Land management in Utah - outcome?

Maybe I missed this but this would be a real shame imo any insight out there on what areas this could potentially influence? If this is to political my apologies but I thought it was worth discussing. Anyone keeping track of the areas that might get leased? Utah is unequivocal in its landscape and I would think produces major tourism dollars across the state to say nothing of one of the greatest outdoor playgrounds in the world


"November 8, 2008
U.S. to Open Public Land Near Parks for Drilling
By FELICITY BARRINGER

The Bureau of Land Management has expanded its oil and gas lease program in eastern Utah to include tens of thousands of acres on or near the boundaries of three national parks, according to revised maps published this week.

National Park Service officials say that the decision to open lands close to Arches National Park and Dinosaur National Monument and within eyeshot of Canyonlands National Park was made without the kind of consultation that had previously been routine.

The inclusion of the new lease tracts angered environmental groups, which were already critical of the bureau’s original lease proposal, made public this fall, because they said it could lead to industrial activity in empty areas of the state, some prized for their sweeping vistas, like Desolation Canyon, and others for their ancient petroglyphs, like Nine Mile Canyon.

The bureau’s new maps, made public on Election Day, show not just those empty areas but 40 to 45 new areas where leasing will also be allowed.

The tracts will be sold at auction on Dec. 19, the last lease sale before President Bush leaves office a month later. The new leases were added after a map of the proposed tracts was given to the National Park Service for comment this fall. The proximity of industrial activity concerns park managers, who worry about the impact on the air, water and wildlife within the park, as well as the potential for noise, said Michael D. Snyder, a regional director of the Park Service who is based in Denver.

The Park Service is usually given one to three months to comment on leases, Mr. Snyder added.

“This is the first time,” he said, “where we have not had sufficient opportunity to comment.”

He said he had asked the Bureau of Land Management’s state director, Selma Sierra, to pull the new tracts from the December auction for more study. She refused.

Kent Hoffman, a deputy director of the land management bureau’s Utah office, said the Park Service had ample opportunity to review the broad management plan under which the leases were developed, even if it was not given the usual notice of which leases were being offered for sale. Mr. Hoffman added that 37 days remained to air any protests and review the decision about which tracts to lease.

If any leases are sold Dec. 19 and subsequently delivered to the buyers before Inauguration Day, however, it will be difficult for the new administration to reverse those decisions.

The perennial struggle over the use of public lands in the West, which traditionally pits ranchers, miners and oil and gas interests against environmentalists and groups interested in historic preservation, has been particularly acute in Utah.

Many in the state, where resentment of the federal government runs deep, remain angry about the Clinton administration’s decision in 1999 to set aside for protection three million acres deemed to have “wilderness qualities.” The state sued; in 2003, the Bush administration settled and removed protections from those acres.

Before the new lands could be opened to leasing, the land management bureau had to revise its resource management plans designating which areas are appropriate for mining, drilling and motorized recreation and which should remain free of such activity. Last week, six such plans, covering the central and eastern parts of Utah, were approved. The Dec. 19 auction was expected to include energy leases of some land previously off limits, like Desolation Canyon. But not until Tuesday did the bureau release the final maps containing the new leases near park boundaries.

Kathleen Sgamma, the government affairs director of the Independent Petroleum Association of the Mountain States, said of the new lease proposals, “If you can’t develop oil and natural gas in this part of rural Utah, we might as well concede the United States has lost all interest in energy security.”

But David Nimkin, the southwest regional director of the National Parks Conservation Association, said, “It’s very clear that there’s a time clock, and they are anxious to move these out for sale, for obvious reasons.”

The leases, Mr. Nimkin said, seem to be “profoundly in conflict with the direction of the new administration and the new Congress.”"
 

kcowyo

ExPo Original
Arches, Dinosaur and Canyonlands..... AP link

I've been watching this story develop over the last two weeks. I can't say I'm enthusiastic about the preliminary reports. :smilies27

And no this isn't political, it's entirely appropriate for discussion but I'm going to move this thread to the land use folder.
.
 

dieselcruiserhead

16 Years on ExPo. Whoa!!
The good news is the media is paying attention. There may be some heated words in this thread except that hte Utah land use community is largely missing from this discussion (and I don't particularly want to involve them). I cannot speak for them but my impression is that they are all for drilling and really embody the one sided approach. If you check out the USA-ALL site it is littered with highly partisan rhetoric that includes positive light on drilling, etc.

This one is very good: SL Trib, Wharton: Oil leases don't meet smell test
http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_10965344

Some public response. These were on our daily emails we receive off the utah land use advocates/leadership email list we are on...
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_10999707
 
Last edited:

Ursidae69

Traveller
I've done a lot of travelling and work in SE NM. This part of the state is dotted with oil and gas as far as you can see and no matter where you go, the thick smell of oil is always in the air.

I can't say that I'd like to see that or smell that in or near a national park.

