Saturday, January 26, 2008
Wilderness & Buffers
There has been several comments over the issue of Wilderness and Buffers in relation to the Smokey Mountain National Park or the International Bioshpere as some would call it. The site would invite comment regarding this issue and as well ask that informative links be attached to these comments to back up the position taken. Let us look at opinion backed up be factual information. You as a participant are yourself a vast wealth of information, however facts to conicide with opinion is of great benefit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Here is an interesting site,check it out and comment!!
http://www.uncp_wcmc.org/sites/wh/gsm.html
looks like a bad link....try again?
Great link, but you need to cut and paste. Lots of info. Food for thought.
I'm reposting a previous comment with direct relevance to the Wilderness situation on the North Shore area.
--------------------------
There is an old saying, 'When given lemons, make lemonade'.
A Wilderness Designation for the North Shore is just such a chance. Rather than looking at it as something too terrible to contemplate, the potential designation of the North Shore under the Wilderness Act provides an opportunity to encapsulate in law several of the aims or solutions to concerns by some Swain residents.
For an area to be designated as wilderness under the terms of the Wilderness Act, a separate piece of legislation is required. The National Park Service can not designate an area as wilderness on its own accord. Any new law establishing a new wilderness area would state that such and such an area is now designated as wilderness under the terms of the Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-577). These new laws also typically spell out exceptions to the Wilderness Act that the new 'wilderness' will follow.
Examples of such 'exceptions' to the Wilderness Act can be viewed in the online document: Wilderness Laws: Prohibited and Permitted Uses
For example, a directly relevant example is the legislation establishing the Charles C. Deam Wilderness in Indiana. Section 3 of the act establishes in law the right of public access to a cemetery.
Another issue seems to be concern about buffer areas. Here is an example of a wilderness area that establishes limits of buffer zones (see section 6). Here is another example, this time in Nevada (see Section 7)
It is clear, from reviewing existing laws establishing Wilderness Areas, that there is plenty of wiggle room in negotiating exactly what 'Wilderness' could mean in any North Shore Wilderness Act.
Herein lies the opportunity. Rather than depend on the goodwill (or not) of the Park Service to provide access to cemeteries on Decoration Days, a North Shore Wilderness Designation law could provide an opportunity to legally bind the Park Service to providing access and transportation. Should they not perform, you would at least have the redress of taking them to court. Today you have no real option other than writing letters.
Similarly, the first document linked points out that the Wilderness Act §4(d)(1) allows "the use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become established," subject to "desirable" restrictions;
While the phrase "desirable restrictions" sounds ominous, this is exactly the type of thing that could be addressed specifically in the establishing legislation. Recreational use of Lake Fontana is clearly "already established" in the North Shore area. A wilderness designation for the North Shore could specifically prohibit any restriction on these types of activities.
Specific historic structures in the North Shore area could also be exempted from Wilderness Restrictions by this legislation.
For most other matters, the North Shore area is already being managed as wilderness, so no great change occurs in the future if it is made official.
In summary, a Wilderness Designation could provide a legal mechanism to put many (not all, but many) of the goals of the North Shore Historical Association into law. Were the leaders of that group to reach out of other parties that they traditionally consider on the other side of the fence - i.e. Cash Settlement supporters, Friends of the Smokies, Smoky Mtn Association, and yes, even maybe the Sierra Club, I suspect they would find widespread support for just such compromises. It would be a win-win for everyone.
I know this proposal will probably make a few heads explode, but take a deep breath, count to 100 and then give it some real consideration. You can fight a Wilderness Designation and run the risk of losing completely, or embrace it and make it happen on terms acceptable to you. The choice is yours.
This should eliminate the need of the belief "when given lemons-make lemonade", all of this is from the 2002 Great Smoky Mountains-Master Backcountry Plan. For the record, of the 10M visitors that the NPS boasts that visit the park, less than 1/2 of 1% go anywhere into the "Backcountry", 99 1/2% of the parks visitors are drive thrus in vehicles, this information as per their own documentation. Going further it says:
1.5 WILDERNESS PROPOSAL
In accordance with the requirement of the 1964 Wilderness Act the National Park Service conducted a wilderness
suitability study of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and submitted a wilderness recommendation. The 1974
Wilderness Recommendation proposing that 390,500 acres within the park be designated wilderness was transmitted to
Congress by President Ford on December 4, 1974, accompanied by the Draft Environmental Statement 74-104 (DES 74104).
