What? I defined what I mean by "open to motorized recreation", which is inline with what the BLM and USFS mean when they use the term. Never did I mention that 90% of areas were open to "cross country travel" to use the BLM/USFS term. I am not trying to mislead anyone, just to put the numbers in context.
Wilderness Acreage in Utah
- Thread starter dieselcruiserhead
- Start date
teotwaki
Excelsior!
I think that these numbers are still accurate...
The State Of Utah has 52,696,960 acres of land of which 33,258,253 acres are federal land or 63% of the state is actually controlled by the Federal government..
Wilderness designations of 1,571,640 acres as follows:
High Uintas Wilderness/Northeastern Utah/ 456,705 acres
Mt. Naomi Wilderness/Northern Utah/44,350 acres
Wellsville Mountains Wilderness/ Northern Utah/23,850 acres
Mt Olympus Wilderness/Northern Utah/16,000 acres
Twin Peaks Wilderness/Northern Utah/11,463 acres
Lone Peak Wilderness/Northern Utah/30,088 acres
Timpanogos Wilderness/Northern Utah/10,750 acres
Mt. Nebo Wilderness/Central Utah/28,000 acres
Deseret Peak Wilderness/Western Utah/25,500 acres
Dark Canyon Wilderness/Southeastern Utah/45,000 acres
Ashdown Gorge Wilderness/Southwestern Utah/7,000 acres
Box-Death Hollow Wilderness/Southcentral Utah/25,814 acres
Pine Valley Mountains Wilderness/Southwestern Utah/50,000 acres.
Paria Canyon Wilderness/Southcentral Utah/20,000 acres
Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness/Southwestern Utah/2,600 acres.
The BLM also administers 3,258,250 acres of public land which are currently being considered for wilderness designation (WSA) so you cannot drive on them, giving a total of 4,829,890 acres of non-OHV areas.
The latest Red Rock bill would change 9.4 million acres to designated Wilderness but I could not quickly find out if it already included the WSAs.
The trick is figuring out the true ratio of OHV access roads in the current federal land total and how much of that is about to be lost in the newly designated Wilderness areas. Anyone have numbers?
The State Of Utah has 52,696,960 acres of land of which 33,258,253 acres are federal land or 63% of the state is actually controlled by the Federal government..
Wilderness designations of 1,571,640 acres as follows:
High Uintas Wilderness/Northeastern Utah/ 456,705 acres
Mt. Naomi Wilderness/Northern Utah/44,350 acres
Wellsville Mountains Wilderness/ Northern Utah/23,850 acres
Mt Olympus Wilderness/Northern Utah/16,000 acres
Twin Peaks Wilderness/Northern Utah/11,463 acres
Lone Peak Wilderness/Northern Utah/30,088 acres
Timpanogos Wilderness/Northern Utah/10,750 acres
Mt. Nebo Wilderness/Central Utah/28,000 acres
Deseret Peak Wilderness/Western Utah/25,500 acres
Dark Canyon Wilderness/Southeastern Utah/45,000 acres
Ashdown Gorge Wilderness/Southwestern Utah/7,000 acres
Box-Death Hollow Wilderness/Southcentral Utah/25,814 acres
Pine Valley Mountains Wilderness/Southwestern Utah/50,000 acres.
Paria Canyon Wilderness/Southcentral Utah/20,000 acres
Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness/Southwestern Utah/2,600 acres.
The BLM also administers 3,258,250 acres of public land which are currently being considered for wilderness designation (WSA) so you cannot drive on them, giving a total of 4,829,890 acres of non-OHV areas.
The latest Red Rock bill would change 9.4 million acres to designated Wilderness but I could not quickly find out if it already included the WSAs.