BLM doesn't seem to get the concept of "multiple use" as well as other land agencies do.
 

Skylinerider

Adventurer
How close is too close? Who decides? Are we to make a "buffer zone" between parks, and drilling? Isn't the park border just that, a border? Would these "buffer zones" become defacto park?
 

Ursidae69

Traveller
Good questions. I'm not sure that questions like that are codified into law. The answers to questions like that are usually hashed out in the comment period during the NEPA process, but according to the linked article, this process was circumvented to some extent.
 

sinuhexavier

Explorer
After a shoot this Fall we drove back towards Moab via Long Canyon and development was already in progress on the pasture between Canyonlands N.P. and Dead Horse Point.

By development I mean new roads, many semis, on those roads, and a lot of heavy equipment. I know that that has nothing to do with this lease as we won't see the impact of the current lease for many years to come, but here I was 45 miles from Moab in a traffic jam of heavy equipment.

Here is a google map link to the pasture, with a well that has been there for quite some time, now imagine how that area is going to look after 5- 10- 20 more are put in.

Anyone that has ever driven into Canyonlands knows what a terrible loss this is.
 

cruiseroutfit

Well-known member
dieselcruiserhead said:
...I cannot speak for them but my impression is that they are all for drilling and really embody the one sided approach...

You can't speak for them because you are not closely affiliated with any one group to really know their views. ;)

I feel I can safely speak for the U4WDA's view which mimics many of the motorized user associations in the state (trail machine, snowmobile, etc.)

We don't want drilling next to treasured destinations in Southern Utah just as the majority of us want more REAL Wilerness designated in Utah, not faulty inventory data that closed historic roads, but real Wilderness as congress intended it to be,

But as Skylinerider pointed out, how close is too close. Would you change your mind Andre if I told you that we camped within 100 yards of a capped oil well in the San Rafael Swell this year following Cruise Moab? And likely the only reason many of those camps exist is because of oil drilling and uranium mining. What about Moab, how many of the trails in Moab would even be in existence if it were not for the mineral extraction 60 years ago? Nobody wants an oil well in their back yard and many of us feel like Southern Utah is "our back yard", I feel I spend enough time there to call it that. The reality is, we are dependent on oil. Don't we all feel a bit hypocritical driving 200, 300, 1000 miles to drive all around Southern Utah.


dieselcruiserhead said:
...If you check out the USA-ALL site it is littered with highly partisan rhetoric that includes positive light on drilling, etc...

a. I would love to see these litterings.

b. It shouldn't be much surprise to you that many of the motorized user segments within Utah are not in tune with Usa-All, some of which have not been for several years ;)
 

nwoods

Expedition Leader
cruiseroutfit said:
....just as the majority of us want more REAL Wilerness designated in Utah, not faulty inventory data that closed historic roads, but real Wilderness as congress intended it to be

Can you expand on this in a less polarizing manner? I read it three times and did not really understand it. I think its probably important to understand this part of your position to proceed in a discussion on the topic.


cruiseroutfit said:
... the only reason many of those camps exist is because of oil drilling and uranium mining. What about Moab, how many of the trails in Moab would even be in existence if it were not for the mineral extraction 60 years ago?

Here in California we are blessed with lots of great off roading, and almost entirely due to the mining industry of 150-100 years ago. I whole heartedly agree with this and am very thankfull for it.

However, I am very concerned about the perception or suggestion that modern mining techniques would result in the same sort of outdoors use. That just isn't going to happen. The machinery and engineering have come a long way, and we can destroy the natural topography of the land with terrible efficiency these days.

The old mining roads that are so fun now are quaint reminders of 4 legged beasts of burdens and the need to follow water sources. Now, prudent engineering will take you away from potentially hazardous water sources, and take the straightest path through any obstacle in its way. And the mines themselves will doubtlessly involve massive excavations and hillside deformations, not just a simiple hole or two into a hillside with a small pile of tailings to mark the spot.

I think we have much to be concerned about with modern mining and road building techniques if let loose with a "maximum profit and efficency" mindset. And what other mindset can one reasonably expect?
 

cruiseroutfit

Well-known member
nwoods said:
Can you expand on this in a less polarizing manner? I read it three times and did not really understand it. I think its probably important to understand this part of your position to proceed in a discussion on the topic.

The basic premise is this. The BLM funded and instigated their own Wilderness survey in the 80's, they developed a plan for Wilderness that was to the intent of the Act, minimal or no human impact. Fast forward to the "Citizens Proposal" funded and hosted by SUWA and many other WAG groups. They conducted their own inventories and have bumped the number from 1.9m to 3.2m to 5.7m to 9m and growing. Each time they conduct their surveys, the number of Wilderness acres continues to grow, as of late over 11 million acres in Utah, all closed to motorized & mechanized (mtn bike) access. Meanwhile the BLM agrees there is/was about 5 million acres.