The recommendation did not pass Congress because of controversy about the North Shore Road. The
recommendation was revised in November 1979 (GMP, P. 19), increasing proposed wilderness to 425,384 acres. The
52,286 acres of potential wilderness shown on the 1978 wilderness map is the 44,000 -acre former North Shore/TVA
tract and the previously proposed buffer zone adjacent to the Cherokee reservation. (1978 map in appendix A) The
additional acreage of recommended wilderness was land in the Cataloochee area around Canadian Top, land east of Mt.
Sterling Road and the reduction of buffer zones adjacent to some park administrative roads. This 1979 Wilderness
revision was never transmitted to congress and is proposed wilderness rather than recommended.
1.6 Minimum Requirement Concept
The Wilderness Act of 1964 states in section 4(c) that except as necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the
administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health
and safety of persons within the area) there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or
motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within a
Wilderness area. The Act allows for the administrative exception, but it is an exception not to be abused and to be
exercised very sparingly and only when it meets the test of being the minimum necessary for wilderness. National Park
Service Policy dictates that all management decisions affecting wilderness must be consistent with the minimum
requirement concept.
Again, it sounds like to me there is a danger here that the North Shore Road Association needs to take into account.
Many have pointed out that there is no guarentee that the Park Service will continue to provide transportation to those wishing to visit the graves and homeplaces. Some of the road supporters have referenced some document in 1931 that guarantees access, but none have posted it, nor have they referenced where it could be found. It may well exist, but the truth is that subsequent legislation or policies may negate any of it's alleged guarantees.
Road supporters would do well to realize they really have no enemies in this fight. I have personally spoken with many Sierra Club members, settlement supporters, and others who sympathize with the NSRA goals. What has happened is that the road is gone, eliminating any possibility of access by it. Now the NSRA has no guarantees at all; they are entirely dependent upon the good will and financial health of the Park Service to provide access. Not a good situation in light of the Park Service's continuing struggle for funds.
The writer above has exactly the right idea. Wilderness Designation is not the booger bear that it has been made out to be.
I personally don't think any change will be made in designation; Heath Shuler has promised no further buffers, and like him or not, he has lived up to the promises he has made.
The larger issue is this: if the North Shore folk want to guarentee cemetery and home place access, they have to change their tactics. As distasteful as it may seem to them, they have got to ally themselves with settlement supporters. They currently have a lot of sympathy within those folk. They stand to lose that good will if they continue their current policy of the road or nothing.
This whole issue of buffer zones can become a moot point if legislation is passed that includes accomodations for the North Shore folk. But they've got to show willingness to work with others in order for that to happen.
For any who doubts the existance of the 1931 document may I present it below, and includes burial rights. You read what 'Mythbuster' gave you of the BMP. And if having "around the Park road" which the NPS still endorces today according to its GSMP management plan, why then in Mar. 2007 established a 14 mile two lane paved roadway from Pittman Center to Cosby, TN, is that not a endagerment to nature? Is TN side of GSMP nature less sensitive to road construction than NC???
CHURCHES IN NATIONAL PARK CEMETERY ON THE NORTH SHORE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
WASHINGTON
November 23,1931
Mr. W.H. Woodbury
Executive Secretary, North Carolina Park Commission
P.O. Box 1232
Asheville, North Carolina
Orr Cemetery----below Fontana Dam----11 graves----last burial—1937.
Payne Cemetery----below Fontana Dam---118 graves---last burial—1957.
Cable Cemetery----One mile from the mouth of Hazel Cr.---26—graves last burial 1943.
Proctor Cemetery----Hazel Creek----last burial----1944
Bradshaw Cemetery----Possum Hollow Hazel Cr
Higdon Cemetery----Sugar Fork on Hazel Cr
Bone Valley Cemetery----Mouth of Bone Valley Cr on Hazel Cr Graves 79 last burial 1943.
