to be lacking. Overall, the dis-cussion of what can be done to protect fixedsites that cannot naturally adapt to a chang-ing climate, such as cultural heritage sites,has been largely overlooked by those inanthropology, archeology, geography, andother academic fields, leaving the discus-sion of what should be done about thisissue almost exclusively to those in govern-mental institutions. This lack of researchinterest partly may be due to the lack ofimmediate “catastrophic” levels of impactby climate change. Patterson et al. (2006)point out that it can be difficult to plan forclimate change due to temporal incon-gruities between cultural tourism (that canchange over the scale of a few years) andecological changes that are expected tooccur over decades.

UNESCO (2006) outlined some sug-gested ways to predict and manage theeffects of climate change. This report takesan even-handed approach to climate changethat emphasizes preparation over a varietyof temporal and spatial scales. In sugges-tions to resource managers, the report liststhe following steps as part of a suggestedstrategy:

• Take preventative actions that includemonitoring, reporting, and mitigationmeasures that should be “environmen-tally sound choices and decisions at arange of levels: individual, community,institutional and corporate.”

• Employ corrective actions to adapt tochanging climatic conditions.

• Share knowledge.

This approach also follows the work ofPatterson (2003), in which she states thatclimate and tourism is a “two-way street”

that needs both mitigation where (in thiscase) cultural tourism can impact climate,and adaptation to climate’s impact on cul-tural resources. Patterson et al. (2006) fur-ther echo the work by UNESCO by statingthat mitigation and adaptation must involvestakeholders on a number of levels to besuccessful, which has been the case for theexamples that will be discussed in thispaper. Tourism is a vital part of protectingcultural resources because tourist dollarscan contribute to protecting sites of culturalsignificance. However, it should not be for-gotten that tourism itself can also harmthese areas, not only by on-site impacts butalso by less-obvious impacts such as usingcars that release greenhouse gases to get tothe sites. The National Park Service relieson fees paid by visitors to assist them inmaintaining and protecting the parks. Withescalating temperatures in some regionsand increasing sea level among other threatsfrom climate change, the question arises:“Can the financial cost of protecting theseresources exceed their cultural value?”

Whitehead and Finney (2003) testedwillingness to pay to protect cultural re-sources in North Carolina through a surveyof 884 members of the public. The studyasked respondents how much they wouldbe willing to pay to protect submerged cul-tural resources (shipwrecks) found aroundCape Hatteras, North Carolina, as a one-time tax increase. Respondents were alsoasked how much more they would be will-ing to pay based on the number of sub-merged shipwrecks saved. Overall, theyfound respondents willing to pay to protectcultural resources, although the number ofshipwrecks being saved did not play a majorrole in their decision-making.

However, this work did not include anyquestions regarding the length of time that

these resources should be protected. Cli-mate change, which works on a scale ofdecades to centuries, will test how longthese resources can be protected. In thispaper, moving Cape Hatteras Lighthouse isa case in point of a measure that can onlymitigate for nature’s impacts for a limitedamount of time before more must be done.In the meantime, managers are reassessingwhat preventative measures can be usedaround Cape Hatteras itself, and are moni-toring and reporting the progress of sea-level rise and erosion around the site.

In contrast, Fort Massachusetts requiresmore immediate attention—a situation thathas managers asking what would be the bestway to protect it. The planning for the fortis currently in the UNESCO “correctiveactions” stage of protection, whereby thesite has to adapt now to climate change.

Climate changeIn February 2007, the IPCC

released its fourth assessment reporton climate change. In addition tobuilding on the work of their previousassessments by outlining its predic-tions for future impacts of climatechange, the IPCC also discussed howchanging climate is already impactingthe Earth, and, crucially, what is caus-ing these changes. For the first time theIPCC stated that changes in atmos-pheric gases (principally carbon diox-ide, methane, nitrous oxide, andozone) have significantly increaseddue to anthropogenic activities andthat it is very likely (within a 90–99%probability) that these human influ-ences are driving the observedchanges in climate (IPCC 2007b).

IPCC predictions are built on sixpossible scenarios for future changes

in society that could impact the level ofanthropogenic greenhouse gases. Thesescenarios take into account changing ratesof population growth, technology, and ratesof economic development. From these sce-narios, changes in the rate of sea-level riseand regional temperatures have been calcu-lated (Figure 1). Surface air temperatures inthe United States are predicted to warm by2–3°C by 2100 along the western, south-ern, and eastern continental edges, withgreater warming of up to 5°C in the North(IPCC 2007a). This increase in averageannual temperatures will be accompaniedby a 20–30% increase in precipitation inmost regions that will manifest itself as moreintense, short-duration storms that couldresult in flash flooding, particularly in thesummer months. Projections by global cir-culation models also show a northward shift



Figure 1. Observed global average temperature, sealevel, and northern hemisphere snow cover. Averagesare relative to the 1961–1990 period. Circles representyearly values. Source: IPCC 2007a. Reproduced cour-tesy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.



in hurricane tracks, with an increase in thenumber of higher-intensity hurricanes anda decrease in moderate-intensity hurricanes(IPCC 2007b).

However, from a coastal managementperspective, one of the most importantchanges in climate will be rising sea level.The IPCC predicts a global average sea-level rise of up to 59 cm by 2100, with aver-age rates of rise almost doubling from 1.7mm/yr-1 over the last century to 3 mm/yr-1

since the early 1990s (Rahmstorf 2007;IPCC 2007a). This number is expected toincrease to at least 4 mm/yr-1 over the com-ing century (IPCC 2007a). In order toassess U.S. coastal national parks’ ability toadapt to climate change, the National ParkService, in collaboration with U.S. Geo-logical Survey, have published a number ofreports using the rate of sea-level rise cou-pled with variations in mean significantwave height and tidal range and other geo-logic variables, such as the geomorphology,shoreline erosion/accretion rates, andregional coastal slope, to calculate a relativecoastal vulnerability index (CVI) for 23coastal parks to identify areas in the nation-al park system that are susceptible to cli-mate change.

While this research looks at physicalparameters, this work can be used by cul-tural resource managers to help identifyareas of cultural significance that could besubmerged or lost to changes in landform(i.e., eroded or buried) in the future (USGS2007a). Cultural resource managers can usethe maps and reports to measure whetherthe area their resources are located in is ofvery low to very high vulnerability in com-parison with the rest of their park. Resultsare also broken down further based on thesix physical and geologic variables analyzedin each park report,which are posted on the

CVI website. However, the CVI index doesnot quantitatively take into account the cul-tural or social values of the coastlines thatare physically changing.