Many motorized users tend to beleive 90% of their proposal is legit. That other 10%, contains historic roads, cabins, mines, etc that have been proven to exist for 20-100 years. Why does SUWA et al discount these? They call them "faintly used 2-tracks" and "illegally created routes" and "abandoned mine access routes".

Do we need Wilderness protection, I think so, then again everytime SUWA et al conducts their inventories, they find more. Maybe if we wait another 10 years the entire state will qualify :p

All joking aside there has been a history of attempts to comprimise. The Utah Shared Access Alliance (multiple use advocacy group) attempted to propose a "comprimise" of sorts that would have left 80%+ of the proposal at the time as Wilderness. SUWA and cohorts wouldn't budge, from their own mouth, they couldn't. At this point they represented so many groups and factions all over the US, the feasibility of modifying their proposal and the logistics of getting support from all their associates couldn't be done, this isn't conjecture, this is fact. Now my partial theory. I think they are less worried about actually designating Wilderness and about continuing their fruitful existence. They have millions of dollars each year, their founders are millionaires, several of their board members including their long time treasurer were recently charged and convicted of fraud (on side dealings). They make a fortune showing back east affiliates how much we need Wilderness here in Utah.

Are their inventories faulty? They have been caught red handed all over the place, but the vague definitions of human impact obviously give them room to spare. I know a fellow (he is here on ExPo ;)) that spent some of his youth doing inventories for SUWA. He was flat out told to ignore an existing and historic mine access road (100% legal to drive at the time) as "it isn't the kind of road we count" or some similar classification. They pick and choose. There is a "Jeep Road" and a cabin atop Sids Mountain in the San Rafael Swell, swept under the rug.

These routes need to be cherry-stemmed and Wilderness should be granted. Until the two sides can hammer out these issues, its not going to happen.


nwoods said:
However, I am very concerned about the perception or suggestion that modern mining techniques would result in the same sort of outdoors use. That just isn't going to happen. The machinery and engineering have come a long way, and we can destroy the natural topography of the land with terrible efficiency these days.

And the technologies and techniques for closure and reclemation have come a long way in that same time. Rather than knee-jerk ban all drilling and mining on public lands, I would rather them use a selective site by site approach (BLM has zero manpower and budget for this unfortunately) AND really bump up the reclamation standards for these sites. Already mineral extraction is required to reclaim on some level, with the oil wells in Southern Utah I'm honestly not sure to what levels, again why I have been an advocate of upped standards in this area.
 

nwoods

Expedition Leader
cruiseroutfit said:
These routes need to be cherry-stemmed and Wilderness should be granted.

I'm not a big proponent of cherry stems and corridors, but it's better than nothing I suppose.
 

cruiseroutfit

Well-known member
nwoods said:
I'm not a big proponent of cherry stems and corridors, but it's better than nothing I suppose.

Why?

If an area qualifies as Wilderness after a hundred years of motorized use through the middle of it with no protection, why will another of hundred years have any impact on a protected and managed area?

Thanks to cherry-stemming, we have countless routes that are important to our back-country travel area. Without them entire blocks of areas for example the entire Northern San Rafael Swell would be one contiguous Wilderness or WSA area.
 

sinuhexavier

Explorer
I have to agree with Kurt.

Two successful cherry stems would be the Peavine Trail into Dark Canyon, Utah and the Dusy Ershim Trail in Northern California.

This is not a scientific statement by any means, but I am willing to bet most people don't wander more than a 100 yds from their vehicles. Unfortunately it's the ATV crowd that usually blows it for us.
 

nwoods

Expedition Leader
Let me clarify: I'm more in favor of cherry stems than corridors. There are many areas where side trails are blocked up that lead to interesting areas, typically mining ruins, petrogyph sites, and so forth.
 

cruiseroutfit

Well-known member
nwoods said:
Let me clarify: I'm more in favor of cherry stems than corridors. There are many areas where side trails are blocked up that lead to interesting areas, typically mining ruins, petrogyph sites, and so forth.

These are the routes we stand to lose if the ARWA were to pass as of today. The problem is the fact there is no real medium for all sides of the factions to sit down and come to an agreement on something. When I mentioned SUWA's comments (specicially Heidi Macintosh's comments) that they couldn't comprimise based on the logistics alone, the problem would likely be mirrored in the motorized and mechanized communities. Finding that medium would be so hard. You have groups that want it all open to travel, you have groups that want it only open to mtn bikes, you have groups that want it only open to feet and you have groups that want it closed to all access. I think many of us and especially ExPo'ers land right in the middle, we realize the need for protected Wilderness yet we don't see the mentality of closing existing routes that provide access to remote destinations including Wilderness access points. Again I think 90% of the Wilderness proposals would be great, its that 10% that they refuse to budge on and our sides would likely never fully agree too anyway. :lurk:
 

Forum statistics

Threads
188,476
Messages
2,905,641
Members
230,428
Latest member
jacob_lashell
Top