In what's being described as another example of the Bush administration whittling away the conservation ethic of the National Park Service, the Interior Department today published a proposed rule to "streamline" the regulatory landscape regarding mountain bikes in national parks.
Pushed by the International Mountain Bicycling Association, the rule, which is attached below and open to public comment for the next 60 days, would give individual park superintendents more power to authorize mountain bike trails in their parks. While conservation groups said the proposed rule could lead mountain bikers down hiking trails and into lands that are either proposed for or eligible for wilderness designation, IMBA officials said the proposal merely makes it easier for parks where mountain bikes make sense to allow their use.
"The proposed rule change will not diminish protections that ensure appropriate trail use. All NPS regulations, general management plan processes, and NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) still applies," said Drew Vankat, IMBA's policy analyst. "In fact, the proposed rule specifically requires at least an EA (environmental assessment) to open an existing trail to bicycles. Absolutely no environmental processes or agency policies will be shortchanged. The public will still have ample opportunity to comment both locally and nationally."
At Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, though, officials interpret the proposed rule as much more egregious, saying it could open thousands of miles of existing national park trails to mountain bikes. And Wilderness Society officials said the proposed rule change would degrade the Park Service's conservation ethic by creating user conflicts on trails and eroding the landscape.
According to PEER, current NPS rules require that backcountry trails may be opened to bikes only after adopting a park-specific regulation in the Federal Register, a process that allows public review and comment. The proposed rule, the group argues, would require a special regulation only for bike use on yet-to-be-constructed trails. As a consequence of this change, says PEER:
* Nearly 8 million acres of recommended or proposed wilderness lands in approximately 30 parks would be opened up to mountain bikes, which would be prohibited only in officially designated wilderness (the Wilderness Act of 1964 prohibits bicycles). This proposal also reverses a commitment made by former NPS Director Mainella in an October 4, 2005 letter to PEER that parks will not open trails to bikes in recommended or proposed wilderness areas; and
* It will be easier to open trails that are now open to hikers, horseback riders and other uses to mountain bikes, whose introduction often creates conflicts with these users.
"The pending proposed bicycle rule is an example of special-interest intrusion into national park management," commented PEER Board member Frank Buono, a former NPS manager. "The need for this change is mysterious as several parks have designated bike trails under the current Reagan-era rule."
In addition to PEER, a number of national park advocacy, hiker and other outdoor recreation groups are mobilizing to oppose this change.
"While we support mountain biking or other activities that get park visitors out of their cars, it is important that one of our national parks uses does not preclude other uses," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "The other concern is that mountain biking on narrow backcountry trails can create damage and new maintenance demands, which is precisely why the Park Service adopted regulations for mountain bikes on backcountry trails only after a stringent decision-making process."
At The Wilderness Society, Kristen Brengel said IMBA officials weren't being entirely truthful when they claimed the proposed rule changes nothing.
“They’re trying to make it seem that there’s no change, but there is a change. That’s the whole point of the document. They’re not accurate," she said.
Under the proposed change, said Ms. Brengel, park superintendents could make a "determination," which requires less scrutiny and public input than the special rule-making process, to expand mountain bike use in their parks.
"If you’re a park manager who thoroughly understands the policies, you should not designate any mountain bike use in eligible or recommended wilderness. The problem comes in when the very same superintendent and park managers get pressure from the mountain bike community to open up hiking trails to mountain bike use and these policies do not give those folks (park managers) a credible defense," she added. "They (the proposed rules) are lenient and appear to allow the use anywhere, and it’s a problem. ... Rather than having absolute clarity, a a manager or superintendent needs to make a choice between following one set of policies or another one.”
The National Parks Conservation Association issued the following statement:
The current National Park Service mountain biking rules, which have been in effect since 1987, have been working well in offering all visitors to our majestic national parks a safe and enjoyable experience, and should not be changed by the Bush Administration.
NPCA supports the use of mountain bikes in national parks under appropriate circumstances. However, the proposed new rule would, in certain cases, circumvent the normal public process and limit the opportunity for full public discussion of the use of mountain bikes on existing trails now used by hikers and equestrians. The rule also limits the scope of public involvement in Park Service consideration of mountain bike access. NPCA strongly believes national parks should offer full transparency on important park management decisions, including this one.
NPCA also feels that the proposed rules should explicitly state that Park Service-recommended Wilderness areas or areas that are now under study for potential designation as Wilderness, are off limits to mountain bike use.
