iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Wilderness Rules: Obama Plans To Reverse Bush-Era Policy

Wilderness Rules

KRISTEN WYATT   12/23/10 06:13 PM ET   AP

DENVER — The Obama administration plans to reverse a Bush-era policy and make millions of undeveloped acres of land once again eligible for federal wilderness protection, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Thursday.

The agency will replace the 2003 policy adopted under former Interior Secretary Gale Norton. That policy – derided by some as the "No More Wilderness" policy – stated that new areas could not be recommended for wilderness protection by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and it opened millions of acres to potential commercial development.

That policy "frankly never should have happened and was wrong in the first place," Salazar said Thursday.

Environmental activists have been pushing for the Obama administration to restore protections for potential wilderness areas.

Salazar said the agency will review some 220 million acres of BLM land that's not currently under wilderness protection to see which should be given a new "Wild Lands" designation – a new first step for land awaiting a wilderness decision. Congress would decide whether those lands should be permanently protected, Salazar said.

Congressional Republicans pounced on the "Wild Lands" announcement as an attempt by the Obama administration to close land to development without congressional approval.

"This backdoor approach is intended to circumvent both the people who will be directly affected and Congress," said Washington Rep. Doc Hastings, a Republican tapped to lead the House Natural Resources Committee when the GOP takes control of the House in January.

The Congressional Western Caucus, an all-Republican group, also blasted the decision. "This is little more than an early Christmas present to the far left extremists who oppose the multiple use of our nation's public lands," Utah Rep. Rob Bishop said in a statement.

BLM Director Bob Abbey said it hasn't been decided how many acres are expected to be designated as "Wild Lands" and whether those acres will be off-limits to motorized recreation or commercial development while under congressional review. It's also unclear whether there will be a time limit on how long acres can be managed as "Wild Lands" before a decision is made on their future.

The BLM has six months to submit a plan for those new wilderness evaluations.

These "Wild Lands" would be separate from Wilderness Study Areas that must be authorized by Congress. Wild Lands can be designated by the BLM after a public planning process and would be managed with protective measures detailed in a land use plan.

Ranchers, oil men and others have been suspicious of federal plans to lock up land in the West, worrying that taking the BLM land out of production would kill rural economies that rely on ranchers and the oil and gas business.

Their suspicions have been heightened since memos leaked in February revealed the Obama administration was considering 14 sites in nine states for possible presidential monument declarations.

That included 2.5 million acres of northeastern Montana prairie land proposed as a possible bison range, along with sites in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon and Washington.

The 2003 policy was an out-of-court deal struck between Norton and then-Utah Gov. Michael Leavitt to remove protections for some 2.6 million acres of public land in that state.

The policy allowed drilling, mining and other commercial uses on land under consideration as wilderness areas.

Salazar's reversal doesn't affect about 8.7 million acres already designated as wilderness areas.

Conservationists praised the reversal, though there has been grumbling that it took the Obama administration nearly two years to overturn the Bush-era policy.

"Washington D.C. always takes longer than you want, but we're glad we've gotten here," said Suzanne Jones, regional director for The Wilderness Society.

___

Associated Press Writer Matt Volz in Helena, Mont., contributed to this report.

___

Online:

Interior Department Q&A on the new policy: http://tinyurl.com/24lfw58

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Filed by Nick Graham  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,417
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (27 total)
photo
RedRat
Ignorance is fixable, stupidty is forever
07:33 PM on 12/29/2010
Was there a policy under Bush of preserving wilderness???? I don't think so. If anything, Bush removed land from protection. Hah.
photo
Lorindol
I shall consider it . . .
03:26 AM on 12/30/2010
Of course there was. He preserved the forests from forest fires by letting the loggers cut down the trees. Those forests were DANGEROUSLY full of trees, ya know.
photo
RedRat
Ignorance is fixable, stupidty is forever
03:08 PM on 12/30/2010
LOL
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Corners
12:56 PM on 01/15/2011
heh
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Opening Shares
09:47 AM on 12/28/2010
Headline reads: "Wilderness Rules: Obama Plans To Reverse Bush-Era Policy" I read "Snowflake with a chance in hell among gazillions dumped on east coast." With the next two years guaranteed to be lame-duck or more of Obama conceding everything to Republicans, again it's only HOPElessness with everything CHANGE(ing) for the worse.

"It took the Obama administration nearly two years to overturn the Bush-era policy." That's what I grumbled. That would be almost any Bush-era policy wouldn't it?