Fort Massachusetts, MississippiFort Massachusetts is an example of a

nationally significant resource of great cul-tural value that is threatened by rising sealevel. It is a brick structure that cannot bemoved and will therefore have to be protect-ed using engineered measures, or else riskbeing lost to the rising waters of theMississippi Sound and surrounding Gulf ofMexico. The question of what would be thebest approach to protect the fort has beenthe subject of some debate in recentdecades, particularly in light of predictedrises in sea level and other factors resultingfrom climate change. A number of “hard”(engineered, long-lasting measures) and“soft” (more natural, shorter-term) ap-proaches have been taken to protect FortMassachusetts from its changing environ-ment. Harder measures, such as installinggroins and sea walls, are longer lasting, yetare expensive to install, affect down-driftsediment transport, and, some say, detractfrom the aesthetic enjoyment of the struc-ture. Soft measures, such as beach replen-ishment, are less intrusive, but they are usu-ally short-term and can be more expensiveover the longer term (French 2001).

The fort is part of Gulf Islands Na-tional Seashore, located approximately 20km south of Mississippi on West ShipIsland in the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 2).Thefort was built during the Civil War (between1859 and1866) and remained virtually un-touched from 1870 until 1975.Gulf IslandsNational Seashore was created in 1971,with part of the legislation recognizing FortMassachusetts as a structure of the first

order of significance because of itsnational significance as an “Ameri-can Third System masonry fort”and for its unique “D” shape(Toscano 2004).

However, over a century ofexposure to salt air, wave actionfrom the Mississippi Sound, and anumber of hurricanes, most nota-bly hurricanes Camille (1969) and Katrina(2005), has begun to erode the brick build-ing’s mortar.Hard structures consisting of aseawall and groin were built around the fortin 1917 to protect it from erosion. In the1960s, funding was raised by citizens of the“Save the Fort” committee to construct acircular rock jetty around the fort as a pro-visional breakwater to deflect some of theenergy of waves eroding the shore (Figure3).

However, debris and remnants of alighthouse east of the fort continue to exac-erbate efforts because they act as an unin-tended “hard structure,” acting like a grointo capture sediment that could be used toprotect the fort.

Soft approaches have also been taken,including dredging offshore and in chan-nels to relocate sand back onto the nationalseashore’s beaches, particularly on WestShip Island to renourish what has beeneroded, using sediment of a similar size andcomposition. But this is not a permanentsolution and ongoing maintenance isrequired. However, sea level continues torise which, coupled with the geology of thearea, will threaten Fort Massachusetts bymaking the structure increasingly more vul-

nerable to shoreline encroachment andinundation.

Pendleton et al. (2004b) found WestShip Island to have a “high” to “very high”vulnerability ranking based primarily on itsbarrier beach geomorphology, very highrates of erosion (more than 2 m per year),near-flat coastal slope (<0.3%), and minimaltide range (less than 1 m). While Pendletonet al. (2004b) found relative sea-levelchange to only be moderate around theisland (2.5–3 mm/yr), this is still significantwhen the above factors are also taken intoaccount. Furthermore, this rate would stillamount to a rise in sea level around FortMassachusetts of 2.4–2.9 m by 2100.Giventhe fort’s current location a few meters


90

Figure 2. West Ship Island and FortMassachusetts, with CVI assessmentresults (Pendleton et al. 2004a). Photo© 2007 DigitalGlobe, reproducedcourtesy of Google.

Figure 3. Fort Massachusetts during the 1950s,prior to funding for a rock jetty around the struc-ture.



above sea level, it appears that interventionwith either hard or soft measures to save thestructure over the next century will beinevitable.

Cape Hatteras Lighthouse NationalHistoric Landmark, North Carolina

CapeHatteras Lighthouse National His-toric Landmark provides an example ofmeasures that have already been taken toreact to changes in shoreline position result-ing from a combination of natural andanthropogenic influences. The measuresused to protect the lighthouse representsome of the more drastic (and costly)responses possible for resource managers.While a number of measures were em-ployed over the years to protect the struc-ture, ultimately the lighthouse had to bemoved away from the receding shoreline.However, this type of action would not beavailable to many cultural resources, such ascemeteries, eroding battlegrounds, or his-toric forts such as Fort Massachusetts.

Cape Hatteras Lighthouse is one ofthree lighthouses found in Cape HatterasNational Seashore, the eighth-most-visitedcoastal park in 2006, with 2.25 million visi-tors (NPS Office of Statistics 2007). It wasbuilt during the period 1869–1870 forAtlantic ships passing along the OuterBanks of North Carolina in an area previ-ously known as the “graveyard of the Atlan-tic” due to its treacherous conditions (NPS2007b). Unfortunately these rough, stormyconditions have also proven hazardous tothe lighthouse that was intended to protectships from the storm-driven ocean wavesand currents that wash over the OuterBanks and transport sediment into thesound. In 1869 and 1870 the lighthousewas constructed approximately 450 m fromthe shore. The lighthouse was a replace-

ment for the first Cape Hatteras Light-house, constructed in 1803. The 1869–1870 lighthouse is the tallest in the nation,measuring 58.8 m, although it is bestknown for its distinctive black and whitediagonally striped exterior, painted in 1873.The lighthouse is a significant culturalresource as a record-breaking historic struc-ture of engineering significance, but alsobecause it adds to the aesthetic enjoymentof the coastline, having been described as“one of the most striking and beautifulstructures on the Atlantic Coast” (NPS2007c).

However, over the first 130 years of thelighthouse’s existence, erosion took its tollon the surrounding land. By 1935 already,waves had eroded most of the 450 m ofbeach in front of the lighthouse and theocean reached to within 30 m of the base ofthe tower. A combination of natural changesand a number of protective measures post-poned the threat for a number of years.Over the years, a number of erosion controlprojects have been initiated at the light-house site to protect the structure. Theyinclude: sheet pile groins (installed in the1930s), beach renourishment (1966, 1971,and 1973), nylon sand-filled bags (1967),reinforced concrete groins (1967), a sand-bag seawall (1971; Figure 4), piled rubble(1980), artificially created “seascapes” tocapture sediment (1981), seawall revetmentwith artificial seaweed (1980s), and sandbag revetment (1990s) (Platt et al. 1988).

Despite these measures, increases insea level and a number of high-intensityhurricanes continued to remove the sedi-ment surrounding the lighthouse andthreatened to engulf it. The NationalAcademy of Sciences recommended in1988 that the lighthouse be moved, but itwas not moved until June 1999 due to

lengthy planning and appeals against theplan. Eventually the lighthouse and keeper-s’ quarters were moved southwest approxi-mately 885 m to a new location that is again450 m from the shore, at a cost of $11.8 mil-lion (Figures 5–6). The lighthouse wasopened again to the public on May 26,2000.

In 2004, Cape Hatteras National Sea-shore’s coastal vulnerability assessment waspublished. Overall, 26% of the park wasclassified as having a “very high” relativecoastal vulnerability (Pendleton et al.2004a). Cape Hatteras Lighthouse was alsoclassified as a “very high” coastal vulnera-bility in five out of six assessment criteria:geomorphology, erosion, relative sea-levelchange, mean wave height, and mean tiderange (Figure 7). The coastal slope of thelocation was assessed as “high” vulnerabili-ty because the grade was 0.60–0.30% (Pen-dleton et al. 2004a).

