Hundreds of thousands of acres of officially designated wilderness. Boundary adjustments that will preserve cultural and ecological resources, not to mention scenery. Authorization to create the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail. Official designation of wild and scenic rivers.
Those are some of the successes in public lands protection realized today with Congress's passage of the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009. True, there are some questionable projects among the more than 160 individual bills contained in the measure, such as the addition of Paterson Great Falls National Historic Park.
Overall, though, the package on its face seems to contain many more pluses than minuses if you enjoy public lands. Indeed, it makes the largest contribution to the nation's wilderness system in a long, long time, in part by permanently creating the National Land Conservation System. This system consists of national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, national scenic and historic trails and other protective designations totaling over 850 sites and 26 million acres.
"I can’t think of a single bill that has ever done more to ensure the enjoyment of, and access to, wilderness areas, historic sites, national parks, forests, rivers, trails, public lands and water resources," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, who chairs the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and moved the omnibus bill forward. "Altogether, it is one of the most sweeping conservation laws that Congress has passed in many, many years.”
Even the committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, praised the package.
“I’m happy to see that this important lands bill is finally on its way to the president. This bill designates those parts of our natural landscape and historical structures that deserve protection," she said. "I believe that we, as a nation, can maximize the development of our domestic energy resources while protecting our nation’s other natural resources and wilderness. While each individual bill in this package is not the kind of thing that makes national headlines, as a whole, it is clearly important enough to justify the time that this body has committed to it. This bill is especially important in the West, where simple real estate transactions that are taken for granted in the East, often literally take an act of Congress.”
Over at the National Parks Conservation Association, President Tom Kiernan praised the bipartisan support that rallied around the measure. That support "has ensured that many of our national parks will be enhanced and preserved for our children and grandchildren,” he said.
In terms of the National Park System, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 will:
• Expand Minute Man National Historical Park in Massachusetts to protect the historically-significant farm of Colonel James Barrett, commander of the Middlesex Militia.
• Study the possible addition of the Green McAdoo School in Clinton, Tenn., to the park system. In 1956, 12 students from Green McAdoo became the first African-Americans to integrate a state-operated school.
• Establish a commemorative trail in upstate New York that connects local and state sites to the Women’s Rights National Historical Park.
• Protect the cultural, ecological and scenic integrity of the Little River Canyon National Preserve in Alabama and Fort Davis National Historic Site in Texas from adjacent development by adjusting the boundary.
• Offer wilderness protection to remarkable landscapes within Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks in California, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in Michigan, and Zion National Park in Utah.
• Authorize the creation of the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail in the Pacific Northwest—the first national geologic trail in the National Park System.
• Designate the Amargosa River as Wild and Scenic, providing much-needed protection for water resources at Death Valley National Park in California.
• Protect our nation’s irreplaceable fossil record and ensure that fossils from public lands are available for educational and scientific research by codifying the existing practice of requiring that vertebrate fossils and other rare and scientifically-significant fossils be collected only by qualified researchers who obtain a permit. The bill toughens penalties on the illegal collection of fossils on federal lands, including national parks such as Badlands in South Dakota and Petrified Forest in Arizona.
As for the National Landscape Conservation System, it contains areas of rich archaeological and cultural significance including Canyons of Ancients National Monument in southwest Colorado, and Agua Fria National Monument in Arizona as well as vast wild areas such as Nevada’s Black Rock Desert National Conservation Area and California’s King Range National Conservation Area. The Conservation System protects critical habitat for fish and wildlife, provides access to world-class hunting and fishing, and offers challenging recreation for the self-guided adventurer.
"These places tell the story of America -- and now, thanks to a concerted effort by many people, their future is more secure. That's good news for everybody," said Richard Moe, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
“Even as a passionate supporter and regular visitor to our national parks and wilderness areas, I was unaware that an enormous number of our nation’s wildest and most historically significant public lands were outside this network, poorly managed and under threat,” said Edward Norton, actor, conservationist, and National Conservation System Foundation board member. “By permanently approving the National Landscape Conservation System, Congress has ensured that these irreplaceable natural treasures will receive the protection they deserve.”
Other federal land management agencies already oversee land conservation systems, including the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System. By approving legislation establishing the National Landscape Conservation System, Congress has entrusted the Bureau of Land Management with protecting the United States’ newest land conservation system.
“Each generation leaves a legacy to future generations,” said Stewart Udall, former U.S. Secretary of the Interior. “This is right at the heart of the National Landscape Conservation System.”