I guess that's how politics works. Only look to the past when it's convenient to overlook your own policy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RedDog79
10:51 AM on 12/29/2010
really?
don't ask don't tell repleal
START treaty

both in lame duck session -
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:31 PM on 12/27/2010
good move.
02:54 PM on 12/27/2010
a few million more for some "wild" horses and burros
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pierre F Lherisson
10:50 AM on 12/27/2010
This reprieve will soon dissipate when the Republicans will be in charge again. A standard policy vis a vis the environment should be in place irrespective to political parties.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GreenKate
10:18 AM on 12/27/2010
"This backdoor approach is intended to circumvent both the people who will be directly affected and Congress." To Doc Hastings the oil and gas industry are "the people". Sadly the real People - we the citizens of the US- don't even get a decent financial return on the leases that Hastings wants to see happen on OUR land. And the damage being done to water supplies in the US is huge. The Republicans should be horse whipped for nominating enemies of environmental stewardship to these posts. Teddy Roosevelt must be turning in his grave.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mik McAllister
06:17 PM on 12/26/2010
"This is little more than an early Christmas present to the far left extremists who oppose the multiple use of our nation's public lands," Utah Rep. Rob Bishop said in a statement.
=======================

If by "multiple use" you mean "exploitation by commercial interests for the profit of politicians", then yes, you are correct.
06:13 PM on 12/27/2010
"multiple use" = gang r ape.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
johuyik
Pro-2cnd and anti-NRA.
06:06 PM on 12/26/2010
To those of you saying "Who know Bush had a Wilderness Policy"..yes he did! In fact it was written by the same guy who wrote BP's disaster recover plan...bet you couldn't tell!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cosmiCataclysm
01:12 PM on 12/26/2010
This must have the Tea-Baggers chomping at the bit. They prefer to let free-markets 'sort' the environment 'out'.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KELLI2L
09:18 AM on 12/26/2010
Seems like a great idea. But I'd have to read the whole Obama legislation on this before I can say for sure.....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RedDog79
10:52 AM on 12/29/2010
anything that goes from "rape the land and creatures in it for profit" to any kind of protection for aforementioned is better than what it was.
photo
Red45
We can turn the tide
03:03 AM on 12/26/2010
These are the kinds of things I hoped Obama would do and he's beginning to come through. Great news for the environment.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
iisguy
09:41 AM on 12/26/2010
just took a few years! Geez. How much wilderness was sold / leased the last two years?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RedDog79
10:53 AM on 12/29/2010
wow. glass half empty?
why not look at it as - now we'll have native land that our children can be proud of
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Connie Markley Boppre
09:46 PM on 12/25/2010
please reverse it !
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
conservicide
I don't play nice.
08:10 PM on 12/25/2010
Unless they find some way to prevent some a>howl like GW.pinhead trying once again to r.apeth the earth in the future, there's no point.
09:04 AM on 12/27/2010
I think there is a point...a good point. Not only does it reverse a terrible policy, it also makes companies less likely to dive into a massive (expensive) undertaking that might have its legs cut out from under it midstream; might even make these companies look to other, less destructive alternatives to satisfy their corporate needs.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fireofenergy
Promote freedom AND science
07:02 PM on 12/25/2010
I think any activity that does not destroy habitat (other than a few little, perhaps necessary and strategic spots) should be allowed to intervene. This i say for energy and national security.

If any is desert, save it from solar troughs! They require bulldozed and perfectly flat land. On a small scale, no problem (like parking lots) but on the scale required for solar to do any good (thousands of square miles), it would be devastating!
Instead, a much more sensible kind of solar can be used that blends with the habitat... Post mounted dishes and PV (and sensors and signs in place of fences).

I agree that wind poses little threat to habitat either as long as roads are not paved.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Arturo Ramrez
09:59 PM on 12/25/2010
The problem is that the best places for wind energy are also routes for migratory birds. And no, I am not against wind or solar energy, but one has to think things through. Also, ALL human activity has an impact, and one should measure how much impact a given ecosystem can take. The people that claim that Wilderness areas can become economically non-viable haven't thought things through, there are different kinds of economical enterprises that can be done in those kinds of places, the difference is that, by being low impact, that also means that they can be done pretty much forever, unlike ranching or oil drilling.
photo
thereisonlyoneparty
more amazing than you
08:56 PM on 12/26/2010
People need to stop thinking that they are above nature and understand that in the long run all species will die and all life everywhere (not just this planet) will be extinguished forever.

Right now it is a bunch of feel good ninnies with no understanding of science who think that saving the planet can be a fruitful endeavor.  People need to get educated.

Forever = nothing.  There is no forever.  There is a limited amount of time for the species, a longer limited period of time for the planet and solar system, and a longer but very limited amount of time for the universe.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Galong
Sacrifice, the future has its price.
06:42 AM on 12/29/2010
Please google 'wind power vs glass buildings killing birds' to find out the truth about the biggest threat to birds. Domestic cats also kill more birds than wind power generators.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
James I Kirkland
State Paleontologist Utah
10:42 AM on 12/25/2010
Another note; I truly believe The development of a San Rafael National Monument would be of great benefit to central Utah and our nation. But I would like to see the feds and the state work together to make a comprehensive land plan, so our rural communities do not become totally land locked as has happened at GSENM. These communities become the hubs for managing these lands and the public visiting these lands, so they need room to adjust accordingly.
I'm afraid, we will not see much cooperation from Utah in developing a plan for what is pretty much inevitable. I hope the US gov. will consider everything in setting aside these spectacular but biologically trashed lands. They were once included vast high desert grasslands, that are now eroding scrub lands with cheat grass (a vicious weed).
LawrenceL
"The dogs bark, but the Caravan moves on."
11:53 AM on 12/25/2010
F&F.

I am not knowledgeable about these issues like you are, but I respect the thoughtful nature of your posts.