Of the approximately 25 national parks where mountain biking is currently taking place on dirt trails, only Golden Gate National Recreation Area in California and Saguaro National Park in Arizona have completed the necessary public process and designated specific trails for mountain bikes. NPCA believes that all parks should come into compliance.
NPCA will be analyzing the proposal and will be providing comments to the Park Service. We encourage our members and other national park advocates to do the same.
Back at IMBA, spokesman Mark Eller said the proposed rule change would simplify, not weaken, the process to open up park landscapes to mountain biking, when appropriate. As for proposed wilderness areas or park lands eligible for wilderness designation, he said the group wouldn't fight official designation unless there had been existing mountain bike use on the land.
"Once it’s adopted as wilderness, we accept that there’s no bicycling in wilderness,” said Mr. Eller, who also put his faith in park managers to make appropriate decisions when it came to where to allow biking.
“We think they have good judgment and they won’t put mountain bike trails or shared use trails where they don’t belong,” he said.
While Mr. Eller suggested opposition to mountain biking in national parks is more of a perceptual issue than an on-the-ground problem, that view was challenged by Mr. Buono at PEER and Ms. Brengel at The Wilderness Society.
"The structure of the bikes, the nature of their use, makes them more than conveyances to take one into the backcountry. In some ways they are a thrill sport, similar to jet skis, or downhill skiing where the activity is by and large the end in itself," said Mr. Buono. "Our recent experience at Big Bend where mountain bikers want a new trail constructed near Panther Junction show that IMBA representatives want the NPS to construct a trail particularly suited to speed and sharp maneuvers. This has no place in the 'enjoyment' framework of the NPS mission. I am not a believer in 'all enjoyments are equal" under the Organic Act.'"
As for Ms. Brengel, she said mountain biking is definitely an enjoyable activity, but one that brings certain user conflicts with it into the national park landscape.
"I think bikes do cause damage. I think you can look at areas like Moab (Utah) and you can see some of the direct impacts of mountain bike use," she said. "In addition, they’re fast-moving vehicles on public lands. A land manager has to weigh having a vehicle on a route with a hiker, and user conflicts are a real problem on public lands. So it is unclear to me why the Park Service would decide to go from taking a careful look at user conflicts to not taking a careful look. It seems contrary to the pro-user mission of the park system.”
Interestingly, IMBA officials, in their current marketing efforts for their "National Bike Summit" scheduled for March in Washington, D.C., are promoting a session on "Developing National Park Service Singletrack Near You."
Comments
Thank you, Kurt, for your reasoned comments on the proposed mountain bike rule. I agree that there is a place for bike use in the parks, ideally on old jeep roads such as the White Rim in Canyonlands, where conflicts with hikers are minimal. Possibly also on new, dedicated trails outside of proposed wilderness areas. But my blood pressure goes up when I hear of IMBA talking about turning hiking trails into "singletrack." Their concept of shared use has a fundamental flaw--it is almost always the hikers that must give way to the bikers. In ten years or more of hiking the mountain trails in the Wasatch Range where I live, I have encountered cyclists many times. Most are courteous, but only twice has one stopped to let me and my family (including a young child) pass. Every other time, the cyclist calls out a warning, or lets it be known by their silence that we are to get off of the trail to let them by. This is in spite of clear signs at trailheads giving hikers the right of way. Our trails are mostly on steep hillsides covered with brush, and it is not always easy to make room for an onrushing cyclist. I find that I hike with an ear cocked for the sound of an approaching biker--when I'd much rather just be listening for birds.
The other day I was hiking with my family when we observed a pickup truck pull up to a trailhead that was visible across the valley. Five young men got out, mounted their bikes, and took off down a trail on the opposite hillside. The lead cyclist hit speeds of at least twenty miles an hour. I would not have wanted to be coming up that trail on foot--especially with small children. In fact, years ago I gave up hiking on that trail, which is an important historical route, for just that reason.
I suppose this will sound like morose whining to the members of the cycling community, but I ask only that you consider what it is we hikers are trying to experience in the mountains--a chance to relax, listen to the sounds of nature, and pass a friendly greeting to our fellow hikers as we comfortably slip past each other on the trail, each making room for the other. There are mountain bike advocates in this area who understand that, and as a result certain trails are on an odd-even system, which works fairly well. But this is an urban region where one can plan a hike to coincide with "no bikes day." That's not so easy when visiting a distant park on one's vacation.
