Wednesday, June 19, 2013
What's New in the New West
You are here: Home » New West Network Topics » Politics » Diary of a Mad Voter » Public Lands Bill: Finally, A Blow for Mother Nature

Public Lands Bill: Finally, A Blow for Mother Nature

For the duration of the 110th Congress, one Senator has held up each of the individual 160 public lands bill that comprise this omnibus legislation, lending the bill its nickname, the “Tomnibus.” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) used the Senate’s byzantine procedural rules to prevent any of these bills from coming to the floor. Despite the fact that many of the individual bills were hammered out by the bipartisan delegations and had significant Republican as well as Democratic support, they couldn’t overcome the 60 vote margin required to break a filibuster. Until now.

The cornerstone of the Tomnibus is comprised of seven different bills authored by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), that have both huge scope constituency, as described by ENS:

Wyden’s bills, including one designating eight wilderness areas on Mount Hood and another protecting 13,700 acres in the Siskiyou National Forest as the Copper Salmon Wilderness Area, had each passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee before the end of the 110th Congress but were blocked by Dr. No [Sen. Coburn].

The Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007 was originally introduced by Senator Wyden in 2004 and following months of public review and discussion, was modified and reintroduced with Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, a Republican, in 2006 and again in 2007. Oregon Congressmen Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat, and Greg Walden, a Republican, championed a House version of the bill.

The Act includes input from more than 600 constituents who attended two public forums, as well as input from more than 1700 constituents, as well as Oregon’s entire congressional delegation, Governor Ted Kulongoski, the Bush administration and over 100 community groups. The bill preserves almost 127,000 acres around Mount Hood with wilderness protection and adds almost 80 miles on nine free-flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System.

Some of the key fisheries for wild salmon are included in these designations. The wilderness bill included in the legislation are listed in this report from the Campaign for America’s Wilderness [pdf]:

  • The Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act, California: permanently protects 450,000 acres of wild mountain tops, open spaces
    and alpine meadows, 40,000 acres of wild lands in northern Los Angeles County, and designates 73 miles of rivers as Wild and Scenic.
  • California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act: protects 190,000 acres in Riverside County as wilderness, add 31 miles of four rivers to the
    Wild and Scenic River System and expand by 5,000 acres the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument.
  • The Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Wilderness Act, California: permanently protects almost 85,000 acres in the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park, including Redwood Mountain Grove, the largest stand of Giant Sequoia within the park, California’s largest cave, and the Old Hockett Trail.
  • Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act, Colorado: protects nearly 250,000 acres (94 percent) of Colorado’s Rocky Mountain National Park as wilderness.
  • Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area and Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Area Act, Colorado: creates the 200,000 acre Dominguez-Escalante Canyons National Conservation Area, including more than 66,000 acres designated as wilderness.
  • Owyhee Public Lands Management Act, Idaho: this bill permanently protects 517,000 acres in Idaho’s Owyhee-Bruneau Canyonlands in the southwestern corner of the state and designates nearly 315 miles of rivers as wild and scenic.
  • Beaver Basin Wilderness Act, Michigan: protects 11,739 acres of wilderness at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, some 16 percent of the scenic national Lakeshore.
  • Sabinoso Wilderness Act, New Mexico: designates more than 15,000 acres in San Miguel County as wilderness.
  • Copper Salmon Wilderness Act, Oregon: protects 13,700 acres of pristine old-growth forest surrounding the head-waters of the Elk River in the Siskiyou National Forest.
  • Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act, Oregon: protects 128,600 acres of national forest on Mount Hood and puts nearly 80 miles of river under the National Wild and Scenic River System.
  • Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Voluntary and Equitable Grazing Conflict Resolution Act, Oregon: protect 23,000 acres of Southeastern Oregon’s wild land as the Soda Mountain Wilderness.
  • Spring Basin Wilderness Act, Oregon: includes over 8,600 acres of wilderness overlooking the John Day Wild and Scenic River.
  • Oregon Badlands Wilderness Act, Oregon: includes nearly 31,000 acres of wilderness in the Badlands just east of Bend.
  • The Washington County Growth & Conservation Act, Utah: protects nearly 256,000 acres of wilderness in the county, including Canaan Mountain, Red Mountain, Doc’s Pass, and Cougar Canyon; establishes the Red Cliffs and Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Areas; and protects more than 160 miles of the Virgin River in and around Zion National Park.
  • Virginia Ridge and Valley Wilderness and National Scenic Area Act, Virginia: protect 55,000 acres in the Jefferson National
    Forest as wilderness, wilderness study or national scenic areas (43,000 acres will be wilderness), including parts of the Appalachian Trail.
  • The Wild Monongahela Act, West Virginia: designates 37,000 acres of wilderness in the Monongahela National Forest, expanding three existing wilderness areas, Cranberry, Dolly Sods and Otter Creek and creates three new wilderness areas.

