Wilderness Acreage in Utah

[teotwaki]

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 only significant BLM Wilderness area is SW of Salt Lake.

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.

Thanks for the handy link. Too bad it cannot be modified to show the WSAs and SR Swell Proposal to dramitically increase the displayed holdings from the current 1.5 million acres of Wilderness. Then you could overlay all of the other Federal lands to show that Nevada state land is only 37% of the total acreage within the state's borders.

If you wanted to fairly compare Utah to it's neighbors you need to perform the study based on acreage rather than a simple quantity of wilderness areas.

For instance, I just discovered a 30K acre wilderness area in California called Grass Valley that you cannot use for comparison purposes unless you consider the acreage. The High Unitas Wilderness in Utah is over 456K acres.

http://www.panoramio.com/map/#lt=35.2919121&ln=-117.3269952&z=4&k=2&a=1&tab=1

PS: there is no grass in Grass Valley :snorkel:

 

[paulj]

This map view of Cedar Mtn Wilderness (just south of I80) has 5 'cherry stemmed' blocks, most likely school trust land

http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm...2.95318603515625&zoom=11&maptype=G_HYBRID_MAP

 

[paulj]

If you wanted to fairly compare Utah to it's neighbors you need to perform the study based on acreage rather than a simple quantity of wilderness areas.

On Wilderness.net, most the summary data can be viewed in terms of acreage or in terms of the number of units. I have focused on the acreage, since as you note, areas vary substantially in acreage.

But looking at the number of units, I find that Utah as 31, about 4% of the national total. Washington also has 31, but these are, on the average larger.

Just east of SLC, there are 4 Wilderness Areas with areas of 30,000, 15,000, 11,000, and 10,000 acres.

BLM units are, on average, smaller than NF and NP units. Newer units are also smaller. The greatest designated area was in 1980, the greatest number of units was in 1984. The March 2009 legislation designated 2 m acres in 54 units, for an average area of 37,000/ unit.

 

[paulj]

I have found information on Utah WSAs at
http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/utah_wilderness/wilderness_inventory.html

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/media...evision.Par.98860.File.dat/MoabFORevision.pdf
is the pdf document for the Moab area. Maps for individual areas start at page 22. There are also responses to public comments on the boundaries.

It would be interesting to see maps that compare the existing WSAs with areas proposed by the RedRock bill.

I see from the BLM maps that there are already a number of school trust blocks that are completely surrounded by WSA. Evidently the state is not chomping at the bit, wanting to exploit those blocks.

http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas.html

Within Utah, components of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) involve approximately 4,204,700 million acres, which is approximately 18 percent of all BLM-managed public lands in Utah.

These are mainly WSA and the Grand Staircase Escalante Monument.

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

Thanks for including that. I also wanted to include the national and state parks which are park service and the state itself. I'm not sure if they count but they have the same restrictions and/or even stricter as well. According to the link you just posted we are at 4.2m not including the parks.
http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas.html

thanks,
Andre

 

[DurangoSteve]

There was a pretty heated discussion in the "MountainBuzz" forum on the proposed expansion of wilderness in W. Central Colorado. The motorheads and the self-propelled folks engaged in some pretty bitter back and forth. Fortunately, that hasn't happened here. Of course, this is a motorhead forum!

As a wilderness advocate, I found this post to be particularly good.

Wilderness is not about our recreation. In fact, it is about trying to leave something relatively untouched by human. The larger the wilderness the more likely there will be pockets of it that are seldom if ever seen by humans. As hard as it may be to comprehend, there are things in this world that are more important than our horses, our mountain bikes, our atv, our dirt bike and yes even our bull dozer. We as the "higher species" our entrusted with being stewards of the land. It is our job to protect the unprotected. It was our predecessors that nearly wiped out wolves, grizzlies, and bison. They also drove the elk from the plains to hiding out in the mountains, as well nearly destroyed, more than is conscioubaly, countless enviromental homes for many other species. Do we want to be the generation who followed in the foot steps of the earlier 19th century jack asses that thought nothing about the impact they had when they slaughtered, butchered and harvested whatever they wanted and could care less what they left us?