Based on tide gauge data, sea level innearby Beaufort, North Carolina, has beenrising over the past 27 years at a rate of3.71±0.64 mm/yr-1 (Zervas 2001; Pendle-ton et al. 2004a), which is higher than cur-rent IPCC global averages (IPCC 2007a).The North Carolina Division of CoastalManagement (2004) has also determinedthat the shoreline in front of the lighthouse

has been eroding at an average of 2 m/yr-1

over the past 50 years (not accounting foradditions to the shoreline using artificialforms of beach nourishment and reinforce-ment), with the shoreline to the south of thelighthouse location eroding at an average of3.7 m/yr-1. This is particularly troublinggiven the projected increases in sea leveland associated shoreline erosion broughtabout by anthropogenic warming. Based onthese rates, the sea level of Cape Hatteras isconservatively expected to increase by 3.67m by 2100, not accounting for changes involume from increased water temperatureand salinity (Miller and Douglas 2004).

Furthermore, high-intensity hurricaneswith storm surges also contributed to a largeamount of erosion around the lighthousewhen it was in its previous position. Some28 recorded hurricanes have directly struckCape Hatteras National Seashore since1854 (NOAA 2006). In 2003, HurricaneIsabel particularly impacted the barrierislands of capes Lookout and Hatteras. Inparticular, the IPCC has noted increasedintense tropical cyclone activity in theNorth Atlantic since the 1970s, which islinked to increased sea-surface tempera-tures (IPCC 2007a). Given the expectedincreases in sea-surface temperatures result-ing from anthropogenic warming, the IPCC



Figure 4. Sandbag seawall infront of Cape Hatteras Light-house, taken shortly after the sea-wall was constructed in 1971.The seawall was destroyed bywave action soon thereafter.Source: USGS 2007b. R. Dolanphoto courtesy of U.S. Geologi-cal Survey.



(2007b) now finds it likely that intense trop-ical cyclone activity will increase, whichcould further jeopardize the Cape Hatterascoastline and its cultural resources.

Although Cape Hatteras Lighthouse ispresently out of danger from sea-levelchange, this does not mean that it will beprotected indefinitely. Without the addedpush by anthropogenically driven warming,it is expected (based on the current rate oferosion) that the location of the lighthousewould have to reassessed again at least by2199 (NPS 2007d). However, the factorsdiscussed above brought about by climatechange are expected to have a major impacton the rate of erosion around the historiclandmark. This means that more may needto be done to protect the structure beforethe end of this century.

DiscussionFort Massachusetts and Cape Hatteras

Lighthouse are examples of corrective andpreventive actions, respectively, that are partof Patterson’s (2003) two-way street ofadaptation and mitigation. However,UNESCO (2006) also stresses the impor-tance of sharing knowledge to further pro-tect cultural resources. The NationalPark Service has begun this processby encouraging national parks totake part in its Climate-FriendlyParks program, which is designed to

help and educate resource managers aboutthe impacts of climate change on theirparks. Research by Pendleton et al. (2004a,2004b) has also been used by stakeholdersand managers to assess their parks’ vulnera-bility to rising sea level in an easy-to-inter-pret manner so that mitigation strategiescan be put in place. Many of these mitiga-tion measures take years to research andorganize funding for—steps which shouldbe taken now so that resource managers arenot caught unawares when increased sealevel is on their resource’s doorstep. In the

Figure 5. Cape Hatteras Lighthouse in its originallocation. Inset: The lighthouse in its current loca-tion. Photos courtesy of the National ParkService.

Figure 6. The path of the Cape HatterasLighthouse move. The arrow indicates thedirection of movement from the light-house’s original location. Photo © 2007DigitalGlobe, reproduced courtesy ofGoogle.

case of Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, ittook 11 years from when a move wasfirst proposed (in 1988) to when it wasaccomplished (in 1999). During thattime the shoreline in front of the light-house had eroded further by approxi-mately 22 m. Fort Massachusetts maynot have 11 years to wait before some-thing can be done to further protect itfrom sea-level rise and an eroding shore-line.

The dissemination of informationabout climate change’s impact on coastalcultural resources is an ongoing processthat will involve participation from theindividual/public to the glob-al/transgovernmental level of stakehold-ers. It should also not be forgotten thatmost cultural resources cannot bemoved as Cape Hatteras Lighthousewas. This may be for practical reasonsor because it is simply not economicallypossible to do so. The National ParkService has approximately 25 parks thatcontain lighthouses. It is unlikely that everylighthouse in those parks could be moved ifthreatened by changing environmental con-ditions. The National Park Service also hasa number of sites of cultural significance,such as Fort Massachusetts, that cannot bemoved. At these sites, the National ParkService must consider a strategy of retreatwith selective preservation efforts, or imple-ment harder structures such as rock armor-ing or sea walls to protect vital culturalresources, as rising sea levels limit the feasi-bility of keeping a sand buffer along theshoreline. Hard structures will not protectFort Massachusetts from the impact ofincreased temperatures and the possibilityof more-intense storms that could damageits structure. In 2005, Hurricane Katrinagenerated a 9-m storm surge that washed

over the fort, causing significant damage(Fritz et al. 2007).

It should also be considered that manynational parks still contain valuable culturalartifacts on their grounds that have not yetbeen discovered. Recent erosion at James-town National Historic Site uncovered alocation of significant archeological valuethat could have been eroded away had it notbeen for its discovery by park managers.There are still many sites on national parkproperty that could be of significant cultur-al value to future generations but whichcannot all be identified before the impactsof climate change take their toll (NPCA2007).

ConclusionsThe next decades hold a great deal of

uncertainty for many cultural resources



Figure 7. Cape Hatteras CVI results. Source: Pendleton2007b.



throughout the world, particularly those inthe coastal zone. Those in the U.S. nationalpark system must be protected; however,this will be a difficult task in many cases,such as that of Fort Massachusetts. A num-ber of financial and technological hurdlesthat require a high degree of resourceful-ness must be overcome first. Cape HatterasLighthouse represents an extreme exampleof what engineering methods can be used to

protect these resources; it is also an exam-ple of managers taking a more proactiveapproach to planning for climate change.Overall, the three steps of conservation out-lined by UNESCO (2006) are effectivemeans of dealing with climate change, butthe question still remains as to whether itwill be feasible to prevent damage byincreasing sea level or changing environ-mental variables to all cultural resources.

ReferencesCarter, R.W., G.S. Baxter, and M. Hockings. 2001. Resource management in tourism re-

search: 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 observa-tions on theMississippi Barrier Islands.Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. (In press.)

IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. 2007a. Climate Change 2007: ThePhysical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Re-port of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press.