The trick is figuring out the true ratio of OHV access roads in the current federal land total and how much of that is about to be lost in the newly designated Wilderness areas. Anyone have numbers?
dieselcruiserhead
16 Years on ExPo. Whoa!!
I need to post some photos of the 5 or 6 WSAs in San Rafael Swell alone. Just two weekends ago I spent significant time in two of them (on foot) and I am not against Wilderness designation either in the slightest (and Kurt really my opinions on this haven't changed much). I just don't think we particularly need more unless there is something discernibly crucial about that specific area that would require it. The WSAs are hard drawn on the map and comparing the early and late maps I have since I've lived in Utah I see little changes. I do believe most of the WSAs will ultimately become Wilderness I suspect. Of the ones I mention one has a cherry stem and one has one road, the rest are completely shut off to everything other than foot traffic. But again, that is OK. I am completely satisfied preserving these areas if the BLM has designed them as true wilderness areas and believes them to be such. I am also fine allowing them to protect other crucial areas, within reason.
But again, we already have more wilderness area or WSA, in the state of Utah, that is greater than the entire landmass of the State of Connecticut. With ARWA honestly, enough is enough. This would designate a land mass closer to the size of all of lower New England, in one state alone... I also used to construct and maintain hiking trails. Just this morning I was helping construct a new mountain bike trail in the Uintas. I am more than aware of the damage erosion can cause even with just foot traffic. But in a majority of these areas I just don't see it. The 4WD users are not reckless, they seldom get into accidents in remote areas (unlike the high traffic areas - of which I completely agree with Kurt's points), and in most of these rural roads they might even see even a dozen vehicles on a road. Or fine, maybe 100 in a year. My belief is most of the 4WD users, just like all of us, are there for the same reason -- to enjoy the beauty of Southern Utah, and certainly not to destroy it as many of the very enviros I ski with regularly and am friends with would have you believe. I think we all generally believe that Utah and these beautiful areas are worth preserving and/or possibly protecting. Another word other than 'wilderness' certainly doesn't carry the cache these people believe in. I just believe some sort of middle of the road impact can possibly be, and should be, reached... Something that preserves jeep roads and multiple use access for the remaining BLM lands or a large portion of it that should be protected, but not in a close-off manner such as Wilderness or WSA designation, while maintaining crucial wilderness or WSAs that deserve the protection. If that is 3 or 4 million acres than so be it. But again, enough is enough...
Again I wanted to mention some of my enviro credentials to show you where I am coming from
Currently and since 2001 (8 years) I maintain a website with my dad dedicated to documenting disappearing species and cultures. He is and I traditionally have been a back-easy type who would easily "support wilderness designation in Utah" before I lived here and recreated here and saw how little impact I personally have as do the other people who travel the jeep roads. When I explain the real world impacts to the area generally he agrees. He sees the largest threats to Southwest beauty as mostly mining and development. I believe personally drilling can be conducted in a low impact method as I've seen it done this way and I believe drilling should be highly regulated and it should be have a certified low impact requirement in these areas (and probably even on all BLM, or at least BLM land worth of protection).
I also serve on the board of several environmental organizations. I work heavily on clean air issues, I also work strongly on climate change related issues. The way climate change is marketed currently by my peers makes me sick and not surprisingly its not working (the personal guilt/sacrifice approach), what two famous environmentalists call "going against the grain of the American psyche" which I also agree with.
I worked on the environmental council at University of Vermont. I have been awarded a grant in the past from World Wildlife Fund, and I also served as the University of Vermont's first climate change coordinator. I also examined and created a web site dedicated to highlighting what climate change's impacts will be to the New England economy...
You can see that the environment is certainly a crucial issue to me. I also do not and have never made these decisions or statements lightly. But this is currently my belief (as stated above and in the original post).
