A freeze on new regulations proposed in the waning days of the Bush administration puts in limbo a number of rules and actions that affect national parks. One pending rule, for instance, could greatly expand mountain biking in the parks.
The Obama administration on Tuesday announced a freeze on publication of all proposed and final rules in the Federal Register until they are reviewed by an agency or department head appointed by the new administration.
Benefiting from this freeze are gray wolves in the Northern Rockies surrounding Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park. The Bush administration recently had lifted Endangered Species Act protection for the canids, saying they were sufficiently recovered. Conservation groups, however, have argued that there is not enough genetic diversity to maintain a healthy wolf population in the region.
The bid to make it easier for individual park superintendents to expand mountain bike opportunities was published December 18 in the Federal Register by the Interior Department. Since the change is open to 60 days of public comment, it has not yet been finalized and so possibly could be held up by the freeze.
Conservation groups maintain that the proposed rule could lead mountain bikers down hiking trails and into lands that are either proposed for or are eligible for wilderness designation. But International Mountain Bicycling Association officials have said the proposal merely makes it easier for parks where mountain bikes make sense to allow their use
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.
The current rule requires that designation of routes open to bicycles outside of developed (and special use) zones must be accomplished by promulgation of a special regulation for an individual park. IMBA wants to change this requirement, saying it's too cumbersome and requires a fair amount of redundancy when it comes to NPS officials signing off on the proposed change.
Under the Bush administration proposal, the promulgation of a special rule would no longer be necessary, except for as-yet-constructed trails. Thus, for thousands of miles of existing trails in what we call park "backcountry," a special rule would no longer be needed if the proposed rule took effect.
Now, to be fair, the NPS proposal does prescribe a process for designation of such trails as open to bicycles – although a less rigorous process than the one now in place.
Another concern of some groups is that the proposed rule appears to allow the designation of trails as open to bicycles even where they lie in areas formally recommended as wilderness by the president to Congress, or proposed by the NPS director to the Interior secretary, or the Interior secretary to the president. This class of lands, in the lower 48 States, amounts to approximately 8 million acres.
And yet, despite the current rule pertaining to mountain biking, which has been in effect since 1987, some parks have designated trails open to bicycles outside of developed zones -- such as in backcountry areas -- without a special rule.
Comments
@ Warren Z: Is your preferred mode of travel in the national parks "appropriate," as you put it? If so, why it is so and mountain biking not?
I emphasize Warren Z's use of "appropriate" with quotation marks because it and "inappropriate" are, as the writer J.M. Coetzee has alluded to (and I will argue directly) the ultimate obfuscatory adjectives. They are often invoked when the writer wishes to make a value judgment but is uninterested in defending it, or unable to do so, with more precise language. So whenever someone invokes either adjective my linguistic brain module sounds an alarm.
Careful, imtnbike, lest you draw the ire of horse-packers...;-)
And yet....that's one camp that's been missing in this discussion. Much has been made in similar discussions on the Traveler that horses cause more erosional problems than mountain bikers. Is that so? Is there a horse outfitter out there who can weigh in on this?
Are horseback travelers generally given a pass in this trails discussion because America grew up with horses? Because horses were the original locomotion (aside from foot travel, of course) into the wilderness?
If one feels slighted because they have to step to the side of the trail, or off the trail, when mountain bikes come through, how does it feel when you have to do the same with horses coming at you?
Kurt, very good points indeed. IMHO, horses are tolerated because 1) they're part of the history, 2) they're pretty animals, 3) they usually travel slowly and 4) they are so few of them that it's not a big deal (I read somewhere that in CA there are 30+ mountain bikers for every horse rider).
Warren Z, I'd love to know how it is that some bureaucrat in DC will come to a better answer than somebody in the field as to why a trail should be opened to bikers. I fail to see the logical reasoning. What I do see is that the current system is set up to make any changes impossible due to the bureaucratic red tape. Trails are staying off limits not because it is somehow the right decision, but because nobody wants/can fight the built in bureaucratic inertia. Anti bike crusaders are fully aware of this and want to fight to preserve the status quo simply to keep cyclists out. It always boils down to not sharing a public trail, no matter how you try to rationalize it. I don't see how not sharing a public good among human powered users is fair.
Zebulon,
Re Washington bureaucrats making decisions, that's not the point. Rather, why should the rest of the nation be shut out of commenting on a rule change to a "national" park? The current process allows for that national debate and discussion.
Did you have a position on the Yellowstone snowmobiling matter? Would you be satisfied if you were locked out of commenting on the park's winter-use plan?
As for the horses, I must admit I don't like the evidence that they've been around;-) Plus, if you've been to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon and tried hiking down some of those trails, the way the steps have been cut to accommodate the mules wrecks havoc on a good hiking stride....