Hall Cemetery----At Hall Cabin Bone valley Cr on Hazel Cr----18 graves--- last burial---1925
Walker Cr---Calhoun---and Wike Cemetery----12to14 miles up Hazel Cr
Cable Cemetery----Across from big Island on Fontana Lake.----last burial 1925
Fairview Cemetery----about two miles above Fairview----Last burial 1943
Nelems Cemetery----water shed of Calhoun Br. 5 graves—Last burial 1933
Mitchel Cemetery----Mitchell Hollow----5 graves----last burial 1938
Pilkey Cr. Cemetery----Two miles up Pilkey cr. On left---41 graves last burial----1941
Posey CEMETERY----Two and one half miles up Pilkey Cr. On left---Last burial 1944----3 graves
Scott Anthony Cemetery----Kirkland Br.---14 graves
McClure Cemetery----Chamber Cr----14 graves
Woody Cemetery----woody branch right side on Forney Cr---Last buried 1935----64 graves
Hoyle Cemetery----Bear Cr. On Forney Cr.
Conner Cemetery----Hickory Flat---Near Noland Cr.--- Last Burial 1936--- 16 graves
Styles Cemetery----Hickory Flats---Near Noland Cr.---Last Burial---1942--- 6 Graves
Noland Cemetery----15 Graves
Noland Cr. Up Noland---4 Graves
Dear Mr. Woodbury:
I should like to advert to another matter which refers to the acquisition of one of the church properties in the Smokemont area. As I understand it, the elders of this Church are unwilling to arrange for the deeding over of the Church property for a reasonable consideration because of some misgivings they have as to the correctness of such a stand. I have not been advised definitely of the reasons for their hesitation, but it would seem to me that if they will sell this Church property to your Commission for a reasonable price and accept in return an agreement that the National Park Service will lease back the property to them for periods of two years each, they would be in an excellent position to apply the money they get from the sale of their property to the tidying up of the Church. The rent under the lease could be made as low as a dollar a year, just a nominal sum, and the other details of the lease would be no different from those exacted in any of the other cases, such as good behavior, keeping the premises neat and tidy, etc.
Total of 31 Cemetery in Park N.C. OVER 1100 Graves N.C.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
WASHINGTON
November 23, 1931
I have been told by some of the people who attended the Church at Smokemont that the Deacons of the Church Deeded the Church to God.
So who owns the Church ?
Mr. W. H. Woodbury
Executive Secretary, North Carolina Parks Commission
Mr. Woodbury:
Superintendent Eakin has turned over to this office direct for reply your letter of inquiry of November 12, concerning certain commitments you desire to have laid down regarding the handling of cemeteries in the park area, both with respect to the three cemeteries in the Cataloochee territory, which you are mentioning specifically, and all the other inside the park area. In this connection you may say in behalf of the Park Service that we do everything within our power to keep the cemeteries intact and that the parties who have bodies buried there may go to and from the cemeteries with all freedom of action and have the right to keep the brush and briers cleaned off. In addition, they will also not only have the right of interment of any bodies now living within the park area and who have been interested in the cemetery and wish to be buried there, but we feel there may be some who have moved out whose family burial plots are in these cemeteries and who therefore may wish to be buried in the same cemetery with their kinfolks. These we will also accord the privilege of burial in the old family burial ground. Furthermore, we will assume it as an obligation of the National Park Service to assist in keeping these cemeteries as cleaned up as possible after we have taken them over as part of the park.
Cemeteries -----Graves moved that were under water because of Fontana Dam
+ 1,047 moved
+ Monuments moved 346
+ This started December 23, 1941 some 40 cemeteries was affected.
+ 11 Cemeteries would be flooded around 1200 still on remains on
the North Shore Today. .
To the individual that made the following statement:
"I personally don't think any change will be made in designation; Heath Shuler has promised no further buffers, and like him or not, he has lived up to the promises he has made."
Care to make a wager on this one?? The GSMP is a World Heritage Site, UNESCO reserve, part of MAB, IUCN, UNEP, WCMC, the NPS is the adminstrator to the US World Heritage sites. The 21 nations members will be meeting in Davos, Switzerland, Mar. 11-14, 2008 in an "International Expert meeting on World Heritage and buffer zones". 'This expert meeting will implement Decision 30 COM 9 by the 30th session fo the WHC. The discussion will focus on problems and best practices concerning BUFFER ZONES and issues related to the integrity of PROPERTIES inscribed on the World Heritage List. YOU DO KNOW THAT THE GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS PARK WAS INSCRIBED TO THE WHL IN 1983, and there is a direct impact of the decisions that this group makes and what happens here. And, OH, by the way, participation is: By invitation only, Another wager: I don't believe the 11th congressional district congressman will be invited. If any! They will release their recommendations in the fall of 2008. Just to add one more note here, the NPS has just released 37 additional sites they wish to have inscribed onto the World Heritage List. Bottom line, "private property rights", you have no connection, don't care, don't know or what???