But again, we already have more wilderness area or WSA, in the state of Utah, that is greater than the entire landmass of the State of Connecticut. With ARWA honestly, enough is enough. This would designate a land mass closer to the size of all of lower New England, in one state alone... I also used to construct and maintain hiking trails. Just this morning I was helping construct a new mountain bike trail in the Uintas. I am more than aware of the damage erosion can cause even with just foot traffic. But in a majority of these areas I just don't see it. The 4WD users are not reckless, they seldom get into accidents in remote areas (unlike the high traffic areas - of which I completely agree with Kurt's points), and in most of these rural roads they might even see even a dozen vehicles on a road. Or fine, maybe 100 in a year. My belief is most of the 4WD users, just like all of us, are there for the same reason -- to enjoy the beauty of Southern Utah, and certainly not to destroy it as many of the very enviros I ski with regularly and am friends with would have you believe. I think we all generally believe that Utah and these beautiful areas are worth preserving and/or possibly protecting. Another word other than 'wilderness' certainly doesn't carry the cache these people believe in. I just believe some sort of middle of the road impact can possibly be, and should be, reached... Something that preserves jeep roads and multiple use access for the remaining BLM lands or a large portion of it that should be protected, but not in a close-off manner such as Wilderness or WSA designation, while maintaining crucial wilderness or WSAs that deserve the protection. If that is 3 or 4 million acres than so be it. But again, enough is enough...
Again I wanted to mention some of my enviro credentials to show you where I am coming from
Currently and since 2001 (8 years) I maintain a website with my dad dedicated to documenting disappearing species and cultures. He is and I traditionally have been a back-easy type who would easily "support wilderness designation in Utah" before I lived here and recreated here and saw how little impact I personally have as do the other people who travel the jeep roads. When I explain the real world impacts to the area generally he agrees. He sees the largest threats to Southwest beauty as mostly mining and development. I believe personally drilling can be conducted in a low impact method as I've seen it done this way and I believe drilling should be highly regulated and it should be have a certified low impact requirement in these areas (and probably even on all BLM, or at least BLM land worth of protection).
I also serve on the board of several environmental organizations. I work heavily on clean air issues, I also work strongly on climate change related issues. The way climate change is marketed currently by my peers makes me sick and not surprisingly its not working (the personal guilt/sacrifice approach), what two famous environmentalists call "going against the grain of the American psyche" which I also agree with.
I worked on the environmental council at University of Vermont. I have been awarded a grant in the past from World Wildlife Fund, and I also served as the University of Vermont's first climate change coordinator. I also examined and created a web site dedicated to highlighting what climate change's impacts will be to the New England economy...
You can see that the environment is certainly a crucial issue to me. I also do not and have never made these decisions or statements lightly. But this is currently my belief (as stated above and in the original post).
Last edited:
dieselcruiserhead
16 Years on ExPo. Whoa!!
I don't think that is an unfair comparison at all. We have more WSA and Wilderness Area in Utah than the landmass of the entire state of Connecticut.
I know both areas well, I have driven extensively throughout both areas. I grew up within 10-20 miles of Connecticut most of my life until I moved to the Adirondack Mountains as a teen. The idea is to point out the sheer volume of land we already have. Likewise, contrary to popular belief, much of Connecticut is quite rural and the state still takes hours in most cases to cross depending on your route. I have friends who operate a farm there, my brother went to college there, and I nearly went to high school there.
When I consider that we have more than the entire size of Connecticut as Wilderness or WSA to me this is simply astounding. And for that reason, I think it is a perfectly suitable comparison.
I know both areas well, I have driven extensively throughout both areas. I grew up within 10-20 miles of Connecticut most of my life until I moved to the Adirondack Mountains as a teen. The idea is to point out the sheer volume of land we already have. Likewise, contrary to popular belief, much of Connecticut is quite rural and the state still takes hours in most cases to cross depending on your route. I have friends who operate a farm there, my brother went to college there, and I nearly went to high school there.
When I consider that we have more than the entire size of Connecticut as Wilderness or WSA to me this is simply astounding. And for that reason, I think it is a perfectly suitable comparison.
sami
Explorer
Why do you bring population into this? The comparison is absolutely about landmass, and nothing else.. Acerage. Space. Land. Not the poulation size.
It's putting a 'tangable' size to the amount of current wilderness, and WSA found in Utah. The ARRWB wants to see 9.5mil acres of wilderness.. Well, in relation to what one might ask. I suppose 9.5mil acres isn't too much to ask.. Right? Utah isn't Alaska. AK is huge. So, to compare the size of another state vs the size of current, or even proposed wilderness makes perfect sense. It's as easy as pulling out a map, and comparing the size of the two states.
