A massive defense authorization bill, carrying riders that create seven national parks, headed Friday to President Obama for his signature, though how the National Park Service would pay for the additions was not immediately clear.
Along with the new units, the bill provides for the expansion of nine national park sites and the extension of 15 National Heritage Areas. Overall, the measure marks the largest increase in the size of the National Park System since at least 2009.
“This bipartisan legislation represents years of work by community members, business leaders, scientists and the National Parks Conservation Association. It also represents years of history that deserve to be preserved, and acres of land that deserve to be protected in the name of strengthening our country’s best idea. This legislation clearly demonstrates that Congress and the Administration are making national parks a national priority,” Clark Bunting, president and CEO of the National Parks Conservation Association, said in a prepared statement.
As sent to the president after passage by the U.S. Senate, the measure designates:
* Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument in Nevada with its Ice Age fossil remains of lions, bison, gargantuan mammoths, dire wolves and saber tooth cats;
* Manhattan Project National Historical Park, with sites in Washington, New Mexico, and Tennessee, where under a veil of secrecy workers built the world’s first production-scale nuclear reactor—and created a lasting impact on world history;
* Harriet Tubman National Historical Park in New York, with sites important to the life of the legendary Underground Railroad conductor who led many enslaved people to freedom;
* Valles Caldera National Preserve in New Mexico as a new national park site, where scientists come to study one of the world’s best examples of a resurgent caldera and its large eruptions and visitors come to explore the streams, mountain peaks, old growth timber, and rich tribal heritage.
The legislation also:
* Expands Gettysburg National Military Park to include the Gettysburg Train Station in Pennsylvania, famed for bringing President Abraham Lincoln to the area to deliver the Gettysburg Address. The train station also served as a field hospital during the battle;
* Expands Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve to add 4,000 additional acres of federal land to the existing monument to better protect the larger watershed and the cave system. President William Howard Taft originally protected 480 acres of this area in 1909;
* Expands San Antonio Missions National Historical Park in Texas to better preserve important cultural and historic resources associated with the Spanish Colonial era (1513 – 1821). Visitors will now be able to see crops growing on the Spanish colonial farm fields and witness a working irrigation system (acequias);
* Studies the possible inclusion of a national park site to tell the story of the Buffalo Soldiers, African-American troops that played a key role in protecting Yosemite, Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks before the National Park Service was formed. The soldiers built roads, created maps, extinguished fires, prevented the logging of sequoia trees, and kept poachers out of the parks.
It also protects land and the headwaters of the Flathead River, adjacent to Glacier National Park in Montana, by precluding future mining and drilling activity through the North Fork Watershed Protection Act.
With no additional funding for the Park Service provided for in the bill, the agency likely will have to borrow from its existing 401 units to get the new units up and running until dedicated funding can be sought for Fiscal 2016, which starts October 1, 2015. National Park Service officials in Washington, D.C., where not immediately available Friday evening to say how they would initially fund operations of the new units.
According to the National Parks Conservation Association, establishment of three of the units would be delayed:
· The conditions for establishment for Coltsville National Historical Park in Connecticut preclude its establishment until the Secretary of Interior determines they have acquired by donation sufficient land for the park. The Secretary also needs to have written agreements with the city and state.
· Similar conditions exist for establishment of the Harriet Tubman Historical Park in New York.
· For Manhattan Project sites, that park cannot be established until the Secretaries of Interior and Energy have consulted and entered into an agreement on the governance and management of these sites. The Department of Energy will continue to own the facilities, and the Department of Interior, through the National Park Service will manage for historic preservation and interpretation.
Comments
Absolutely disgusting! This should have been sucked up by A-1 Septic Tank Services and disposed of properly.
Dysfunctional government at its best.
Conveniently not mentioned in the article above is the return of PUBLIC beach access taken away by overzealous green organizations and their law firms at Cape Hatteras national Seashore Recreational Area. The provisions of this bill will also affect Cape Lookout National Seashore in the immediate future and the other NPS managed Seashores in the US.
In this case everyone was given back access to the lands that they paid for and use each year.
Not funding new park units, then forcing the Park Service to "borrow" from other units, seems to amount to robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The Grand Canyon is already "borrowing" from Acadia and other parks right now.
Must be a better way to approach the National Park Service and Acadia Centennial.
Could it be, slc, that this was rammed through so quickly that there was no time for anyone to become even remotely familiar with what it contained?
Who was the Congressman who was asked if he had read the entire bill, replied, "Read it? All of it? Are you kidding?"
$411,000 was taken (borrowed) from Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area to fight Xanterra Corp in court who wants to continue offering their services to visitors at the Grand Canyon. Inquiring Minds wat to know how much of that money was generated from Off Road Vehicle (ORV) permits ? Inquiring Minds know that none of the ORV monies can be spent for ANY other use but improvements in ACCESS to the Seashore. Inquiring Minds have tried with 2 FOIA requests to find out where the money was spent and received vague and less than clear information after months of waiting.