Mythbuster,
A good argument, but not a completely conclusive one.
The Minimum Requirement Concept is tricky but I believe this could be circumvented by exempting existing cemeteries, notable historic structures, and a minimum set of roads to access the cemeteries for Decoration Days, from the Wilderness designation itself. In other words, the establishing legislation could 'carve out' these areas, and a reasonable buffer zone around the exempted areas, from the designation in the first place. The fact is, Congress can do whatever it wants within the limits of the Constitution, up to and including modifying the Wilderness Act itself. It can certainly create a law that says 'this is an exception due to these circumstances'. If this is a politically feasible solution or not is another discussion, but it is possible. If the NSHA turned its considerable lobbying skills in this direction, an acceptable compromise probably could be worked out.
My overall point, regardless of how it may or may not be reached, is that by establishing an all or nothing position on Wilderness, the North Shore group risks getting nothing. Of course the NPS plans describe a Utopian wilderness scenario, because the NSHA has never truly tried to cooperatively participate in creating a plan that addresses both their needs, and the NPS desire for wilderness.
Grand Teton National Park agreed to allow 737 sized jets to land in a final approach that goes right down the middle of the park, in order to expand the park boundaries. If the NSHA went to the NPS and said something to the effect of "we'll give up opposition to something you want (wilderness), if you will give us what we want (vehicular access to cemeteries, preservation of certain historic structures), the actual legislative proposal presented could look very different from what it looked like in the past. But you have to take a seat at the table with something other than all or nothing.
Thank you, btw, for responding in a substantive manner.
Per comments made by 'The Gambler'. The World Heritage group puts forth recommended plans and policies, however, it is up to the individual governments that manage the sites in question as to how or if they will be adopted. In this case, the United States Congress is the legislative body that makes the final rules for our National Parks. Because of this, and because Rep. Shuler sits on the committee that would be responsible for reviewing and recommending if any such law should move forward, he has enormous influence on the issue.
As far as the letter of 1931, thank you for providing it. Let me quote the pertinent section:
"In this connection you may say in behalf of the Park Service that we do everything within our power to keep the cemeteries intact and that the parties who have bodies buried there may go to and from the cemeteries with all freedom of action and have the right to keep the brush and briers cleaned off. In addition, they will also not only have the right of interment of any bodies now living within the park area and who have been interested in the cemetery and wish to be buried there, but we feel there may be some who have moved out whose family burial plots are in these cemeteries and who therefore may wish to be buried in the same cemetery with their kinfolks. These we will also accord the privilege of burial in the old family burial ground. Furthermore, we will assume it as an obligation of the National Park Service to assist in keeping these cemeteries as cleaned up as possible after we have taken them over as part of the park."
Please note that this does provide access, but does not specify the method; by "the letter of the letter", the Park Service is not obligated to provide transportation, only access. The current method of providing ferries and vans is completely voluntary on the part of the Park Service. Access could be interpreted as strictly as saying, "you are welcome to walk to the cemetery".
As far as "he has enormous influence on the issue", then as an official that took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States, he surely would want to preserve the integrity of the Federal Government, ie. the United States, in order to do so, why would such an 'influencial' representive be so bold as to go against the very principals of government. By that I mean, you will agree there is a 1943 Contract, and is apparently has legal standing, or otherwise he and other east TN reps. would not be trying to buy it out on a few cents on the dollar. It is evident and clear that by the rhetoric that you folks are giving advice on how "exemptions could apply" really do not get it. "You are welcome to walk to the cemetery", what a dishonor, disgrace, and disrepect to the dead, and the living family members. I ask, who's going to clean your tombstone when you are dead????