Therefore, we must set aside land not for the priority of our enjoyment. Rather, the enjoyment and survival of the rest of our natural world. Is nothing to be untouched by humans? Has anyone ever been to Europe? We certainly do not want to live in a place where no stone has not been touched at some point by a human.

There is more to being here in Colorado, the US, and in our entire world than simply wanting or feeling we have the right do whatever we want regardless of the effects of our actions. We have to step back and see what is right for our environment not just our enjoyment. There are bigger things out there than our immediate self-gratification.

Not saying all of the mentioned activities don't have a place. They do! However, the more wilderness we have and the more we protect, the more we will have a truly wild place. And most importantly we will then always have a beautiful place to escape when we need a break from the world of concrete and glass.

Isn't that what WILDerness is? A place that is wild?

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

I largely agree with this and this was one of the reasons that I was "more" of a wilderness advocate in my past. But the truth, when you actually go there, is that this is rhetoric. And I've spent most of my life believing it, again, before I lived here and even in the first years I was in Utah as I constantly tested/evaluated it to reach the conclusion I have. There is so much land, so much of it is so tough to ever do anything with, that it makes it pretty inhospitable to ever "ruin." The realistic threats to create what you are talking about are:

- new roads / trails
- mining
- drilling
- possibly some minimal effects from open grazing

The rest are pretty unrealistic because as mentioned most of it is already BLM land. There is no chance for 'concrete and glass' unless the government builds it themselves, which is also unlikely because there is no purpose.

What I've realized is we already have a staggered protection system and even just BLM land itself it already a reasonable protection level (that provides the lack of any building/development specifically). And this is why I mentioned what I did in my first post.

I believe there should be a new level of protection level (or it if exists, give it a name, market it as a solution) and implement this in perhaps areas that surround existing wilderness areas as required, and in other areas that warrant protection but not at the full wilderness level, and use this for the majority of awesome Utah lands. For all I know it may already be a designation that we don't know about that has the characteristics I'm suggested, other than a certified low impact drilling requirement. Both mining and drilling claims need to be approved by BLM currently so it is not as if corporations can come in and start drilling wherever they want. Even with the threats prior to the Obama administration little real changes actually occurred.

The idea is that if we have another situation where BLM restrictions are watered down as much as possible in the name of drilling and possibly mining, then we have laws in place about certified low impact drilling, the same set of BLM approved parcels of land via auction for drilling and mining location, and other than that the relatively low impact jeep roads and single track would be fair to have. Therefore these lands are fairly protected and nothing can compromise their beauty. There are is plenty of land in Utah that no one has ever touched. There are dozens, probably hundreds of mesas that no human has have stood on the top of simply because its next to impossibly to get to the top of, and because there is no purpose. The Lionsback trail in Moab and other examples remind me in just a few short years traces of humans disappear quickly.

So again this is why I believe a reasonable compromise can be and should be found/reached and considers most people's approaches. Leave the existing wilderness and WSAs (as deemed approved for wilderness characteristics), leave the existing state and national parks and monuments (I would like to see much of Grand Staircase Escalante go away in terms of roads and mechanized trails, but such is life), and create or market this new level of BLM land restriction that offers increased levels of protection but allows for access. Then leave the rest of the BLM the way it appears to be which is basically the lowest level of BLM protection.

I don't think this is too unreasonable?

 

[paulj]

The 4.2 m special BLM lands includes Grand Staircase land. Some of that is WSA, and a wilderness in the highest part. How is access in the rest of the Monument? Too easy, too restrictive? I've driven through on hwy 12, and hiked a bit at Calf Creek, but not driven off the highway.

Historically Monuments have been used as a stepping stone to National Park status, since they can be established by presidential proclamation, as opposed to the slow moving congressional action. Capitol Reef was a monument when I first passed through it with my family at the end of highschool. Now it appears that Monument status is being used increasingly as an intermediate designation between open-use federal land and Wilderness.

Canyons of the Ancients in SW Colorado is a monument which, I believe, was established primarily to aid in protecting cultural artifacts. There's one monument on the Oregon-California border that is aimed at biological presevation. There are also federal lands admistered by the Fish and Wildlife Service, some of which also have Wilderness status.