———. 2007b. Summary for policy makers. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical ScienceBasis. 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-centuryglobal 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: LongTerm Average Annual Shoreline Change Study and Setback Factors (Updated Through1998). Raleigh: North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.

NPCA [National Parks Conservation Association]. 2007. Unnatural Disaster: GlobalWarming and Our National Parks. Washington, D.C.: NPCA.

NPS [National Park Service]. 2007a. Mission. Online at www.nps.gov/aboutus/mis-sion.htm.

———. 2007b. Graveyard of the Atlantic. Online at www.nps.gov/archive/caha/grave-yard.htm.

———. 2007c. The Cape Hatteras Lightstation. Online atwww.nps.gov/archive/caha/capelight.htm.

———.2007d.North Carolina State University 1997 review and update of the1988 NationalResearch 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 andCoping Strategies.B.Amelung and D.Viner, eds.Warsaw,Poland: North Atlantic TreatyOrganization.

Patterson, T., S. Bastianoni, and M. Simpson. 2006. Tourism and climate change: Two-waystreet, 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 ofCape 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 ofGulf 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 CapeHatteras Lighthouse.) Saving Cape Hatteras Lighthouse from the Sea: Options andPolicy Implications. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Rahmstorf, S. 2007. A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise. Science315, 368–370.

Toscano, M.A. 2004. Assessment of Vulnerability of Coastal Cultural and ArchaeologicalResources 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. TheImpacts 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 cultur-

al resources. Journal of Cultural Economics 27, 231–240.





Zervas, C. 2001. Sea Level Variations of the United States, 1854–1999. NOAA TechnicalReport 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. Box25287, Denver Colorado 80225; [email protected]

The general details of the project arewell documented (Mech 1966; Peterson1977, 1995; Allen 1979; Vucetich andPeterson 2004a, 2004b, 2004c). The proj-ect is located on Isle Royale, a wildernessisland and national park located in north-west Lake Superior, North America. Moosefound their way to the 210-square-mileisland in Lake Superior, fifteen miles fromthe Canadian coast near Thunder Bay, atthe turn of the 20th century. For fifty years,moose abundance fluctuated with weatherconditions and food abundance.

Wolves first arrived to Isle Royale in1949—coincidentally just as humans wereworking to introduce them to the park—bycrossing an ice bridge that connected theisland to Canada. The lives of Isle Royale

moose would never be the same. Within adecade Purdue University wildlife ecologistDurward Allen (Figure 1) recognized a rareopportunity to study the interactionsbetween a newly established predator–preyrelationship in a setting as close to a labora-tory as ecologists get: an island ecosystemwith a seemingly isolated population of asingle predator and a single prey, a simplesystem where population dynamics are theresult of moose and the wolves who eatthem.

By a variety of measures the projecthas been successful. Several of the UnitedStates’ most recognized contemporary wolfbiologists and ecologists cut their teeth onthe project, including L. David Mech(Figure 2), Doug Smith, and Mike Phillips.


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, andyou must know the speech of hills and rivers. Then on a still night, when the campfire is lowand the Pleiades have climbed over rimrocks, sit quietly and listen for a wolf to howl, andthink hard of everything you have seen and tried to understand. Then you may hear it—a vastpulsing harmony—its score inscribed on a thousand hills, its notes the lives and deaths ofplants and animals, its rhythms spanning the seconds and the centuries.

— Aldo Leopold

IntroductionTHE ISLE ROYALE WOLF–MOOSE PROJECT IS THE LONGEST CONTINUOUS STUDY of a preda-tor–prey relationship in the world. Though it is easy to take this for granted, to assume thatsuch a project happens simply because the researchers do it would be a mistake.This is quiteliterally a phenomenal accomplishment: something that exists outside of the realm of normalhappenings, “an extraordinary occurrence.”


Descriptions of the project are sometimessprinkled with adjectives like “iconic” and“classic.” In a recent issue of Audubonmag-azine, journalist Les Line (2008) dubbedIsle Royale’s wolves “the most famousCanis lupus population in the world.” Theproject has served as fodder for importantscientific understanding, popular articlesand books, and even artistic expressions(exhibited at www.isleroyalewolf.org).

While wonderful and inspiring in thecase of the Isle Royale wolf– moose project,such success is fickle and tragically rare—yet critically important. In this essay, wereview the administrative history of the IsleRoyale wolf–moose project. From that his-torical narrative we infer what obstaclesmight represent a general challenge to long-term ecological research. Finally, whilemany take for granted that data collectedfrom long-term research is especially valu-able, the reasons why have not beenexplored in great depth. We conclude thisessay by considering the importance oflong-term research.

An administrative historyA 1986 study by the Institute of Eco-

system Studies (Strayer et al.) analyzed sev-eral long-term ecological studies. The sup-porting agency, the National Science Foun-dation (NSF), hoped to establish the foun-dation for a program supporting long-termecological research by identifying factorscommon to successful programs. But itturned out there was no consistent theme,research characteristic, or subject of studythat seemed to matter.The only point worthmentioning was that frequently there wasone person whose commitment and interestprovided the long-term foundation: “Everysuccessful long-term study that we studiedhas had associated with it one (or a few)

good, dedicated scientist who has devotedmuch time and energy to the long-termstudy” (Strayer et al. 1986:5).

For wolf–moose research at Isle Roy-ale, one of these people was the late RobertM. (Bob) Linn (1926–2004),whose thought-ful support of research in national parksbegan with a career with U.S. National ParkService (NPS), but expanded thereafter toinclude all parks and equivalent reserves inthe world. Durward Allen frequently spokeof Linn and the critical role he had played inhelping to maintain the Isle Royale wolf–moose project. As the first naturalist for IsleRoyale National Park (Figure 3), Linn hadparticipated in an early winter study on theisland, in 1956, when he and NPS biologistJim Cole spent several weeks on the islandin February, snowshoeing extensively, tryingto estimate how many wolves were presentand what their activities might mean for theisolated moose population.

Figure 1. The originator of the wolf–moose study,Durward Allen. Photo provided by George Desort.

Linn was also the person whohad to deal with the aftermath, in1952, of a private effort to introducewolves to Isle Royale. Zoo-raisedwolves were used, after a search inMichigan for wild wolf pups failed.After the four semi-tame wolvesbecame uncooperative pests, Linnled efforts to remove them, knowingthat there was evidence that wildwolves had recently made it to theisland on their own.

In the mid-1950s there wassubstantial concern that the newlyarrived wolves would increase andget out of hand, threatening themoose population and posing a dan-ger to people (including some long-time residents of Isle Royale, whoseefforts had helped establish thenational park). Suddenly, sharingthe island with an unregulated wolfpopulation seemed a worrisomeproposition. Anticipating a need tosomehow rein in the wolf popula-tion, in 1956 Gordon Fredine,Linn’s successor as chief biologistfor the NPS, wrote to his close col-league Jim Kimball, commissionerof conservation for the state ofMinnesota, and asked if Minnesotawould accept some live wolves from IsleRoyale. Kimball declined the invitation toparticipate, citing public opposition towolves generally and the fact that Minnesotawas spending (wasting, in Kimball’s view)some $300,000 per year in bounty pay-ments for dead wolves.1 Linn wrote thereports and letters necessary to establishthat the wolves were not a threat to people,and helped establish a policy whereby theNPS supported the existence of an unman-aged wolf population on Isle Royale.