I do not see how this situation can be transplanted to the national parks and not cause conflicts with hikers. If that is "shared use," it is a mighty funny version of the concept.
Fred Swanson
Fred, I hear you, but much to your dismay, cyclists crave single track not fireroads. In my experience, I've found fireroads to be way more dangerous than single tracks simply because it's a lot easier to go fast on a fireroad and encountering a family walking 4-5 across the road can be a problem. What I've also seen as well is that beyond a mile or two from the trailhead, there are very few users of any kind, and the shared trail issue just goes away.
As Ted posted earlier, I also believe that giving some amount of decision making power to the local park management is way more sound than keeping that authority with DC, thousand of miles away from the parks. Opponents hate it, because up until now, they were able to maintain bikers at bay by lobbying simply the headquarters. Now, they'll have to duplicate the effort with each and every park, which, most likely, will result in some parks opening to cyclists. Once it's proven in a few parks that multiple user groups can share the backcountry trails, it will be that much harder for the rest of the national parks to hang on to an outdated management model. IMBA understands this, and so does every other bike opponents who would love to keep the national parks to themselves.
Kurt,
Snow? Yeah, we're bulldozing the road, and I still can't get on my trail-routes ... but it is a lot of fun. ;-)
In arguing against the use of the Alaska National Parks as an example of customization and independence of the Parks, you use the term "local rule". That may be just a 'turn of phrase', without an intended meaning in your debate-point, but "rule" and "authority" are different things.
Furthermore, on this same point, when I talk about "local and/or distributed authority" for the Parks, I mean that we can benefit by letting the local Park-unit exercise more authority, not that the Parks should be 'ruled' by non-Park local authorities that surround them. It is the Parks, not the locals, whom I say should have more authority. Nontheless, local interests & local authorities do also have a closer and more-direct relationship with Park-units within their jursidiction. Locals will have a degree of 'claim' & 'influence' with 'their' Parks ... who else is going to put snowmobiles into Yellowstone - Alaska or Minnesota?
Kurt, I think we have more than ample signs that the special steps taken in forming the Alaska Parks would very much pertain to a number of our most-prominent conterminous Parks, if we were trying to establish them in the modern era. The particulars of Alaska would not all pertain to Yellowstone, which would not all pertain to Yosemite, which would not all pertain to Olympic, etc, but the real point is that various special considerations do pertain most everywhere ... the notable thing about Alaska not being that special considerations pertained, but that we did actually include the considerations in the Alaska process, unlike elsewhere.
The way things were done long ago in forming the early Parks, not only wouldn't fly today (any more than it could fly with Alaska), but indeed, some of the issues that we 'ran roughshod over' are not gone and some will pose serious challenges in the future. That is to say, the presence of special conditions that we recognized & honored in Alaska, also were often present when we formed earlier Parks in the south-48 ... but instead of recognizing & honoring those conditions, we chose to do otherwise.
It's not that Alaska is so different; it's that our behavior & practices in the past were so 'different'.
==========
There are several complications with the National Parks Organic Act that affect its use.
The popular phrase quoted from the Act by Park-supporters & environmentalists is:
Note first that the lead word is "conserve". While it is sometimes argued that the difference between "conserve" (or Conservation(ism)) and "preserve" (or Preservation(ism)) is a complicated & murky matter that is too hard to make sense of, and/or it does not matter much, that is really not the case. And even more emphatically, it certainly was not the case in the early 20th C., when the Organic Act was written. (There was a 'culture-war' between the Conservationists and the Preservationists, it was conducted on the record, and we have the record.)
Today, many environmentalists and Park-aficionados read the word "conserve" in the Organic Act, and interpret it to & among themselves as "preserve". Actually, the two words have conflicting meanings, and this was dramatically the case at the time the Act was written. "Conserve" means to use and even 'develop', but not waste, and see to replenishment. "Preserve" means to exclude consumptive uses, and no development. The National Parks Organic Act, in its call to "conserve", intended that resources be used, and developed. Forests, for example, are "conserved" by cutting them down, selling the logs, then seeing to their replanting & regrowth. That's Conservation ... and "conserve".
But the fuller reality of the Organic Act gets worse from there.