 

[teotwaki]

Okay, my head is spinning after reading this thread.

Yeah, it makes my brain hurt too. Everyone is throwing out good stuff here. You may not agree with someone but if you learn something new and care more about the topic then the discussion has succeded in raising awareness.

 

[sami]

There is good info in this thread

 

[Ursidae69]

Yeah, it makes my brain hurt too. Everyone is throwing out good stuff here. You may not agree with someone but if you learn something new and care more about the topic then the discussion has succeded in raising awareness.

I don't always agree with you toetwaki, but this post I certainly agree with. I often learn new things when the topic is discussed is civil way as I have in this thread.

I also want to publicly thank paulj for the countless posts he makes with informative links and statistics. Thanks.

 

[DurangoSteve]

Historically Monuments have been used as a stepping stone to National Park status, since they can be established by presidential proclamation, as opposed to the slow moving congressional action. Capitol Reef was a monument when I first passed through it with my family at the end of highschool. Now it appears that Monument status is being used increasingly as an intermediate designation between open-use federal land and Wilderness.

Canyons of the Ancients in SW Colorado is a monument which, I believe, was established primarily to aid in protecting cultural artifacts. There's one monument on the Oregon-California border that is aimed at biological presevation. There are also federal lands admistered by the Fish and Wildlife Service, some of which also have Wilderness status.

True story. Both Black Canyon Ntl Park and Great Sand Dunes Ntl Park were originally ntl moneymints. Canyons of the Ancients, on the other hand will never make it to ntl park status. While incredibly rich in Anasazi sites, it doesn't have the dramatic scenic values typically associated with ntl parks.

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

The 4.2 m special BLM lands includes Grand Staircase land.

How is access in the rest of the Monument? Too easy, too restrictive?

I'm definitely not the expert but I've driven through and camped a couple times there. I think the road system is pretty excellent to generally move throughout Grand Staircase between the Burr Trail and Hole in the Rock Road down to Lake Powell (which continues on the other side of the lake and can be an awesome multi-day overland route that heads east). There are only few deviations off the main roads though, trails are open to foot traffic only, and you can only drive on existing established roads on the map. Supposedly before 1996 it was an excellent area for 4WD traffic and I remember from discussion from some of my Land Cruiser club members (Wasatch Cruisers) that they were considerably upset when it was established. That said yes it is a gorgeous area. I don't have an easy answer on whether Grand Staircase deserves the status or not...

 

[sami]

I got an email from my congressman today. I wanted to post some of his comments, as I feel they add to this topic.

...Utah has precious land that should be protected, but the Red Rock legislation as it is designed does not reflect the collective views of the many interested stakeholders in Utah, and will not effectively accomplish the goal of designating appropriate land as wilderness.

The debate about establishing wilderness areas in Utah has always been contentious. There are many stakeholders with different perspectives of Utah public lands issues. If we want to make progress, a collaborative process that engages all stakeholders must occur. Recently, the Washington County Growth and Conservation Act was established. It designated 256,000 acres of wilderness, the first ever Wild and Scenic River in Utah, and authorized the removal of a dam site within an environmentally- sensitive habitat. It was not just a wilderness bill, and it was a bipartisan effort that eventually led to great progress on this most contentious public lands issue.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) also has significant concerns with H.R. 1925. In his testimony, BLM director Richard V. Abbey expressed similar concerns about the bill not having been a product of various stakeholders. In addition, the BLM testimony advocated for a process like the Washington County approach. [With many parties involved]

Wilderness cannot be the work of only one group of stakeholders, no matter how extensive or sincere. That is a major reason HR 1925 does not reflect the collective views of the many interested stakeholders in Utah.

 

[teotwaki]

please pardon the bandwidth this requires..... :ylsmoke:

Statement of Robert V. Abbey
Director Bureau of Land Management
Department of the Interior
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
H.R. 1925, America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act
October 1, 2009​

Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on H.R. 1925, America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act. The Department strongly supports the constructive resolution of public lands and wilderness designation issues in Utah and across the western United States. The passage by Congress and signing by the President of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act (Public Law 111-11) earlier this year constituted a very positive sign that we are moving these issues forward. While BLM has not had an opportunity to review many of the proposed designations, we would welcome the opportunity to work cooperatively with the sponsors of the legislation, the Committee and the members of the Utah delegation to resolve wilderness issues in Utah. We suggest an approach that is more geographically focused. The Washington County Act’s wilderness provisions in Public Law 111-11 may provide a good example.