Meanwhile, in a harbinger of wolf reintro-duction to Yellowstone forty years later(Smith et al. 2003), with the arrival ofwolves the controversy over an overabun-dance of moose quickly evaporated.

Aristotle’s famous quip that all inquirybegins in wonder rings true for the origin ofthe Isle Royale wolf–moose project. Theuncertainty surrounding the presence ofwolves served as a catalyst for those interest-ed in initiating serious research on the wolfand moose population. In 1958, Linn was


Figure 2 (top). Researcher L. David Mech with a collectionof moose jaws. Photo provided by George Desort. Figure3 (bottom). Bob Linn at Isle Royale, 1956. Photo courtesyof Milt Stenlund.

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 101

on hand when Allen and his graduate stu-dent Dave Mech first visited Isle Royale tobegin an ambitious ten-year study to evalu-ate the role of wolf predation in the dynam-ics of the moose population.2 Most immedi-ately there was a need for a field base forMech, who bounced around from one spotto another in 1958 and 1959. In 1960, Linnarranged for Mech to use the cabin at theBangsund Fishery as a base for his summerfieldwork, following the death of fishermanJack Bangsund in 1959. The Bangsundcabin has served a valuable research roleever since, long exceeding its tenure as acommercial fishery. Mech also needed aboat, and Linn donated his own woodenboat to the project (it did not last as long asthe fishery cabin).

Allen had launched the wolf–mooseproject with funds from the National Geo-graphic Society and the NSF, but as thesefunding sources cycled through to comple-tion, additional sponsors were needed. Bythe late 1960s, Linn was in Washington,D.C., leading the science program of theNPS, and he began to provide a modestgrant each year to support continuingresearch on wolves and moose at Isle Roy-ale.

But the original ten-year duration ofthe study was over by 1968, and the one-time minister-turned-attorney and nowpowerful long-time director of the NationalPark Service, George Hartzog, instructedLinn to oversee its conclusion—in otherwords, to terminate it. As Allen recalled it inthe early 1970s, Linn quietly ignored thedirective, and in fact continued to provideannual grants from his science budget.3

By 1974 Allen had made no secret ofhis intention to retire the next year, and oneof Linn’s own science administrators in theNPS (who shall remain nameless) em-

barked on a secret bid to take over the proj-ect. He visited Purdue and had a pleasantchat with Allen, who came away mystifiedabout the reason for the visit. Before the vis-itor left, Rolf Peterson showed him a recent-ly tanned hide of a wolf that had been killedby other wolves on Isle Royale the previouswinter. A few days later, Allen got a phonecall from Linn, at that time still the chief sci-entist of the Park Service in Washington,who had discovered the scope of thetakeover bid and alerted an incredulousAllen. The wolf skin that had been sharedwas being used as part of an attempt to dis-credit Peterson, Allen’s obvious successorto the project, the claim being that Petersonpossessed an endangered species withoutauthorization. After some discussion Linntold Allen not to worry, he (Linn) wouldtake care of the matter. The visiting NPSscientist and would-be wolf researcher wasnot heard from again. In 1975, as Allenretired, he turned the project over toPeterson who had by then secured an aca-demic post and a new home for thewolf–moose project at Michigan Techno-logical University (MTU) in Houghton,also the mainland headquarters of the park.Linn was already at MTU, having estab-lished a Cooperative Park Studies Unitthere with himself as unit leader. Linnwould soon retire from his NPS position,but not from his involvement with the IsleRoyale wolf–moose project.

In 1981, newly inaugurated PresidentRonald Reagan appointed James Watt assecretary of the interior. Given Watt’srecord and beliefs, the environmental com-munity was both outraged and horrified. Inthe face of a perceived threat, however, theappointment of Watt also served to coalescethe environmental community in powerfulways. For the post of assistant secretary for

fish, wildlife, and parks, Watt appointed G.Ray Arnett, a geologist from the petroleumindustry who gained distinction in 1956 forthe initial discovery of oil in Alaska (on anational wildlife refuge, no less—the KenaiNational Moose Range) and who had previ-ously been the director of the CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game under Rea-gan when he was the state’s governor.4 Itwas not long before Arnett, an avowed wolf-hater, crossed paths with the wolf–mooseresearch at Isle Royale. His signature wasrequired on the annual contract betweenNPS and MTU that by then provided$30,000 to carry out the winter counts ofwolves andmoose. Such paperwork typical-ly dragged on for weeks or months. As nor-mal, the 1983 winter study began inJanuary without the signed contract:Peterson, an NPS staffer, pilot Don Glaser,and student assistant Doug Smith all work-ing on the island (Figure 4). Isle RoyaleChief Ranger Stu Croll called one eveningby radiophone with some “unpleasantnews.”Not only did Arnett refuse to author-ize NPS funding, he demanded thewolf–moose project be immediately termi-nated. Croll explained that all personnelwould have to leave the island, and hearranged to have theForest Service supplyairplane, a ski-equipped Beaver, pickeveryone up at the firstopportunity. Croll ex-pressed sincere regretat seeing everything endin this manner. TheBeaver soon arrived.

The only person who left the island, howev-er, was the NPS staffer. Croll agreed to lookthe other way as Peterson explained that hewould be staying to complete the surveys, asintended, and Glaser and Smith would bestaying as well.

So far, so good; but this committed theproject to spending money it did not have.Enter Linn one more time. In a wonderfullyroundabout manner, he saved the day. Linncontacted (probably through Durward Al-len) Nathaniel Reed, one of Arnett’s prede-cessors in the Nixon–Ford years, and Reedin turn contacted Amos Eno, vice-presidentof the National Audubon Society, whoknew Arnett well enough to give him a call.Meanwhile, the Washington-based Defend-ers of Wildlife began to prepare testimonyon yet another example of political interfer-ence, to be used in the congressional budg-et hearings for the Interior department.That proved unnecessary, as Eno persuad-ed Arnett that the wolf–moose project wasnot an appropriate vehicle for his agenda. Aperiod of bureaucratic track covering fol-lowed, and Isle Royale National Park Su-perintendent Don Brown flew to Washing-ton for a personal audience with Arnett.Brown reported that Arnett’s office sported


Figure 4. Winter study pilotDon Glaser and researcherDoug Smith. Photo provid-ed by George Desort.

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 103

walls lined with trophy mounts of animalheads and a wolf skin on the floor. Afterenduring the requisite chitchat with Arnett,Brown emerged with the original $30,000.