Besides all this, the omnibus package includes measures dealing with water issues and heritage lands, and creates a national landscape conservation system. It also contains four ocean provisions:

The Ocean and Coastal Exploration and NOAA Act will authorize the National Ocean Exploration Program, National Undersea Research Program, and the Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping Program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to increase scientific knowledge for the management, use and preservation of oceanic, coastal and Great Lake resources.

The Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act will authorize the establishment of an integrated system of coastal and ocean observations for the nation’s coasts, oceans and Great Lakes.

The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act will authorize a coordinated federal research program on ocean acidification.

The Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act will authorize funding for a program to protect important coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, aesthetic, or watershed protection values, and that are threatened by conversion to other uses.

It’s a fitting end to the past eight years–and particularly the last few months–of the trashing of our nation’s natural heritage. There’s still a tremendous amount of damage that has been done and could be done if some of the last-minute lame duck regulations pushed by the administration are allowed to stand. This Act provides a breath of fresh air and a glimmer of hope that at least some of our most wild and special places will last just a little bit longer.

Editor’s note: Joan McCarter’s weekly blogs are part of NewWest.Net/Politics’ “Diary of a Mad Voter” feature, a group blog, published in partnership with the Denver Post’s Politics West intended give a glimpse into the hearts and minds of several independent-minded voters and thinkers in the Rocky Mountain West in the ’08 election cycle. For more columns check in with www.newwest.net/madvoter. And for more information on each of the bloggers, click here.

About Joan McCarter

Joan McCarter is a contributing editor at Daily Kos, writing as "mcjoan." She has focused on Iraq, the traditional media, and electoral politics at the blog. During the 2006 election, McCarter focused her writing on Democratic prospects in the west. She traveled throughout the Rocky Mountain states through the last weeks of the campaign, researching and writing about Democratic candidates and campaign strategies. She is currently researching a book on western politics scheduled to be published in spring, 2008. McCarter worked on Capitol Hill for then Congressman and now Senator Ron Wyden. She has broad campaign experience and has been deeply involved in Democratic politics since childhood. She has a master's degree in international studies from the University of Washington and worked as a writer, editor, and instructional designer at the UW from 1995-2006. She is currently a fellow at Daily Kos.

Comments

  1. BeckyJ says:

    Protects? What is your definition of protect? Protects from what? Disease, wildfire, noxious weeds, active restoration of watersheds damaged by catastrophic fires? Not all management options are bad. This will close the door on any protection for these areas. Are wildlife populations doing better in Wilderness Areas? Noxious weed infestations increase 4,000 per year in the Frank Churck River of No Return Wilderness. That can’t be because of all the motorized recreation in the area. Is Wilderness really protection? A friend of mine who was a Congressional aide told me he received a letter from an individual who wrote that she and her husband really enjoyed their drive through the Wilderness areas in Idaho. Wilderness? Drive? You can’t drive through the Wilderness. Communities are struggling near the Wilderness. Wilderness is a playground for the very rich who have the time and money to recreate there, hunt there with guides, etc. There are two very different types of Wilderness experience, the 5 star, guided tour with gourmet meals and the Lewis and Clark experience where you go in with your gun and a horse and seriously consider shooting your horse for food before you get out. Abundant wildlife. Lewis and Clark & Co. almost starved to death as the crossed the Idaho Wilderness. This was a lean, mean team that had already crossed a lot of this country. I’m not advocating logging these areas, but I am for retaining more management options as times change than none.

  2. winners and losers says:

    Hit on “Ctrl” + “F” on your keyboard. Type “Montana” into the find field. Click “next.” My comment is the first thing you’ll come across. Nothing in the article at all.