Population, historical facts, etc have nothing to do with compairing amount of land to amount of land.
Simple as that.
sami
Explorer
So i'm coming up with approx 3,547,520 acres found between Connecticut's borders (5,543sq miles according to wiki). With just under 4 million acres in Utah set aside as designated wilderness, the size of Connecticut does give a good hands on example of what is current, and what is proposed under the ARRWB (9.5mil).
Utah: 84,889sq MILES; 54,328,960 acres.
Approx #'s
54mil acres / 9mil acres of wilderness = 6% of the state
Approx current wilderness in Utah:
Approx proposed wilderness in Utah under ARRWB (approx 6% of the state of Utah):
Utah: 84,889sq MILES; 54,328,960 acres.
Approx #'s
54mil acres / 9mil acres of wilderness = 6% of the state
Approx current wilderness in Utah:
Approx proposed wilderness in Utah under ARRWB (approx 6% of the state of Utah):
Last edited:
DurangoSteve
Adventurer
Guess I'm late with my map. Oh well. I fit 11 CT in UT, but my calculator tells me I could have fit 15+ if I had been more diligent.
Connecticut:
• 5,543 sq. miles
• 2005 population 3,510,297
• 29th most populous state
• 4th most densely populated state
• 48th in size by area
Utah:
• 84,889 sq. miles
• 2008 population: 2,736,424 (80% of whom live in the Wasatch Front, an area smaller that CT)
• 34th most populous state
• 41st most densely populated state
• 13th in size by area
Connecticut:
• 5,543 sq. miles
• 2005 population 3,510,297
• 29th most populous state
• 4th most densely populated state
• 48th in size by area
Utah:
• 84,889 sq. miles
• 2008 population: 2,736,424 (80% of whom live in the Wasatch Front, an area smaller that CT)
• 34th most populous state
• 41st most densely populated state
• 13th in size by area
Attachments
teotwaki
Excelsior!
Opinions sound good and are easy to make claims with because no facts are offered with them. Facts are a lot more work to dig up from the maze of Federal websites. When you have a particular WSA comprising multiple tens of thousands of acres and only a few miles of road it is laughable to say it is truly "driveable".
We should probably start with what the BLM thinks about OHV use in a WSA:
BLM, Utah
San Rafael Proposed Off-Highway Vehicle Travel Plan - 1998
"In order to protect wilderness values, as mandated by FLMPA, Section 203, travel by mechanized or motorized vehicles would generally not be allowed within the boundaries of Wilderness Study Areas...."
For example, straight from the BLM Moab Office http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/moab/blm_special_areas/wilderness_study_areas.html
Some activities, such as vehicle or mountain bike use off legal routes (routes identified as existing travel routes by the BLM in the original inventory), woodcutting, or issuing new mineral leases, are no longer allowed
and...
Vehicles (including dirt bikes and ATV’s) and mountain bikes may only travel on routes which were documented at the time of the 1980 wilderness inventory. (See the descriptions of individual WSAs for more information).
In some areas of the Moab Field Office, the presence of fragile soils, crucial wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, primitive recreation opportunity, or high scenic quality have led to complete off-highway-vehicle (OHV) closures. Please respect these closures.
Maps
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/media...ounds.Par.39815.File.dat/ohv-designations.pdf
For example:
Behind the Rocks WSA NO VEHICLES
Desolation Canyon WSA NO VEHICLES
San Rafael Reef WSA NO VEHICLES
Muddy Creek WSA NO VEHICLES
Sids Mountain/Sids Cabin WSA NO VEHICLES
Mexican Mountain WSA NO VEHICLES
Horseshoe Canyon (North) WSA NO VEHICLES
Crack Canyon WSA, 25,335 acres and it has only 3 approved OHV routes TOTALLING a puny 2.25 miles
Deep Creek Mountains WSA 68,910 acres and it has 14 routes TOTALLING only 16 miles
Some other WSAs have very minimal and vague wording "...the WSA has exceptional opportunities for hunting, geological study, backpacking..."
maps of "approved" routes based on the 1980 survey
http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/moab/recreation/motorized_routes/copy.html
You also have to troll through the Federal Register for clues as well as other web sites such as USDA's Forestry sites. Examples:
The Dixie National Forest will be implementing the Motorized Travel Plan decision over the next several years. Users on the Forest can expect to see many changes on the ground as previously available routes are closed and signs are improved to designate routes in the system. Cross country travel (or travel off of this designated system) is no longer allowed on the Forest.