For Bob Linn, Isle Royale was quitesimply the finest place on Earth. The finaltwenty-five years of professional activityfound him establishing the George WrightSociety, dedicated to research and educa-tion in parks and preserves around theworld. But Linn always tried to be as closeas possible to Isle Royale (which explainswhy the office of the George Wright Societyis in Hancock, Michigan, a few city blocksfrom the mainland headquarters of IsleRoyale National Park). The island wasnever far from his thoughts.

The challenge of long-term ecologicalresearch

While long-term research such as theIsle Royale wolf–moose project happens, itdoes not “just happen.” In fact, it rarelyhappens at all. When it does, what are theconditions that allow for long-term re-search? The 1986 Institute of EcosystemStudies study cited above indicates that,other than the enthusiasm of some individ-ual, there really are no clear and specificconditions that describe or predict success(Strayer et al. 1986). We would suggest,however, there are three critical and under-appreciated, but necessary, conditions: con-ditions so precarious that they explain whylong-term research is so rare.

The first requirement of a successfullong-term study is interest. Without theenduring interest of some researcher—aresearcher with vision, a researcher willingto take a chance—no long-term study wouldhappen. But this kind of interest is requiredfor any study, long- or short-term. A suc-cessful long-term study such as the Isle

Royale wolf–moose project requires a line-age of interest. The Isle Royale project hasthat. From Bob Linn to Durward Allen toRolf Peterson to John Vucetich (Figure 5),individual scientists have taken a personalinterest in this particular project; have madeit the focus of their life’s work.5 But this sortof interest is exceptionally rare in science.Scientists do not typically spend theircareers unpacking the mysteries of a singleplace or a single relationship, and academiadoes not typically reward or encourage sci-entists whose sense of place is so strong.

Ultimately, the interest of the re-searchers must also transfer to, and spark,the interest of the public—another toughaudience, especially when the project islargely about an animal with which we havea troubled past (and present). Fortunately,the Isle Royale project has been quite suc-cessful in impressing both the scientificcommunity and the public. From unusualfindings—such as the impact scavengerslike ravens have on wolf pack size (Vucetichet al. 2004), to the surprising role parasitessuch as winter ticks might play in the dyna-mics of the system (Vucetich and Peterson2007)—to intentional and extensive publicoutreach,6 the story of the wolf–moose proj-ect has captured a broad interest.

But interest, no matter how rich andnurtured, is not enough. Long-term studiesend, and, according to the 1986 Institute ofEcosystem Studies paper, they end regard-less of interest by scientists, regardless ofinterest by the public, and regardless ofimportant scientific findings. They endbecause of other factors: “It is perhaps sig-nificant that none of the long-term studiesthat we studied were terminated voluntarilybecause the PI [principal investigator] feltthat the study no longer justified the cost.Studies were stopped by funding difficul-

ties and retirement of the PI, but never forlack of important research questions”(Strayer et al. 1986:13).

The second necessary condition for asuccessful long-term study is money. Scien-tific research is an expensive endeavor.Long-term research is “expensive multi-plied by long-term.” The case of the IsleRoyale wolf–moose project, however, isinteresting because its annual budget is onlya fraction of that of many other ecologicalstudies. And yet the contributions of theIsle Royale project are comparable to thoseof other significant research projects.Despite its relatively high return, however,the Isle Royale project remains financiallylimited. If funded at a higher level, the IsleRoyale project would undoubtedly produceeven more valuable knowledge and interest.

But money is fickle. The $30,000 thatthe National Park Service originally com-

mitted to the project in 1976 has remainedessentially unchanged—though inflationcalculators indicate that its worth in 2007was roughly $8,085, or less than one-thirdits original value. Federal sources of fundingcan change (that is, “shrink”) given thefancy of an administration not interested inscientific research generally, or more inter-ested in funding other projects. Because oflimited funding, the Isle Royale project canpursue answers to but a small handful of thefascinating and important questions thatbubble up year after year.Of course, the realtragedy of underfunded long-term scienceis for society. Given that critical knowledgeand insight about living sustainably (a long-term proposition) comes at least in partfrom long-term studies, and given the cur-rent necessity of understanding what sus-tainable living might look like, we mightwell be underfunding the very science that


Figure 5. Researchers Rolf O. Peterson and John A. Vucetich. Photo courtesy of George Desort.

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 105

we need most in today’s world. In short,because of the financial strains on long-termprojects, we should never assume thatbecause a project has lasted for fifty yearsthat it will last fifty more—or even for onemore!

Third, successful long-term studyrequires the ability to weather the periodicthreat of zealous ideologies and the tyranni-cal administrators who sometimes evokethem. As we saw above, there have been atleast two close calls for the Isle Royale proj-ect on these grounds. In addition to theattempted post-Allen NPS “takeover” of theproject that was, by all appearances, simplya raw abuse of power, G. Ray Arnettexpressed a willingness to quash seriousscientific research in the name of a ideologysuggesting wolves are some sort of evilincarnate (making the work of wolf researchsomehow devilish). However, a different setof ideologies—one suggesting either thatpredators such as wolves have an effect onecosystems (Ripple and Beschta 2005;Hebblewhite et al. 2005) or one thatassumes that predators are critical compo-nents of healthy ecosystems (Leopold1949:129–133), coupled with the recent“greening” of a variety of the world’s reli-gions (Taylor 2005), for instance—mightmean that work focused on predation is alsowork serving to care for the creation.

More recently, unsophisticated ideolo-gies about the nature of wilderness can andhave interfered with environmental researchin this project and elsewhere (Callicott andNelson 1998; Nelson and Callicott 2008).But is this really a threat to the project? It isnot uncommon to meet an NPS employeewho projects his or her personal interpreta-tion of “wilderness” onto research projects,or who feels that the public is too interestedin research on Isle Royale’s wolves and

moose. The final chapter of Peterson 1995chronicles how a difference in wildernessideology between researchers and the NPSmight have allowed the wolves of IsleRoyale to die out, and the project to end,during the 1990s.The Isle Royale project isnot alone in this way. Other long-termresearch projects have failed, or their con-tinuation has been threatened, by tyrannicaladministrations and ideologies that areopposed to certain kinds of knowledgeabout the environment (Fraidenburg2007).

We have all learned that ideologicalrighteousness coupled with power knowsno limits and is seldom subject to negotia-tion. Of course, ideology coupled withintellectual honesty allows for reconcilia-tion. Reconciliation here might be found inan understanding of what ideologies are,how they determine our thoughts andactions, and a recognition that other ideolo-gies can also be motivated by, and result in,the care and protection of nature.

