More than 2 million acres of potential wilderness have been identified in Yellowstone National, but there is not 1 acre of official wilderness in the park/Kurt Repanshek file photo of 'Cascades' along the Bechler River
Last month brought us word that more than three-quarters of the Earth's surface had been impacted by humans, and scientists feared it would not take much longer to alter the remaining 23 percent.
“We’re on a threshold where whole systems could collapse and the consequences of that would be catastrophic,” James R. Allan, one of the study’s authors, told the New York Times.
Is that something that concerns you? Perhaps not, as there are millions of acres of official wilderness and areas managed by wilderness in the National Park System. But those areas that are "managed" as wilderness, but not officially designated, in theory are at risk of being impacted by society. In theory, cell towers could be erected in these lands, roads could be cut through them, forests logged, mining operations opened, lodges built.
The National Park Service has dropped the ball when it comes to seeking permanent wilderness designation for these acres, believes Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
"The agency has failed to forward wilderness recommendations to the President, conduct legally-mandated wilderness assessments, prepare wilderness management plans, revise legally-insufficient wilderness assessments or take a myriad of other steps necessary to protect wilderness resources," claims PEER. "At present, NPS devotes less staff time to managing the national wilderness program than any other federal land management agency, even though NPS administers more wilderness acres than any other agency. In the 1970s, NPS had an entire office devoted to wilderness. Today, NPS lacks a comprehensive overview of its wilderness needs. In its place, inertia and internal obstruction now constitute the agency wilderness posture."
According to PEER, wilderness recommendations covering nearly 5.5 million acres in the park system have been forwarded to Congress since 1974, but Congress has not considered them. Nearly half of that acreage -- 2 million acres -- is in Yellowstone National Park. Millions more acres of park landscapes in Alaska have been studied for wilderness potential, but recommendations were never forwarded to Congress, the group adds. Nearly 200,000 acres in the Lower 48 have wilderness potential, it says.
While The Wilderness Act required the National Park Service to review wilderness potential across the National Park System, surprisingly few parks have done that. And that's despite a Director's Order signed in 1999 requiring parks within 18 months to inventory their wilderness lands. Not all have.
To see what has been done, and not done, in terms of wilderness studies in the parks, check out this list developed by PEER.
So what do you think? Should the Park Service, and Congress (which has the final say), be more proactive on the wilderness front? If you believe some of the park system's potential wilderness deserves to be officially designated as wilderness, what argument would you make to your congressional delegation?
Comments
With a dysfunctional Congress and a new NPS director who seemed to work against Wilderness at Big Cypress, I doubt there will be much national emphasis soon.
It’s amazing to me that most of the larger and wilder western National Parks have no designated Wilderness. Even at many parks that do, wilderness values are commonly compromised by the same NPS management that has helped run up a $12B backlog prioritizing development over maintenance of existing assets.
For decades, chainsaws have been ubiquitous in Olympic National Park, while adjacent National Forest crews used crosscut saws and were forbidden even wheelbarrows. While undeniably faster and safer for clearing large blowdowns, habitual use of chainsaws and other power tools has enabled hundreds of trail bridges across minor streams and miles of unsustainable boardwalks.
Olympic's required Wilderness Management Plan was stalled for decades by internal squabbling. Some managers wanted a 'Swiss cheese' wilderness, with hundreds of cultural resource sites and backcountry development such as radio repeaters excluded. Most Division heads resisted proposed annual limits on helicopter use; some even insisted helicopters were the "minimum tool”.
“Managers who seek to sidestep the act’s severe constraints may adopt a liberal minimum requirement interpretation. A now-retired National Park Service manager known to the author promoted the opinion that once NPS determined that an activity is “necessary” to administer a wilderness area, then any and all seven otherwise prohibited acts automatically pass the minimum requirement test. This convenient interpretation would remove the Wilderness Act’s constraints (the seven prohibited acts) by a simple conclusion that the proposed activity is “necessary” for the purpose of wilderness administration. All that is needed to employ any of the prohibited means is for the manager to sign a minimum requirement analysis (MRA) that concludes an activity is necessary for the purpose of wilderness. This interpretation of the act is both extreme and invalid…”
http://www.georgewright.org/283.pdf (p. 308)
“NPS and FWS are alike in that they both have, at times, been surprisingly hostile toward wilderness within their systems. In NPS’s case, this is likely because of a concern that wilderness might disrupt visitor use and enjoyment of the National Parks and rein in its management discretion over park activities and resources. It may also be due to the sentiment that NPS does not need wilderness because of its long history and reputation as the preeminent land steward among the federal agencies.”
http://elawreview.org/articles/volume-44/issue-44-2/wilderness-management-national-parks-wildlife-refuges/
It's amazing to me how agencies can skirt the reeuirements of the law, in this case the NPS not even inventorying the lands under its management. Wilderness provides the strongest protections against development, so it should be designated whenever lands in the Park system qualify.