Comments
I am wondering what your (all you NPT'ers :-)) definition of Wilderness is, not the "federal" definition but yours personally.
I'd say anything that is quiet, road-free, fairly remote and little-visited, and big enough to feel vast when traveling under one's own power.
Although the bill contains authorization language, it doesn't appropriate a single dollar to implement any of the provisions. That has to come later.
Does the author has to show his or her bias by saying (EVEN THE RANKING REPUBLICAN) praised the bill. You should realize there are many conservatives that believe in the preservation of the planet. Try to get along with them and we might get a head in this task at a better pace.
Good point.
Frank N, there's currently 200 million acres of federal land closed to bicycles (from what I read). How much more do we need to close?
Based on the comments of a few politicians, I'm hopeful that access will change over time. It'll probably be too late for me, but it'll happen in time for my kids.
Zebulon--
How about some context for that number? How many acres of federal land are _open_ to bicycles? There are both thousands of times more acres closed to bicycles than any hiker could ever visit, and thousands of times more acres open to bicycles than any cyclist could ever visit. [Which leaves those of us who both hike & bike as appropriate too many acres and too little time.] I don't have the data and thus might lose, but I'd bet a beer that almost all NPS units allow bikes on roads, and that a majority of NPS units (not just "parks") allow bikes on some types of trails closed to automobiles.
The argument is not about how many acres should be open to what, its about appropriate access to specific places, and about the process for making those decisions. The previous bicycles in parks article was about whether for NPS lands, the default should be no bikes unless NEPA and national-level review allows them in specific cases, or should it be anything with hiking or horses defaults to allow bikes unless NEPA & national planning explicitly justify closing them, or should the decision be made by the local superintendent, subject to local community/business/user pressure, and almost certain to move on to a different NPS unit in a couple of years (unless he or she alienates the local stakeholders)? Ask the same question about management of BLM or FS or FWS land, and you'll probably get different answers, as those lands are managed for different purposes.
I come down hard on the side of conservation/preservation in National Parks (broadly interpreting "unimpaired for future generations" to include indirect effects on flora & fauna, loss of archeological resources, erosion in sensitive areas, etc.), so I'm even ok with some areas being closed to all human access (seasonally like parts of Yellowstone for bears, for years like some areas trying to be restored, or permanent for some critical habitat). Some parks have to be open only to guided/escorted groups of hikers to protect archeological resources, so I won't see another sunrise at Waputki. I think that much of the backcountry of large parks like Yellowstone & Yosemite and Sequoia should be open only to foot traffic. [I'd be happier if more of the areas open to hiking didn't allow horses, although requirements to bring feed rather than let horses graze wet meadows help reduce the impact.] I think that mountain biking on established trails is appropriate in some parks (e.g., much of the Needles district of Canyonlands), and that an honest process will find more parks where mountain bikes on trails can be accommodated without harm, but that "open until harm is demonstrated" is backward and would produce much harm that will take decades to restore. (I'd favor something like alternate week schedules on shared trails to benefit both hikers & bikers, the way many medium-sided lakes have alternate days for sailboats v. powerboats.). And again, motorized access on both paved & unpaved roads is appropriate in some areas (even jeeps in parts of Canyonlands, but not driving up sensitive washes). I'm the same way about climbing: some areas can be open, some areas can be open with restrictions on no new hardware, and some areas should be closed to climbing.
Back to the wilderness bill. Having been in the back country of ROMO and Sequoia and a bit in Zion, I think wilderness is the appropriate designation for those specific areas, with no bikes (and I'd like to see no horses). As a scientist, I realize that ROMO & YELL need substantial areas with little or no human visitation as core or refuge areas for wildlife so there will be wildlife to see in the front country, so if the difficulty in getting there isn't enough, the core areas may need to be closed to hikers (including me) as well.
ps: If I were in charge of Yosemite, I'd ban _all_ private vehicles from the valley, allowing only the LPG buses and bikes on the roads, and developing a system of unpaved bike paths/trails for mountain bikes throughout most of the valley. It wouldn't be technical or booming & zooming thrill riding, but touring bikes & mountain bikes are appropriate technology for Yosemite Valley, Zion Canyon, (and Toulumne valley if Hetch Hetchy every goes away).
Tomp. Thanks for sharing your opinion, but basically you seem to having a basic bias against bikes on narrow trails. I happen to disagree.