When considering the challenges tolong-term research, both with wolves andmoose on Isle Royale and elsewhere, thereare two sorts of tragedies lurking: one prag-matic and one ethical. First, the value oflong-term research is simply not duplicableelsewhere with shorter-term projects.Additionally, long-term ecological researchseems an absolutely vital component ofunderstanding those long-term processesthat might help secure our continued long-term existence and the well-being of theplanet. However, because of the reasonssuggested above, and perhaps many others,long-term research is under great pressure,subject to diminishing support, and inap-propriately devalued (Keeling 2008). Aswas noted back in 1981 on the pages of thisvery journal: “As land use intensifies and

research funding dries up, we face a regres-sion in ecological inquiry at the very timewe need it most” (Peterson 1981). Nearlythirty years later this is truer than ever.

Second, there is an ethical tragedyprompted by a paucity of long-term ecolog-ical research. Aldo Leopold (1949:203)suggests that “all ethics so far evolved restupon a single premise: that the individual isa member of a community of interdepend-ent parts.” If Leopold is correct, if we ex-tend moral consideration only to thosewithin our perceived community and thecommunity as such—that is, if the develop-ment of a “sense of place” is a critical part ofthe development of a rich environmentalethic—then, although environmental scien-tists are important for the defense of naturalplaces, many or most of the best scientistsdo not manifest this strong sense of place;the kind of sense that holds one’s interest

for an entire lifetime. Moreover, given thedesire of contemporary environmentalethics to be consistent with, and informedby, the images of nature represented byecology, and given that a fifty-year image ofwolf–moose relationships is wildly differentfrom that which we would have assumed ifthe project had been halted after only fiveyears (see Figure 6), the longevity of theproject informs environmental ethics inimportant ways. The Isle Royale wolf–moose project, then, takes on an unantici-pated, yet important, moral significance.

Regionally, Isle Royale is known forfishing and boating. Nationally, Isle Royaleis a wilderness-backpacking destination.However, on the international scene, IsleRoyale is known for essentially one thing(which is one more than many places): itslong-term study of the wolf–moose preda-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, LakeSuperior, USA.

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 107

mercy of many burdens: creative, financial,ideological, to name only a few. Hence, inaddition to being precious (from the Latinpretiosus, meaning “costly, valuable”) it isalso precarious (from the Latin precarius,meaning “obtained by asking or praying”).And anything possessing these qualitiesshould not be taken for granted.

The findings and applications: Whatknowledge have we gained?

There is a widespread perceptionamong scientists involved in long-termstudies that long-term studies oftenproduce important serendipitous find-ings.

— Strayer et al. 1986:21

Two great concerns for wolf managersare “How much human-caused mortalitycan a viable wolf population sustain?” and“How do wolves affect the prey populationsthat humans also want to hunt?” Thoughhumans do not exploit wolves or moose onIsle Royale, the wolf–moose project of IsleRoyale has provided important insight on

both questions.Isle Royale is the only place where

humans have monitored, for any seriouslength of time, the mortality rates of a wolfpopulation not exposed to human causes ofdeath (Figure 7). This kind of knowledge isvaluable for managers aiming to promotewolf viability and maintain human-causedmortality at appropriately low levels.Ironically, knowledge about natural rates ofwolf mortality is also valuable for the effi-cient reduction or even overexploitation ofwolf populations.

One of the primary reasons humansdespotize wolf populations is because toomany humans perceive that wolves threatenour ability to enjoy the highest possiblerates of hunting—hunting for deer, elk,moose, and caribou, the species uponwhich wolves’ survival depend. Conse-quently, “How do wolves affect prey?” isconsidered by many a critical managementquestion. Over the years, the Isle Royalewolf–moose project has continued to con-tribute important understanding on thistopic. In the early years of the project, we

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

discovered that wolves are selective preda-tors, tending to focus their predation onmoose that are young, old, or sick (Peterson1977). Subsequently, we learned thatwolves tend to kill more when winters aresevere and when moose are abundant (Postet al. 1999; Post et al. 2002; Vucetich et al.2002). These discoveries suggested wolvesare the proximate, but not ultimate, cause ofmost moose deaths (Vucetich and Peterson2004b). That is, wolves seemed to have rel-atively little impact on moose abundance.

Then, quite by accident, we made anobservation giving a very different impres-sion. In the early 1980s, wolves declinedcatastrophically due to a disease. Shortlyafterward, moose increased to an incrediblyhigh abundance (McLaren and Peterson1994), only to crash shortly thereafter dueto the combined effects of a severe winter, atick outbreak, and a catastrophic foodshortage. Most recently, we learned that of

all the factors affecting short-term fluctua-tions in moose abundance, wolves are theleast important (Vucetich and Peterson2004b). Climatic factors (such as summerheat and winter severity) are much moreimportant. Most importantly, most of thefluctuations in moose abundance areattributable to factors that we have yet toidentify (Figure 8). These observationshighlight limitations of our knowledgeabout how wolves affect moose on IsleRoyale, despite their being well studied. Tosome, this limitation suggests that our abili-ty to control many wildlife populations isless precise and reliable than commonlythought. To these people, the suggestion isnot unjustified pessimism, but a reasonableconclusion to draw from fifty years ofresearch (Vucetich and Peterson, in press).

Though we are grateful for the oppor-tunity to have made these contributions toscience, there are two ironies about better


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

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 109

understanding of “how wolves affect prey.”First, expecting an ecologist to study “howpredators affect prey” for the purpose ofknowing more about how to control themmay be like expecting an astronomer tostudy how the stars move for the purpose ofbetter controlling their movement. Learn-ing to better live with and appreciate hownature is unpredictable and uncontrollablemay deserve more attention than being fix-ated with controlling nature. The secondirony is that “how wolves affect prey abun-dance” is important for justifying two man-agement interests that are, to say the least,oddly juxtaposed. The justification of wolfcontrol—killing wolves to maximize hunt-ing of ungulates such as deer, moose, orelk—requires demonstrating that wolveshave a profound effect on prey. However,the justification that wolf predation is a crit-ical component of healthy ecosystems alsoseems to require demonstrating that wolveshave a profound effect on prey. Adding tothe confusion,many argue that wolf popula-tions should be recovered or left unexploit-ed because wolves have little impact on preyabundance. Again, the Isle Royale projectcontributed significantly to these scientificdiscoveries, but how they influence man-agement remains an open question. Theinfluence remains undetermined becausewe have yet to decide whether, where, how,or why wolves should (or should not) behunted in the continental United States,and the question of how wolves affect ungu-late prey abundance is seen as hugelyimportant in decisions about this ethicaldebate.

The Isle Royale wolf–moose projectseems also to have contributed knowledgeof quite a different kind. To understandwhat we mean by “different kinds of know-ledge,” first ask yourself what is the purpose

of science. Is it primarily to control naturefor the “easing of man’s estate,” as thefamous philosopher Francis Bacon suggest-ed more than 400 years ago? Or, is it prima-rily to generate wonderment about the nat-ural world—the kind of wonderment thatcan transform and enlighten our under-standing about how we ought to relate tothe natural world (a view roughly held bythe famous 20th-century philosopher of sci-ence Karl Popper)?7 If the latter is thegreater purpose of science, the Isle Royalewolf–moose project has, we hope, con-tributed valuable knowledge. Moreover,given a variety of surprising and unex-plained results that have been observedfrom this relatively simple set of relation-ships, the Isle Royale project represents awarning about the futility and arrogance ofplacing too much value on science for thepurpose of predicting and controllingecosystems.