America’s wilderness system includes many of the Nation’s most treasured landscapes, and ensures that these untrammeled lands and resources will be passed down from one generation of Americans to the next. Through our wilderness decisions, we demonstrate a sense of stewardship and conservation that is uniquely American and is sensibly balanced with the other decisions we make that affect public lands.

Background

Substantial work on this proposal has been undertaken in Utah by citizen volunteers who care deeply about the land and its protection. The history of wilderness proposals in Utah is a contentious one. Resolution and certainty will serve all parties — including the conservation community, extractive industries, OHV enthusiasts, local communities, State government, and Federal land managers. An important milestone in this effort was reached with the inclusion of the wilderness designations within the Washington County Act as part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which was enacted earlier this year. We hope that this collaborative model can be extended to the rest of Utah.

H.R. 1925

H.R. 1925 proposes to designate 218 units of BLM-managed lands, comprising 9.4 million acres, into the National Wilderness Preservation System. These designations span the State of Utah, from the Great Basin region of western Utah, to the Canyonlands in the southeast; from the Uinta Basin and Book Cliffs in the northeastern corner of the State, to the Mojave Desert in southwestern Utah. Many of these lands are extraordinary, with unmatched wild land resources. The legislation breaks these designations into ten distinct areas:

Great Basin wilderness areas (44 areas)
Zion and Mojave Desert wilderness areas (14 areas)
Grand Staircase-Escalante wilderness areas (52 areas)
Moab-La Sal Canyons wilderness areas (15 areas)
Henry Mountains wilderness areas (11 areas)
Glen Canyon wilderness areas (9 areas)
San Juan-Anasazi wilderness areas (12 areas)
Canyonlands Basin wilderness areas (14 areas)
San Rafael Swell wilderness areas (21 areas)
Book Cliffs and Uinta Basin wilderness areas (26 areas)

The BLM reviewed some of the areas proposed for designation under H.R. 1925 through its recently-completed resource management plans. However, given the scope of the bill, the BLM has not undertaken a detailed analysis of each proposed designation in the context of designated wilderness. Should the Committee wish to move forward with the legislation, the BLM would carefully review each of the 218 areas to assess wilderness quality, boundary manageability, and conflicts with current uses, including motorized recreation and energy resource development. In addition, detailed mapping is necessary. Undertaking such a review and creating maps of these areas is both critically important to moving forward and a monumental task.
Below are a few examples of areas that an initial review, based on available information, indicates may deserve protection.

Desolation Canyon in eastern Utah, proposed for designation under section 110(b)(6) of H.R. 1925, is an extraordinary treasure, and is deeper in places than Arizona’s Grand Canyon. This adventure destination draws visitors to study, explore, float, and hike through spectacular landscapes. Red rock canyons, white sand beaches, and cottonwood groves define this exceptionally picturesque area that supports a vibrant river outfitting community. The remoteness and simplicity of the area enhance its appeal.
Section 109 designates a number of wilderness areas throughout the San Rafael Swell. The unique character of the San Rafael Swell area began to form 50 million years ago when a massive uplift formed a geologic structure called an anticline. This bulge in the earth’s crust was later eroded to leave high mesas, deep canyons, domes, and spectacular arches and spires. The terrain varies from sheer cliffs and dazzling canyons to more gently eroded badlands broken by shallow washes. San Rafael Reef extends through the southeast side of the area with dramatic sheer-walled cliffs, pinnacles, knobs, twisted canyons and valleys of stunning colors. It is a geological classroom of amazing proportions.

On the western edge of Utah, the Deep Creek Mountains, addressed in section 101(b)(10) of the proposed legislation, are a mountain oasis isolated within the Great Salt Lake Desert. Rising dramatically from the desert, granite canyons lead upward to snow-capped peaks. The vertical extremes have created rare ecological niches with exceptional biological diversity. In addition, numerous archaeological sites from a wide span of history are prevalent in the area.