Regarding the monies being transferred from our local NPS lands to fight Xanterra shouldn't we all have inquiring minds?
Well I suppose people will just believe what they want to believe.
BUT, at the risk of being repetitive:
Lee Dalton, it is just not true that the national park provisions in this bill were not considered, and transparently. Every one had a congressional hearing. Every one had an NPS study before that, with public input, and NPS testified in favor of each one. Each one has a vital story unrepresented in the national park system, particularly the Tubman bills and the Blackstone bill, and the Valles Caldera has been highly regarded and advocated for years by respected Members of Congress such as Senator Bingamon.
Acadia On My Mind, this is not the time or the kind of bill to fund a park. Some of these parks even need to go through several more steps to be "established" -- this is what the process was for Shenandoah NP and for the recent Paterson Great Falls NHP. (first, congress passes and gives direction to see if the park is ready to go. Then, the secretary "establishes." THEN the plan goes on for at LEAST 3 YEARS and decides what actually really needs to happen, when.] That is when you make the money decisions, and compare to the value of other priorities elsewhere.
Why would you want to fund a park before you really know what it will cost, or if all the needed agreements are in place for all sides to play their part? NOW?? !! Get sensible.
In the meantime, Acadia on my Mind and others, you should know that in the separate "APPROPRIATIONS" bill passed on Sunday by Congress, the entire amount requested (as previously planned) to the Congress by the National Park Service was actually appropriated. ALL the money requested for Fiscal Year 2015. All.
-- and Hatarasfevr you are also wrong. The Hatteras provisions give no access.
They provide that the secretary of the interior review the decision.
The review follows existing law, such as the endangered species law, which was the primary basis of protecting the park from damaging ORV use. Yes, if the secretary finds that if the analysis finds that the too much land has been withdrawn than the science shows is necessary, the secretary is given the authority to redraw the lines. So, if it is true that ORV access is just AOK, or if it shows as the park service and court decisions have said before that these restrictions are necessary, then the secretary has to provide nothing different or make appropriate adjustments.
This is similar to the review over letting the commercial business lease for oyster development continue in Point Reyes NRA. The secretary then made a re-review, and determined that the lease must go. And that was that and Congress made no further complaints having provided an opportunity for an extraordinary review.
For the several of you trashed by provisions like the Hatteras one:
or the land exchanges,
i would ask you to consider if you and your like-minded colleagues worked hard enough in the last series of congressional elections? As they say, the most committed, wins.
When the House went republican, people like Rob Bishop and Doc Hastings, dedicated enemies of parks, took the leadership of the committees with jurisdiction of parks. Anybody miss that one? On top of that the blow that the Senate is about to be delivered to some fellow travelers, although probably not as bad as Bishop and Hastings.
Despite all that, and things like the outcry over people less concerned about protecting parks than running ATV [rather than taking their ATV where there is no park] the committee really did do a good job taking into account the rage, while carefully keeping protection as the basis of the Secretary's decision, keeping out of the bill changes to fundamental legislation like to the Antiquities Act as a whole, and dealt only where they had the votes for a specific demand.
What do you expect when people who think as you do do not turn out to vote in suffient number, or do not communicate to the others well enough? You should be proud that your side despite the odds did such a good job.
-- On the funds to buy protect the park from the ownership interest of a concessioner who is trying to run the park, rather than provide services: again, smell the coffee folks, this Congress would not appropriate the money, duh.
Don't you think that as a precedent the most important thing is not to let such a concessioner get away with it? Don't you think it is damn clever to assess the parks, and fight not to lose? This is not the first time parks have been assessed for the greater good of the whole. When protecting the parks in Alaska was blocked cold in Congress in 1978, hundreds of park people came together, with money from existing accounts, and put together the information the President needed to make the largest national monument and other land withdrawals for preservation IN US HISTORY. Yes, it pinched, and small minded morons of course whined the way they do. But it meant that crucial lands are protected then, and if this law suit is won, now.
But whining because we need all the parks to work together for a crucial need? That is supposed to be bad? You fight with the tools you have, just like they did in previous generations, just like they did for the Alaska parks 35 years ago.
In case you all don't know it or don't get out much, we are dealing with people who are trying to destroy parks, commercial interests that want it all their way, or selfish individuals who chose to ignore the damage their access causes. Despite this, we have an Appropriations bill that gives all the money requested, and a park authorizations bill that only passes new parks and additions that the NPS requested.
In the case of an emergency like the concessioner law suit, you have to act before congressional action even in the best situation, and this (if you've missed this news flash) is not the best situation. Jeepers.