"Tombstone" gave you the information about TN getting another 14 miles of their "around the park road", not one of you know of, have taken the trouble to obtain, or read the GMP of the GMSP. That is the General Mangement Plan to the Smoky Mountains National Park, thanks to the NPS you must write the Super. of Parks in Gatlinburg to request a copy, I suggest you do so. There is an entire section dedicated as an appendix about the use of vehicles to ferry the individuals to these cemeteries upkeep, etc. Aside from that, let me try something else on you, ECONOMICS, that is really what the bottom line is here, and TN does't want to share the booty. For every fifteen dollars spent in TN on tourism, only one dollar is spent in NC. WHY, you say, look at the Newfound Gap Road re-constuction proposal poster on the NPS website for park planning, there are far more roads, shelters, picnic areas, overlooks, and access for poeple to USE the Park than there is on the NC side.
Can you really have missed the point this badly?
Why do some folk insist on trying to convince people that the road will provide these benefits? Or that it is still necessary to assign blame or shame because the road will never be built?
The road will never be built. No amount of finger-pointing or what-ifs will change that.
Are you content to let the opportunity to achieve your goals slip by?
Some perspective here.
I believe in the EIS that it was estimated that the construction of the road would take approximately 15 years.
It is reasonable to suggest, even if the road was fully funded tomorrow (an impossibility given today's political realities), that it would face significant legal challenges.
Using an extremely conservative view, let's say that legal challenges tied the road up for another 10 years. That puts completion of the the road out 25 years.
25 years is a long time to wait for a potential economic impact - an entire generation - if that is what this is really all about, as suggested in a previous post.
10 years legal challenge is probably on the low end. For example, the Auburn Dam in California was authorized and funded in 1965. The dam has gone nowhere in the 42 years since then, despite a huge effort by California Utilities, Irrigation Districts and large corporate farming interests. It is not unreasonable to assume that legal challenges to a North Shore Road would be as significant. Supporters of the Auburn Dam were enormously better lawyered and funded than the NSHA, but they still lost. This is but one of many, many examples.
The point here is not to state what is a preferred outcome, but to point out that the best case scenario from building the road really does little or no good for much of anyone, at least on an economic front.
Btw, I would like to commend everyone who has commented so far on keeping the discussion relatively civil. We may disagree, but at least we are talking, rather than hurling insults at one another - that in itself is a step in the right direction.
To Road Warrior,
It seems clear that the comments by Anonymous were not intended to imply that anyone should have to walk to a gravesite, or to intend any disrespect. The comment indicates that according to the 1931 letter supplied, the Park Service has not agreed to the *form* of access. What multiple commenter's here have suggested is that it is time for road supporters to consider a change in tactics, in order to preserve, or even enhance, the type of access provided by the Park Service. There is nothing binding the park to providing transportation, unless some future agreement is made. It's time to start talking.
To: BOBCAT
One only has get and read the document that was mentioned earlier, GMP, General Mangement Plan to the Great Smoky Mountains Park, if you will write to Park Super. Dale Ditmanson, in Gatlinburg and request a copy and when you get it read it and the appendices. The information is there. You will become better informed.
To Road Warrior:
After having read the documents and appendices you reference, it appears (and I'm by no means an expert on dense legalese) that the practice of providing transportation to the cemeteries is a *policy*. This is important because policies can be changed; if fact, any new appointments of personnel will almost guarantee a review of policies in place. Any new superintendants or other high ranking personnel may not be as sympathetic to the visitations as the current administration is.
Do you trust the government enough to keep the transportation policy in place? Personally, I'd rather have it written into law.
Anyone wanting to know about wilderness in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park can go to the library, the Administration Building or search on line in the FEIS STUDY IT TELLS ABOUT WILDERNESS. Arcadis did this study.
Miller of the National Park office is saying in this weeks Smoky Mountain News that there are no plans to push for Wilderness and that cemetery access is written into to the settlement. I note he also stated that the Park has been treadted as Wilderness for quite some time. He did not see the bugsboos of wilderness as expressed by those who do not trust the Park.
Bob Miller, at a Public Meeting said the acid rock was a ploy to stop the road.
The Park Service is already doing things to turn the Park into wilderness, like they took the bear proof trash cans off of the Road To Nowhere. They don't cut the grass on the side of the road, but maybe a couple of times in the summer.
The Park Service last year, at the Decoration on Hazel Creek just let 13 people go to the Cemetery for the services. More rights being taken away from us. PEOPLE THAT DON'T FIGHT AGAINST WILDERNESS, DESERVES IT. When they turn the Park into wilderness, the people that fought against the road deserves their land being put into a buffer zone.
Post a Comment