The Isle Royale wolf–moose projectbegan fifty years ago, during the darkesthour for wolves in North America. Themass slaughter perpetrated against wolvesrequired our vilifying them. The subse-quent and quite phenomenal improvementin conditions for wolves required an anti-dote for our vilification. That antidote wasknowledge. In the early years, the projectgave people reason to replace destructivemyths with real knowledge that portrayedwolves as they are: predators, a natural partof ecosystems, not villains. For example, theIsle Royale wolf–moose project helped peo-ple see that wolves are not gluttonous,wasteful killers. Instead, most wolves dieyoung, and they die of starvation or byfighting for food. And, what wolves do noteat, scavenger species—foxes, ravens, andother resident bird species—depend on fortheir survival. Ultimately, the Isle Royale

wolf–moose project created an awarenessthat has contributed to a sea change in atti-tudes, allowing for wolves to begin theirrecovery.

More recently, as mentioned above, wediscovered a special relationship betweenwolves and ravens (Vucetich et al. 2004).Specifically, a critical advantage of groupliving is that wolves lose substantially lessfood to scavengers such as ravens. Ravensmay be an important reason why wolves livein packs—a trait otherwise uncommonamong carnivores. This discovery grabbedmuch press attention. But why? This know-ledge is certainly not valuable for control-ling anything in nature. Rather, the work isappreciated, we believe, because it high-lights a beautifully unexpected and intricateecological connection. Our work alsograbbed press attention when we describedhow wolves and moose are affected bymoose ticks, which in turn are influencedby climate. Connections like these areimportant because they can generate won-derment, awe, and respect.

Over the years, our sense and aware-ness of Isle Royale’s complexity and unpre-dictable nature has continued to grow and

deepen. We know the most importantevents in the history of Isle Royale wolvesand moose are severe winters, disease, andtick outbreaks. These events are essentiallyunpredictable. Moreover, every five-yearperiod in the wolf–moose chronologyseems to differ from every other five-yearperiod—and this seems true even after fiftyyears of observation (see Figure 6). Goingfurther, the first twenty-five-year period ofthe project was profoundly different fromthe second. We have every reason to expectthe next fifty years will differ substantiallyfrom the first, but, strangely, we are in noposition to say how (Vucetich et al., inpress). These and related observations sug-gest the futility of trying to reliably predictnature’s responses to our intense exploita-tion.

The Isle Royale wolf–moose projecthas generated many scientific facts aboutwolves and moose. In doing so, the projecthas also developed and shared with others adeep sense of place about Isle Royale’s ecol-ogy. From this, we believe, comes a knowl-edge that generates wonderment—the exactkind of knowledge we may most need at thismoment in time.


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

Endnotes1. “[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 managementmeasure 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), LauritsKrefting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and John Lewis (superintendent, Isle RoyaleNational Park).

3. Years later, when asked about this matter, Linn denied it had ever happened. But that

Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 111

was his manner of defusing controversy, which he had no stomach for—at least that isour interpretation.NPS historian RichardWest Sellars agrees, and told R.O.P. by phonein 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 pur-sue 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 theExecutive Vice President of the National Rifle Association in 1985 (though in 1986 hewould be dismissed for, among other things, “personnel decisions on the basis of hispersonal interest rather than the interests of the Association.”) See Golden (1984) for aninteresting glimpse of Arnett as Assistant Secretary.

5. Strayer et al. point out how critical the focus of the scientist (and, ultimately, of a stringof scientists) is: “S.C. Kendeigh’s 27-year-long studies of bird populations . . . endedwhen he retired in 1976, and Francis Evans believes that no one will take over studiesof the Evans old-field when his work ends” (1986:5). According to Earl Werner (Werner2008), 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 sitenobody 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 peryear, descriptions of the work and findings appear in hundreds of media outlets annual-ly, and researchers personally present the work to more than 5,000 scientists and mem-bers of the public annually.

7. This later purpose of scientific inquiry is also consistent with the concept of traditionalecological knowledge. Pierotti and Wildcat (2000), for example, commenting on thepurpose of ecological science from an American Indian perspective, when asked “Whatgood is the work that you do?”, write: “This question contains the hidden assumptionthat if what we do does not directly benefit human beings in some way it is withoutvalue. We often answer that our work teaches us more about the other members of ourcommunity 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 answerto Native American elders, they are completely satisfied, for they understand implicitlywhat we are trying to accomplish, and its significance to humans.”

ReferencesAllen, 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 aWild 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 aDifference. 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.

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 bywolves. 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.TheWilderness Debate Rages On: Continuing theGreat 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 GeorgeWright 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 consequencesof 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 trophiccascades. BioScience 55:7, 613–621.

Smith, D.W., R.O. Peterson, and D.B. Houston. 2003. Yellowstone after wolves. BioScience53, 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 oftheir 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 ofwolves on Isle Royale. In Biology and Conservation of Wild Canids. D. Macdonald andC. Sillero-Zubiri, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 281–292.

———. 2004b. The influence of prey consumption and demographic stochasticity on popu-


Volume 25 • Number 2 (2008) 113

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 theGreat 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 Royalewolves 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]

F O R O V E R 2 5 Y E A R S , 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.

affiliation

address

city, state/prov, zip/postal code

work phone; work fax

email

expertise (name up to 4 areas)

regular $ 5 5 / y r ( $ 6 5 * ) supporting $ 1 5 0 / y r ( $160* )

institution $110 /y r ( $ 1 2 0 * ) life $1 ,000 ($1 ,000* )

full-time student $ 2 5 / y r ( $ 2 5 * ) library subscription $ 5 5 / y r ($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 addit ional membership benefits).

check enclosed please charge my Visa / MasterCard / AMEX

card number

expiration date ( M M / Y Y ) 3-digit security code (back of card)

signature

MAIL TO: George Wright Society, P.O. Box 65 , Hancock, M l 4 9 9 3 0 - 0 0 6 5 USA

or FAX TO: 1-906-487-9405 > » » » » » » » thank you!

114 The George Wright Forum

name

http://vrww.georgewright.org

GEORGE WRIGHT SOCIETY

P.O. Box 65 Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065 USA

www.georgewright.org

caring for protected areas

http://www.georgewright.org

WILD & SCENIC RIVERS CLIMATE CHANGE & CULTURAL … · 2016-09-08 · SUZANNE LEWIS • Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming MELIA LANE-KAMAHELE • Honolulu, Hawaii BRENT A. MITCHELL

Documents