In Sec. 3 of the Act, we see:
This is one of the passages of the Act that preservationists avoid quoting. Notice that not only can the Parks be logged under the Organic Act, but this lawful activity is done to conserve the values of the Park. This usage makes perfectly plain that the previous use of the word 'conserve' does indeed mean to 'use and develop' the values of the Park, as distinct from "preserve" them, as I described.
Following the above passage in the Act is another that says:
And following that we see:
The use of the word "conserve" as the leading verb in the "fundamental purpose" of the Act which Kurt quotes decidedly does not mean "preserve" in the contemporary sense, and furthermore the same word "conserve" is also used later in the Act in a way that makes it bluntly obvious that the word has a meaning & usage in stark contradiction to the way many modern nature-lovers like to think it means. They are perfectly mistaken.
Then, add on top of the true meaning of "conserve", that the Act lays out in detail the opportunities for extensive resource-exploitation within the Parks, and it becomes overwhelmingly evident that many Parks-enthusiasts and contemporary Preservations actually have the National Parks Organic Act completely upside down & backwards.
This document does not provide the protections or guarantees you ascribe to it, Kurt. On the contrary, the National Parks Organic Act explicitly repudiates your core principles.
Ted
To Fred Swanson: Fred, thanks for articulating your criticisms of mountain biking candidly. Let me respond . . . .
(1) I think many mountain bikers would be happy to exchange fair access to trails for a divided-use plan under which we'd be allowed on trails only on certain days, even in remote areas. My hope is to see the rescinding of agency prohibitions against mountain biking in federal Wilderness and on national park trails and in exchange I will not object if individual forest managers and park superintendents can separate uses by day of the week or some other form of temporal division. This system is in effect on part of the Tahoe Rim Trail, which is not urban, and I've heard no complaints about it. Under such a system, I would limit horse and packstock use of trails to a few weeks a year, those likely to be driest, after which operators of commercial packstock trains escorting loads of sedentary sightseers have to repair the damage at the end of the permitted period for the benefit of backpackers, hikers, and cyclists.
(2) I'm sorry that you feel you have to yield to approaching mountain bikers when you're hiking. I am always ready to yield by stopping when I see hikers. But 95% of the time, the hikers step off the trail before I can utter a single propitiating word. The other 5% of the time, I do manage to say something and if the hikers want me to stop I do (sometimes they'd rather let me get by). I do manage to get equestrians to tell me what they would like. Half the time it's to stop and let them by, and I do. I don't know any mountain bikers who don't, although undoubtedly a few bad apples could be found.
(3) Every use has problems. As you allude to, an inconsiderate mountain biker traveling too fast on a downhill trail can annoy or jar those seeking contemplative solitude. But hikers’ campsites, campfires, and loud audio devices, and horses’ and packstock’s dung, trail damage, and trampling of vegetation also negatively impact the environment and other park visitors.
Every nonmotorized use also confers benefits, albeit of different types. You mentioned the quiet, contemplative, serene aspect of hiking. I agree—and let me mention that I have backpacked half of the part of the Pacific Crest Trail located in Oregon and many miles elsewhere, primarily in Wilderness areas. Mountain biking confers great benefits as well. It supports a unique constellation of important values: appreciation for wildlands, self-reliance, quiet recreation, solitude, and greatly increased physical fitness. A few other activities, like rock-climbing, provide all of these, but I would respectfully submit that neither hiking nor riding horses or packstock does. Hiking, though virtuous for the reasons you mention and others besides, normally places less intense physical demands on its participants and so does not confer the same high degree of fitness that mountain biking does. (You'll see overweight hikers, but overweight mountain bikers are as rarely seen as silver quarters in the change you get these days.) Horseback and packstock riding may provide worthwhile exposure to remote areas, particularly for people unable to hike or ride a bicycle, but do little for personal fitness and often damage trails, campsites, and riparian areas, all to the detriment of the environment and the experience of other park visitors.
Kurt, I appreciate the thoughtful comments you, Ted Clayton, Zebulon, and others have made here. Ted's discussion of the Organic Act is particularly interesting and insightful. Is anyone still reading this thread? Could you do what Bill Schneider's New West threads do and permit contributors to check a box so that they can see when someone has replied to their post? Otherwise I fear that Fred Swanson won't see my reply. Just curious.
Actually, if you create a profile in the Traveler's system you have the option of being notified when a comment has been attached to a post that you've commented on. One more reason to join the club!
imtnbke,
You can read & save the entire National Parks Organic Act, on the NPS' own website.
