The original floor inside the Earth Lodge at Ocmulgee National Monument has been carbon dated to more than 1,000 years ago/NPS
In the middle of Georgia, centuries-old Native American mounds at Ocmulgee National Monument serve as a reminder of the many cultures that have inhabited the area for 17,000 years. It’s no wonder humans were drawn to the region, with the nearby Ocmulgee River nurturing fertile hunting and fishing habitat that’s now also popular with hikers, paddlers, and bird-watchers.
As the state’s members of Congress move to quadruple the size of Ocmulgee National Monument and change its name to Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park, a new study commissioned by the National Parks Conservation Association says an even bigger expansion and designation, Ocmulgee National Park and Preserve, would deliver a significant economic boost to communities along the river corridor.
“In terms of history, culture, and wildlife, the Ocmulgee National Monument, along with the floodplains and forests between Macon and Hawkinsville, make up one of the last best places in the southeast,” Chris Watson, Southeast senior program manager for NPCA, said in a release. “By honoring this special place, a national park and preserve could not only advance the conservation of treasured resources, but also bring increased economic growth and prosperity to middle Georgia.”
An egret and turtle get to know each other in the wetlands at Ocmulgee National Monument/NPS
The report, “Diamond in the Rough: An Economic Analysis of the Proposed Ocmulgee National Park and Preserve,” shows that consolidating the public lands along the river corridor to create a national park and preserve would drive a sixfold increase in tourism and add an estimated $206.7 million in annual economic activity at restaurants, hotels, retailers, and other businesses throughout the region within 15 years.
Funded in part by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the analysis was conducted by economists at the University of Tennessee Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
The concept of the Ocmulgee National Park and Preserve, which would be the first such designation east of the Mississippi River, could encompass anywhere from 20,000 to 80,000 acres. In addition to the current national monument, it could link nearby state and federal lands such as Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and three state wildlife management areas, Oaky Woods, Ocmulgee, and Echeconnee Creek.
Researchers estimate that the following nine activities will have the greatest appeal and the strongest potential for growth: heritage tourism, bicycling, paddling, camping, fishing, wildlife watching, hiking, hunting, and horseback riding.
Legislation recently reintroduced in Congress – the Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park Boundary Revision Act of 2017 – marks a path toward increased recognition. The bill would expand the current national monument from 702 acres to 2,800 acres, change the name of the park to Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park, and authorize a resources study to include recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, and camping along the Ocmulgee River corridor between Macon and Hawkinsville.
Introduced by Rep. Sanford Bishop, a Democrat, and Rep. Austin Scott, a Republican, it cleared the House by a vote of 396-8 on January 30.
“Today’s vote marks an important milestone in many years of effort to bring about increased recognition and enhanced cultural preservation of the Ocmulgee National Monument,” Rep. Scott said in a release. “Our legislation is a welcomed example of what can be achieved when a local community, state leaders, and members of Congress, from both sides of the aisle, collaborate towards a worthy goal. It was an honor to work with Congressman Bishop on legislation that will provide significant economic, educational, and cultural benefits to middle Georgia.”
In the Senate, the legislation has been referred to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and is supported by both Georgia senators, Republicans Johnny Isakson and David Perdue. If passed, it would then need to be signed by President Trump to become law.
Comments
Does Watson think that is the mission of the NPS or is he just throwing that out because he thinks he can get more people on board by promising that?
Be great to see this monument expanded to become a nation park.
Given what the NPS has done to our parks in the last 20 years or so I'm coming to the conclusion the quickest way to destroy a natural area short of mining is to hand it over to the NPS. It sounds like this area is doing quite fine on it's own. If it is expanded and handed over to the NPS they will build more roads and parking lots, hotels, cheap souvenir shops and poor quality cafeterias, then charge people to see the sunrise. Now not all of this is the fault of the NPS as just giving a place a Natioanl Park designation almost ensures people will flock there but if we really want to protect a place making it a National Park doesn't seem to be the best way any more.
Really? Worse than logging, livestock grazing, fracking, industrial agriculture, wind installations, and urban development? Because those are banned in national parks.
In terms of visitor infrastructure, some of the older national parks have hotels, etc. None of the newer national parks (since the 1970s) have major new infrastructure.
In fact, more than 80 percent of National Park System lands are wilderness or recommended wilderness, with no development whatsoever. With a wildreness overlay, national parks provide the strongest protection available.
And all those people who flock to national parks are the best defense against those who want to exploit the land. The anti-environmental members of Congress who want to give away our public lands do not include national parks because they know they would face the wrath of millions of park visitors.
A great point that's worth remembering.