Zebulon, I have nothing against bikers. Indeed, just the opposite. I am an avid cyclist and have biked through a number of national parks. Most of my riding is on a road bike I have also mountain biked, although not in a national park. I have a physical condition that makes it easier for me to ride a bike than it is to walk, so my position is not based on a desire to have the park trails to myself. Insofar as leaving it up to the individual park manager to make the decision as to whether or not to permit mountain bikes in back country areas, I consider that to be a bad idea. Major changes in park policy are best accomplished through the planning process which then are implemented by park management. I have seen the results of park management making informal decisions to permit otherwise prohibited park uses. When the uses prove to be destructive to park resources and values it becomes almost impossible to reverse the action, even when it is legitimately prohibited. It is not a question of park managers either loving or hating bikers.
Kurt, Ray,
All good points. My take on it: we don't live in BC Greece and have a direct democracy where we get to vote on every decision our government makes. Furthermore, we are not talking about some kind of fundamental change in how parks are run. At any rate, there will be public input solicitation, which will end up being a forum for all the bike haters and supporters to yell and complain about each other (speaking from experience in my local parks). The current system is deliberately set up so that no change can happen, and this is exactly what's going on. We all understand this, cyclists and non cyclists alike. This is the exact reason why people opposed to cycling in our public parks are fundamentally opposed to the rule change. Again to be clear, the decision won't be up to the local park management to decide without getting public input, although to be quite fair (and again speaking from experience in my local park), if the local park management is opposed to bicycling, you can bet that trails will never be opened to bikes (see below).
As an aside, I don't road bike as 1) it hurts my back too much and 2) I don't get the same kick out of it. :)
Here is the IMBA take on it:
A rule change will not diminish protections that ensure appropriate trail use. All regular NPS regulations, General Management Planning (GMP) processes, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) still applies. Absolutely no environmental processes will be shortchanged. The public will still have ample opportunity to comment both locally and nationally. The parks that have existing mountain biking have gone through the GMP and NEPA processes and the trails are signed, actively managed and documented in the superintendent's compendium.
The proposed rule requires NEPA compliance through, at a minimum, an Environmental Assessment (EA), if not an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS).
The current system is not working. Most NPS units are unwilling to undertake the time-consuming special regulations process, and thus bicycling opportunities are in this state of limbo and can't be fully embraced. Mountain biking needs to be managed better and the process to incorporate cycling needs to be clear.
Mountain biking can and does succeed in national parks. Many parks have successfully managed mountain biking for more than a decade on roads and trails. Families and community members have successfully enjoyed these parks on their bikes for years and are not controversial.
Changing 36 CFR 4.30(b) won't change Wilderness or Wilderness Study Area regulations in any way. Mountain bikes will continue to be banned from these areas.
NPS units that are not interested in expanding opportunities for bicycling will not be affected. Changing the rule will not force mountain biking on any park unit, and superintendents that do not see opportunities for mountain biking in their parks will not be asked to adopt it.
The use of special regulations is time-consuming, costly, and duplicative. Special regulations are largely directed at motorized users, such as personal watercraft; motorboats; snowmobiles; ORVs; seaplanes; amphibious aircraft; and commercial fishing, trucking, mining, and aircraft. Once everything is done at the park level it can take-years to emerge from the Washington-based regulatory process.
In addition to the public hearings and comment involved in an EA or EIS, the rule requires another 30 comment period after it is published in the Federal Register. Before the trail is opened, one final posting is required in the Federal Register, with 30 days for public comment.
The NPS policy stands in stark contrast with that of the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, which allow all non-Wilderness trails to be managed as "open unless designated closed." Even with a rule change, NPS policy would remain "closed unless designated open" and would still be a deliberate, public, lengthy multi-year process to open a trail to bicycles.
Independent scientific studies, including those conducted by the National Park Service, have shown the environmental impacts of mountain biking are similar to those of hiking and far less than other uses.
Treating mountain bicyclists similarly to equestrians will streamline one rule, not amend all NPS rules.
Special regulations would still apply if building new trails or opening existing trails is: 1) a significant alteration in the public use pattern of the park area, 2) adversely affects the park's natural, aesthetic, scenic or cultural values, 3) requires a long-term or significant modification in the resource management objectives of the unit, 4) or is of a highly controversial nature (36 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 1, Section 1.5).
For those interested in reading biased studies, including some completed by the bike biased NPS (j/k):
http://www.imba.com/resources/science/marion_wimpey_2007.html
In general, parks are not multiple use areas; they are effectively outdoor museums created to preserve a particular value: scenery, history, etc. The issue with bicycles is not that they are non- motorized, it is that they are "mechanical" modes of transportation. Parks that have any "wilderness" should also prohibit mechanized transportation. The spirit and intent of the Wilderness Act should be applied whether or not the land is an officially designated Wilderness. Parks need to be managed more by science and law rather than some manager simply sitting in an office counting political marbles.