It's another example of bureaucracy thwarting the democratic branch of government, Congress.
Not only must we protect the wilderness area, but we should add to its acreage whenever possible. Wilderness is a national treasure, an investment in clean water, clean air,wildlife conservation.... and for humans, an experience in mind relaxation and rest.
I support what Ann Lawrence said above. Protect and expand, for the good of us all into the future.
i, too, am worried and believe edward abbey said it as well as any --
"Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good bread. A civilization which destroys what little remains of the wild, the spare, the original, is cutting itself off from its origins and betraying the principle of civilization itself."
-- Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire
The key words in Kurt's essay are "in theory". This is misleading.
The key sentences in the essay would be more accurate if rewritten "But those areas that are 'managed' as wilderness, but not officially designated, are in theory, but not in practice, at risk of being impacted by society. Cell towers cannot be erected in these lands, roads cannot be cut through them, forests cannot be logged, mining operations cannot be opened, lodges cannot be built."
Because NPS manages recommended wilderness as if it were designated wilderness, NPS protects their wilderness character despite decades of Congressional delay in actually designating them. This removes the sense of urgency this essay attempts, by conflating this rather technical issue with the vastly wider issue of global ecosystem collapse, to fan.
Why has Congress delayed? The history of litigation over Wilderness has contributed to breaking the national consensus that Wilderness designation is beneficial. This is especially true when, as in the Kofa case cited by Tahoma, wildlife conservation is blocked in the name of "wilderness purity". Or when subsistence uses by indigenous peoples, primitive recreation or historic preservation are blocked. If Congress returns to this task, it is likely that future wilderness designations will come with much more carefully crafted special provisions to avoid future litigation.
Litigants (Wilderness Watch and PEER) might do well to reflect on their role in breaking this national consensus. I suggest for introspection they consider the saying "the difference between children and grown-ups is that grown-ups accept responsibility for the consequences of their own actions". (Of course, our current President would equally benefit from, and is equally incapable of undertaking, such introspection!)
A more productive article could be written on how we might rebuild the national consensus in support of Wilderness. Alas, this is not that essay.
Tahoma, in his comment above, incorrectly complains that "habitual use of chainsaws and other power tools has enabled hundreds of trail bridges across minor streams and miles of unsustainable boardwalks" in Olympic NP wilderness. This is an historical legacy of the trail system dating to decades prior to passage of the Wilderness Act. I am confident he is aware Olympic is a temperate rain forest, and the majority of these puncheon are on its dozens of miles of coastal trails, which provide only minimal access to the longest contiguous stretch of wilderness ocean beach in the lower 48 states. Most puncheon "boardwalks" were constructed to span marshy wetlands during the Mission 66 program in the late 1950s, and earlier.
Since wilderness designation in 1988, the majority of puncheon, except the minimum necessary to provide natural water flow and drainage, have been systematically replaced with turnpike (raised trailbed between curb logs filled with soil or gravel). This has involved years of major effort and expense to create a more sustainable and lower maintenance trail system. Tahoma should be aware of and acknowledge this effort. Puncheon continues to be maintained only where gravel is unavailable or would have to be brought into wilderness by helicopter to build turnpikes, and where abandonment of the puncheon would force hikers to cross knee-deep mud and thus damage wetlands. The majority of "trail bridges across minor streams" have also been replaced with fords, stone curbs and steps or, in a rare cases, culverts.
Tahoma's vision of wilderness absent of trails is directly contrary to that of Senator Daniel J. Evans, sponsor of the 1988 Washington Park Wilderness Act, for whom Olympic NP's Evans Wilderness is named. He testified "I believe very strongly that continued protection of our wilderness National Parks depends on the active support of visitors, hikers, and climbers who act as champions for our National Parks. If we make access substantially more difficult we reduce the number of visitors and ultimately the numbers of citizens and taxpayers who know enough about these parks to want to protect them."