The Fishlake National Forest has completed a route designation process as shown on the official Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) dated August 2007. Motorized travel is restricted to designated routes and two small play areas only. The official map is composed of six individual maps based on district boundaries.
All routes and areas on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest are closed to motorized use unless designated open in the Motor Vehicle Use Map or posted on the ground.
All and all, vehicular access to public lands is being reduced every day and that is a fact.
teotwaki
Excelsior!
So i'm coming up with approx 3,547,520 acres found between Connecticut's borders (5,543sq miles according to wiki). With just under 4 million acres in Utah set aside as designated wilderness, the size of Connecticut does give a good hands on example of what is current, and what is proposed under the ARRWB (9.5mil).
Utah: 84,889sq acres; 54,328,960 acres.
Approx #'s
54mil acres / 9mil acres of wilderness = 6% of the state
Approx current wilderness in Utah:
Approx proposed wilderness in Utah under ARRWB (approx 6% of the state of Utah):
I'm not sure where those acreages came from and there may be a few typos
Utah has an area of 84,904 square miles which converts to 54,338,559 acres of land
Look at the numbers in my post #50 for more realistic percentages of the amount of federally controlled land
http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34034&page=5
Keep in mind that more and more of it is targeted for conversion to wilderness via the WSA process.
sami
Explorer
I do have a typo, I meant Sq miles rather than sq acres.. All the numbers came from wikipedia. I also made sure to include 'approx', as any site you find i'm sure will have small differences in the sq miles/acres.. It all depends who/when gathered the info, and who copied form who.
teotwaki
Excelsior!
A more complete map would show X number of little Connecticut outlines for all Federally controlled land which is 63% of Utah, or maybe 10 of the Connecticut outlines and you could color them for Wilderness, WSA, roadless and so on.
Good idea though...
DurangoSteve
Adventurer
Since we have a map thang going, here's one I found interesting.
paulj
Expedition Leader
Here's an interactive map of Wilderness Areas
http://www.wilderness.net/mapFull.cfm
Compared to its neighbors, Utah is remarkably devoid of Wilderness. Admittedly this does not include WSAs. Most of Utah's Wilderness is in the NE mountains. The largest appears to be the High Unitas Wilderness, at 456,000 acres http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=246 Most Utah Wilderness was created in 1984.
The only significant BLM Wilderness area is SW of Salt Lake, Cedar Mtn (100,000 acres), created in 2006.
http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=680
Washington is about 10% Wilderness, and 22% National Forest. Allowing for Wilderness in the National Parks, I'm guessing that 30-40% of the Washington NF is designated Wilderness.
The high % of BLM land in Utah and Nevada reflects the area that is too dry for either agriculture or forest. Ranchers are happy to lease grazing rights without having to own the land.
http://www.wilderness.net/mapFull.cfm
Compared to its neighbors, Utah is remarkably devoid of Wilderness. Admittedly this does not include WSAs. Most of Utah's Wilderness is in the NE mountains. The largest appears to be the High Unitas Wilderness, at 456,000 acres http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=246 Most Utah Wilderness was created in 1984.
The only significant BLM Wilderness area is SW of Salt Lake, Cedar Mtn (100,000 acres), created in 2006.
http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=680
Washington is about 10% Wilderness, and 22% National Forest. Allowing for Wilderness in the National Parks, I'm guessing that 30-40% of the Washington NF is designated Wilderness.
The high % of BLM land in Utah and Nevada reflects the area that is too dry for either agriculture or forest. Ranchers are happy to lease grazing rights without having to own the land.
Last edited:
ttora4runner
Expedition Leader
Okay, my head is spinning after reading this thread.