    We’re falling behind folks. Our competitive advantage is our pristine lands and abundant wildlife. We’d better start stepping up to keep them that way or lose our advantage and become the dumping ground for the Rocky Mountain West … every region has one.

  3. Dave Skinner says:

    That’s the only decent part of the bill, that it didn’t have any more unneeded, unnecessary, unwanted Wilderness for Montana.

  4. winners and losers says:

    speaking of losers

  5. steve kelly says:

    The price (subsidies/sweetners) paid for “protection” in most, if not all, of the bills in the Omnibus package is greater than sum of the “rocks and ice” included in the National Wilderness System. Market-solution wilderness, largely funded by Pew Foundation groups, has been a grave strategic and tactical mistake. It’s the special-interest gift that keeps on giving. Take any one of these bills, read the fine print, and accept another defeat. Please note: Montana did not fall for this ploy — yet. This is not a wilderness victory!

  6. Richard Spotts says:

    Thanks for this informative article. I, too, believe that this Senate omnibus public lands legislation (S. 22) is worthwhile. However, I believe that the sub-title reference to protecting 200 million acres of wilderness is grossly incorrect. Several articles have said that the total acreage in S. 22 is about two million acres. I have not added up all of the acreage figures for the 160 or so provisions in this legislation. But 200 million acres is roughly the size of two Californias!

  7. Matthew Koehler says:

    Anyone know why some articles (such as the one above) say the total is 200 million acres, while other articles (such as the link below to an AP article) say it’s 2 million acres? Pretty big difference obviously.

    See: http://www.helenair.com/articles/2009/01/12/top/70na_090112_wild.txt

    ———————

    Actually Montana is in this bill…we’re giving the graveyard at the Elkhorn Ghost Town to Jefferson County. I won’t even try and come up with something catchy to say about that one.

    But certainly not a lick of new Wilderness in Montana. If you are looking to blame (or thank) someone for that, give the folks at Montana Wilderness Association, National Wildlife Federation and Montana Trout Unlimited a call.

    These Beaverhead Partnership folks have hooked their Wilderness Wagon onto the timber industry’s “More-Logs-From-National-Forests” Wagon.

    And as you can clearly see from the straight talk in recent articles below, significantly changing economic realities (to say nothing of significantly changing political realities) have put a fork in that questionable approach.

    “It’s not supply that’s the concern. They have lots of logs. The concern going forward is consumer demand for the product.” – Shawn Church, editor of lumber trade magazine Random Lengths

    “Unfortunately, these steps are necessary to match supply with the eroding demand for our wood products.”
    - Rick Holley, Plum Creek president and chief executive officer in Plum Creek’s press release announcing a mill closure and overall reduction at their MT mills

    “With its log yards full and a lower demand for products, Plum Creek Timber Co. is telling logging contractors to stop work in the woods.”

    “We are ahead of pace for putting logs into the mills’ inventories right now and we simply need to slow down on log deliveries”
    - Tom Ray, Plum Creek Vice President

    “Right now the mill yards are pretty much full. They’ve got a lot of inventory both in logs and lumber”
    - Joe Keller, Plum Creek subcontractor

    “The Western Wood Products Association reports Western mills are experiencing the largest downturn in lumber demand ever recorded.”

  8. Lauren says:

    Hey, its all about protection from development…thats all that matters. No more greedy private organizations & no more private greedy rich celebs taking it all for themselves’

  9. Marion says:

    Lauren, did you mean no more greedy people driving their cars with American produced fuel or heating their homes? If the president keeps his word we won’t have greedy people lighting their homes or running their computer once he bankrupts the greedy coal fired electric plants either. Ahh paradise.

  10. BeckyJ says:

    Lauren, And just how do you think greedy private organizations and private greedy rich celebs are going to be able to purchase land from the National Forest? The National Forests generally only sell/trade land if they have an isolated small piece of land and you have or can purchase a piece that is currently an inholding of or adjacent to a larger tract that they hold. If you think this land needs to be protected from sale, it already is.

  11. George says:

    Good story, Joan. Many of us who worked for BLM (as I did) and the other agencies welcome this bill because it gives land managers more backbone in resisting development that would destroy roadless areas. The public wants these areas kept wild. The resource tradeoffs and the boundaries were negotiated over a period of years for each area in the bill.

Scroll To Top