Southeastern Utah’s Grand Gulch, addressed in section 107(b)(6) of the proposed legislation, is another remarkable area. One of Utah’s most popular wild land hiking areas, the Grand Gulch is home to rock art, ancient cliff dwellings, and other ceremonial structures that are located throughout the cliff-face area. More than 1,000 years ago the ancestors of modern Puebloan people inhabited much of the Grand Gulch, and today the preserved cultural resources are protected in this remote, primitive setting.

We also know that some of the areas proposed for designation present serious challenges because of existing and conflicting uses. For example, recreational use has exploded on public lands throughout the West, including in southern and eastern Utah. While many recreational activities, such as hunting and hiking, are compatible with BLM wilderness designation, others, such as mountain biking and OHV use, are not.

One use that conflicts with wilderness is mountain biking; an increasingly popular outdoor activity on BLM lands. In the Moab area, for example, both BLM’s Bar M Mountain Bike Focus Area and parts of the Klondike Bluffs Mountain Bike Focus Area are within the Arches Adjacent area proposed in section 104(b)(1) of the legislation. Both of these areas, specifically designated by the BLM for mountain biking, receive substantial use -as many as 20,000 bikers annually on a single bike trail - which would be inconsistent with wilderness designation.

OHV use, either in designated motorized use areas or on designated road networks, also presents serious conflicts in a number of wilderness areas proposed in H.R.1925, including Goldbar Canyon (section 104 (b)(8)) and Duma Point (section 108 (b)(5)). About 70 percent of the proposed Goldbar area is within BLM's Gemini Bridges/Poison Spider Mesa Backcountry Motorized Touring Focus Area; as many as 800 vehicles per day access this area. Similarly, we estimate that over 21,000 OHVs use the Duma area annually.

Some existing or proposed energy development activities may pose inherent conflicts with some of the designations in the bill. In the Uinta Basin in eastern Utah, oil and gas development has increased dramatically over recent years. Some of the proposed wilderness areas include existing leases, some of which are currently producing, and others that we expect will produce in the future. Areas with these conflicts include Winter Ridge (section 110(b)(25)), Lower Bitter Creek (section 110(b)(13)), and Cane Spring Desert (section 106(b)(1)). In some cases the production areas could be carved out of the boundary of the proposed wilderness, but in others it may make designation impractical.

In addition, the recently-designated Westwide Energy Corridors may overlap portions of a number of the areas proposed for designation. In the case of the Upper Kanab Creek (section 103(a)(2)(N)), a 3½ mile segment of the corridor bisects the wilderness area proposed in the bill.

Utah’s west desert has potential for solar, wind, and geothermal development that the BLM would like to further review as well, and we hope that the Committee will consider this potential. For example, locations within the Antelope Range (section 101(b)(1)) and San Francisco Mountains (section 101(b)(34)) are currently under consideration for wind energy development. High-potential geothermal sites intersect the Crater Bench (section 101(b)(7)), Cricket Mountain (section 101(b)(9)), Drum Mountains (section 101(b)(11)), Sand Ridge (section 101(b)(35)) and Granite Peak (section 101(b)(15)) areas.

Finally, section 102(b) of the bill provides for wilderness designations in the Zion and Mojave Deserts of southwestern Utah. We note that Title II, subtitle O of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, Public Law 111-11, designated nearly 130,000 acres of BLM wilderness in this same area and many of the proposed designations in this subsection appear to overlap with the provisions of that law.

Conclusion

The beauty and power of Utah’s red rock canyons, mountains, deserts and plateaus defy easy description. These extraordinary natural features include an expansive range of ecosystems. We support moving the discussion on designating wilderness in Utah forward. Our hope is that this hearing will be the impetus for the hard work that needs to be undertaken in order to make thoughtful decisions about these important lands. The Department of the Interior looks forward to working cooperatively with local and national constituencies, this subcommittee, the sponsor of the bill, and the Utah Congressional delegation toward that end.