Trail & Timberline Home | Return to this issue home page | Wild Colorado
Deep Creek deserves more:
why conservationists said “no”
Opinion by Jeff Widen and Vera Smith
Last year, Representative Scott McInnis introduced legislation to designate Deep Creek as wilderness. Deep Creek is a canyon in Garfield and Eagle Counties running south off the Flat Tops. The area has been on citizens’ radar screens for several years, having first been proposed as a Wild and Scenic River and then as a wilderness area.
The Deep Creek citizen proposed wilderness area is about 22,000 acres consisting of a rugged inner gorge with a wild free-flowing river and broad uplands that, because of their remoteness, provide quality hunting and outfitting opportunities. The upper rim of the gorge boasts cave systems that are continually molded by infiltrated water from the uplands.
Although conservationists were thrilled that Representative McInnis wanted to pursue wilderness designation for this remote and rugged area, after many discussions with congressional staff and with much regret, Colorado conservationists found themselves in the awkward position of opposing the bill.
The reasons for the opposition revolved around water rights, National Guard helicopter landings, and acreage. These areas of disagreement are complex and far from easy to resolve. Wilderness bills take time to craft, but it is our experience that the effort pays off in better policy and protection on-the-ground. Representative McInnis deserves recognition for pursuing protection for Deep Creek; with time, we are convinced that compromise can be crafted.
Boundaries
Deep Creek’s spectacular gorge is surrounded by rolling meadows and stands of aspen and conifer. Conservationists’ original Deep Creek Wilderness proposal described a boundary drawn several years earlier for a possible Wild and Scenic River corridor. Subsequent field surveys found that the surrounding uplands were wilderness-quality lands also, and these were added to the proposal. Rep. McInnis chose not to include these areas in his wilderness legislation, despite the fact that there are no substantive conflicts. In addition, adjacent landowners and permitted outfitters support wilderness protection.
Water protection
Water is the life-blood of wilderness and should be protected in any wilderness legislation. There is no disagreement on this concept, only on how to accomplish it. McInnis proposed establishing a water right through the State of Colorado’s in-stream flow program, a strategy that, while it may work, is untested with federal wilderness. Conservationists are willing to try this approach, but are asking for a backup plan—such as establishment of a traditional federal water right—if the state approach isn’t successful.
Military training
Deep Creek is utilized by the Army National Guard’s High Altitude Training Center to train helicopter pilots in difficult flying conditions. Aircraft landings are incompatible with the primitive nature of wilderness. Designating a wilderness that allows helicopter landings within the area defeats the very purpose of the Wilderness Act, which is to keep primitive areas free from the intrusions of motorized equipment. The National Guard and the Forest Service need to identify alternative landing locations outside of proposed wilderness—Deep Creek or any other.
This is not a case of stubborn environmentalists; it is a case of trying to work out complex issues without undermining one of America’s most cherished and popular systems: wilderness. Conservationists worked closely and successfully with Rep. McInnis on recent wilderness bills for other areas, such as Black Ridge Canyons and Gunnison Gorge. Deep Creek is no different; the issues are just a little tougher.
Jeff Widen is the Associate Director of the Colorado Environmental Coalition and lives in Durango.
Vera Smith is the Conservation Director for the Colorado Mountain Club. Both are steering committee members of the Colorado Wilderness Network.