The Wilderness Act can be viewed as a way to circumvent the permissiveness of the Act that authorizes National Parks in the first place. That is, the Organic Act and the Wilderness Act are in conflict with each other, and the Organic Act is the more-foundational Act.
As a Constitutional scholar, Obama realizes that, a.) historic management practices of the NPS are 'extra-Constitutional', as it is delicately phrased, and b.) that the preservationist-position only digs itself in deeper, by carving Preservation-directed Wilderness Areas out of Conservation-directed National Parks lands (established under the Organic Act).
Yet, Obama has shown himself to be highly pragmatic. If he can't succeed at something, he won't go after it even if 'principle' says he should. He needs 'practical' ways to weaken bad situations that he knows can't be directly attacked.
That is why I suspect the bikes-in-Parks idea is either Obama's, or that Bush crafted it as a gift to the President-elect. It is a made-to-order vehicle for Obama's intentions ... and limitations.
To test this suggestion, watch to see if Obama does not firstly forward the bike-plan, and then promote further ideas that also irritate the same constituencies that are offended by the bike-plan, and please the same constituencies that are encouraged by the bike-plan. I predict he will.
The aim of this gambit is to restore parity between the Conservation and Preservation elements of society. By 'installing' Preservationists as career figures in the National Parks System, it has gradually come to act as a de facto Preservationist lobby bought & paid by the U.S. Federal Government ... and that is a Constitutional 'off-sides'.
'Pure' environmentalists ought not 'own' the NPS, but they very strongly do. Being a Conservationist in the NPS means you are a pariah, and have no future. In view of the reality that the National Parks Organic Act is entirely a strong Conservation-directing document, the NPS should actually be 'stacked' with Conservationists - not Preservationists
Mountain bikers are the pawn, and they appear to have the ability to play their role skillfully & effectively.
This doesn't have much to do with mountain biking and sorry to have to disagree Ted, but in the 28 years I worked at Mt. Rainier & Olympic, the cornucopian development faction was fully in charge and it was the 'pure environmentalists' who were pariahs. I doubt much has changed at Olympic, I know it hasn't at Rainier.
tahoma,
"Cornucopian development faction" in charge, at Olympic National Park?
Because it represented most of a relatively complete, relatively unmodified ecosystem it was in the early decades of the 20th C. one of the fondest dreams of the Preservationist camp, that the entire Olympic Peninsula be set aside as a National Park. The purist-faction has over the years reiterate that the Olympic Peninsula, though damaged, nonetheless represents the finest opportunity in the conterminous United States for a relatively-intact habitat-preserve, and that we should hold as one of our more-worthy goals to progressively & incrementally secure the whole Peninsula.
The Olympic Park idea first attracted high-quality & famous activists during the 1890s, and other purist-luminaries carried the torch for over 40 years before they got a cut-down version of what they wanted. However, though the implementation was imperfect & partial, a cadre of 'the whole Olympics' faction has quietly but expertly worked to expand the Olympic Park, and they have been and continue to succeed in acquiring ever-more land for the unit.
Olympic National Park remains one of the least-penetrated, least-developed and least-modified assets of the Park System, in the lower-48 States. There is a single-locale penetration & modest development at Hurricane Ridge which bears the overwhelming share of human impact for the entire Park. This facility has remained virtually unchanged, since shortly after World War II. (The Park did offer to accede to further development-requests from resort booster-elements, but did so with the stipulation that increased user-demand for the expanded facilities be demonstrated in advance ... a demand which the Administration knew did not exist.)
A secondary mainstream tourist-draw is the Hoh River rainforest facility. This 19 mile penetration is all on lowland river-bottom terrain, most of it formerly logged, and serves mainly to provide a short paved nature-loop, and a small sheltered interpretive structure. All the other penetrations & developments within Olympic are minor, little-known, and used mainly by modest numbers of locals and a few unusually well-informed visitors.
Meanwhile, most of the small business operations have gradually withered under Park 'management', finally bought out by the Park, and usually razed. Private homeowners withstand steady pressure against them. We have watched this policy at work without letup, for more than 50 years.
Backcountry trails are often semi-abandoned. Volunteers come in to reclaim some of them. Backcountry camping is progressively more restrictive, and restricted. Close-in trails often show very long blow-down clearance-cycles.
I think it is rather clear, and indeed very much a matter of pride with the staff, that Olympic National is one of the most intensely-Preservationist and anti-Conservation Parks in the system.