Pretty damn wonderful. Amazing even, considering the vast sums of money packing the congress with enemies to conservation.
Finally Lee Dalton, do you really want members of congress to read all the provisions in a defense bill, or a parks bill, or an appropriations bill or a tax bill??
You know the scale of the issues going on, and how the key thing about an organization is to distribute the work? You must be aware that we have a country of unequaled wealth in world history, that our population today is heading toward twice what it was in World War II, and more than the size of the whole world a few centuries ago. It takes a lot of people doing their job. Of course the National Park Service and the congressional staff read and wrote all these provisions, although too many corporations get to submit provisions, too.
Then section by section summaries are provided to people like Senator Lisa Murkowski who had as much to do as anybody in putting this bill together and leading the negotiations. And of course several other senators like her, and staffers like hers and the NPS, for the parks provisions, and the same way for the Armed Services provisions. These summaries lay out the alternatives. Each group goes back and forth over the precise language. Then they bring it over, as in this case, to Senator Levin who with several others has been doing the same thing.
And no, Lee, when the exact negotiations are happening about what exact wording to put into the Hatteras provisions, whether Glacier Bay NP should be included in the deal Murkowski worked out for the Indians in SE Alaska (no, what she wanted for the GB park is not in there, even though anybody watching knows that for years she has been pushing for this, making speeches, submitting legislation etc etc). But no negotiations at that point ever are public. Instead, considering who has the votes because of who you and your fellow citizens have put in Congress, they work out the best deal each is willing to stand up and say they will let this go through.
You, or anybody, could have done what i did if you wanted more information.
A few weeks ago I called a congressional staffer, and asked: have you sold out the Antiquities Act yet? No, i was told, but it is a tough fight, but no we have given in nothing on across the board legislation changes to Antiquities, to Wilderness Act, to the Nat Park Organic Act. Have you given in on the terrible 'buffer zone' language the House has been putting IN ALL bills? No, not yet came the answer, but that one is getting harder. [as it turned out, the House did not get their language as they wrote it, but for all the parks a clause said the legislation created no buffer zones and lands could only be acquired with consent of the owner: not what parks people wanted, not what was ON PUBLIC DISPLAY FOR MONTHS in ALL the House bills, but not such a bad provision that it will cripple the ability of the NPS to protect the park.] Anyone with a phone can build relationships with congressional people or park staffers, read the papers, look at the Congressional Hearings on line, read the testimony, go to the public hearings on the proposed park studies, and hear how the park service answers the questions about how much money and when. At least you can if you have a phone, or have the ability to get out of the house.
Why is this "disgusting" as you say? Would you rather it was like the health care debate, smeared and twisted when FOX TV and Sarah Palin got to say that Obama was throwing "Grandma down the shute" until the point that the lies not the merits drive Senators like Grassley or Baucus under the desk to take cover and do nothing to perfect the bill? Is that really what you think is better, what you want?
Instead what we got is that all the park matters, including the SE Alaska - Sealask piece and many others were on the table for years. For all the parks or additions, all if it was reviewed in the light of day. Exactly the same people who would have been on a congressional conference committee and their staff then work out what they as elected officials and their staff decide is right for our times. Like the quarter of a million acres of Wilderness in this bill.
Look at the language in the Hatteras provision, Lee Dalton. Considering all the screaming and wholly distorted discussion from all the self seeking angry people, and considering that the local congressman, many local commercial interests, and a few Democratic Senators like Manchin of WV on the committee as well as the Republicans in the elected House of Representatives were prepared to support a bill that re-wrote park law with a meat ax, don't you really think the provisions we got are pretty brilliant? Really, you don't?
You think you could have protected this park better in this political climate?
Pour yourself a cup of coffee. Count the votes. Lean over it for a while. Give it a long long smell.
The people who worked so hard to save or protect these places, who got a separate Appropriations bill though congress that fully funded the amount request, these people deserve respect. And praise.
Sorry, d-2, although there MIGHT be a few plusses here, the whole idea of legislating in this manner is simply disgusting. Many of those are downright dangerous as they gut significant regulations designed to protect our national environmental gains; to gut campaign finance restrictions; and gutting safeguards that will leave taxpayers to once again bail out banks when they gamble our money away. There are many, possibly even more, negatives than positives. Again, I'll continue to believe that it is simply wrong for any laws to passed in a manner like this.
As for the idea that it's somehow okay for Congress to pass laws they have not read, I can only shake my head in dismay over that one. The real problem, as I see it, is that most of us are so focused on narrow views that we fail to see the dangers mixed in with a few sweet tidbits that have seduced us.
And thanks for the offer of coffee, but I live in Utah. May I substitute hot chocolate instead?
d-2:
Some interesting "big picture" perspective on both recent and past park legislation. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.