Wilderness Acreage in Utah

[paulj]

I wasn't aware of the 5000 acre limit. The way it is put in a BLM document that I downloaded (H-8550-1) is:
"(3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition;"

Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of Septemeber 3, 1964

A 1976 act, mandates BLM 'shall review those roadless areas of 5000 acres or more and roadless islands of the public lands'. In practice the BLM 'used its general management authority' to also look at
(1) areas smaller than 5000 acres that were not islands.

The same document outlines how they treat 'Right-of-Way Corridors', access, widthdrawals, mining claims, etc. in the study areas.

Looks like the key legislation regarding BLM WSAs is the FLPMA, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

 

[teotwaki]

I think you guys are missing the point here and the exact purpose of this thread. This thread is about compromise. I don't think anyone here is overly anti-wilderness including myself. The cherry stem was an example. A wilderness area is supposedly a 5000 acre or larger chunk of land undisturbed by man. Yet a 30 foot wide corridor that is somehow "not wilderness" that goes right through the middle of it, where a road might have existed for 100 years, seems like a contradiction. I understand why its applied and I can understand cherry stemming in terms of real world applications and practicality and am likely to agree with it as well. But again, it is a contradiction...

Finally, though it's making for some good conversation I don't think that either of you will ultimately change your mind based on what we're writing so why don't we just drop it. One thing I would like to add is after you come up a few more times and for example spend some time in the swell lets talk some more. Not about problems with existing wilderness or WSA, but the idea of adding 3-4 times more.

thanks,
Andre

Cherry stemmed roads and WSAs are all part of slowly boilng the proverbial (OHV) frog in the pot. Start with a "Study Area" and wipe out almost all road access. This will leave most wilderness access available only to those who casually brag of " hiked in 7 miles hucking 40 lbs of survey gear + overnight gear", but not those who are older or with disabilities. Next they generously leave a few contradictory cherry stems in place to assuage the folk who cannot get too far without their vehicles. Ply them with statements such as "...is much better than not having them at all..." . We all know that the cherry stemmed roads are easily removed due to more studies, closures for migrations, nesting, egg laying, riparian restoration and so on as vehicular access is distasteful to hard core wilderness proponents who now label all mechanical recreation vehicles as "Thrillcraft".

http://www.stopthrillcraft.org

"A similar movement to ban thrillcraft on all public lands and waters is just as legitimate and reasonable a goal (ed. as a smoking ban). Thrillcraft owners should exercise their rights on their own or other private land. And like the national campaign to end smoking, we believe there are equally legitimate reasons why state and federal governments should work to end thrillcraft use on American public lands."

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

I don't see the problem with adding 10x more in my state or yours.

And that is where we differ. Again if we already have 1 Connecticut in Utah that is wilderness then this would be 10 Connecticuts, or one New York State in Utah. I'm sure people know how long it takes to get north-south or east-east in New York state. Hours and hours.

I'll let you know the next time I have the privilege of visiting the great state of Utah. Perhaps you can join us on an adventure and we can continue the conversation.

Yes, it would be my pleasure as well and I'd enjoy it. I have a feeling we'd see eye to eye on a lot of things...

thanks, Andre

 

[paulj]

.... We all know that the cherry stemmed roads are easily removed due to more studies, closures for migrations, nesting, egg laying, riparian restoration and so on...

Road closures to protect flora and fauna occur in non-wilderness areas as well. Some are seasonal, protecting them during vulnerable periods.
- There's a paved parkway in Banff NP, parallel to the main highway, that is closed seasonally to protect wildlife. Hwy 40 over Highwood Pass (south of Canmore,AB) is also closed for an extended winter period.
- various trailhead roads off of the Mtn Loop Hwy in WA are closed by the FS to protect wildlife during breading periods
- BLM and FS were locking side roads in SW Oregon to reduce the spread of tree fungus during wet periods (Port Orford Cedar).

In addition there are closures due to active logging, to reduce vandalism, to protect against falling snags after forest fires, to reduce erosion and landslides, and even to reduce maintenance costs ('decommisioning').

 

[teotwaki]

Road closures to protect flora and fauna occur in non-wilderness areas as well. Some are seasonal, protecting them during vulnerable periods.
- There's a paved parkway in Banff NP, parallel to the main highway, that is closed seasonally to protect wildlife. Hwy 40 over Highwood Pass (south of Canmore,AB) is also closed for an extended winter period.
- various trailhead roads off of the Mtn Loop Hwy in WA are closed by the FS to protect wildlife during breading periods
- BLM and FS were locking side roads in SW Oregon to reduce the spread of tree fungus during wet periods (Port Orford Cedar).

In addition there are closures due to active logging, to reduce vandalism, to protect against falling snags after forest fires, to reduce erosion and landslides, and even to reduce maintenance costs ('decommisioning').

Yeah, and the misguided congress critters then take more of our money to obliterate existing roads as Senator Boxer once proposed in an old (2002) S1555 convoluted bit of legalese that effectively said:

These "potential" Wilderness Areas have features that
disqualify them as Wilderness, so S1555 asks for an appropriation of
$5M a year for 5 years to "restore" them ($25M for restoration of
16,566 acres!) by removing roads, skid trails, etc. after which S1555
mandates the areas become designated Wilderness.

Pretty slick. Cherry stem an area and then take more taxpayer money to obliterate the roads.

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

I spoke to a friend this morning who works at SUWA. He says the 9 million acres includes making the 3 million of WSA into wilderness -- it really is interesting as it takes Congress to make it Wilderness and in a lot of regards because it's WSA we actually have a staggering lack of amount of Wilderness here highlighting that maybe these guys are more of failures.. I pressed him pretty hard on why don't they just get this stuff in for now and work on the massive grab later or in increments. He seems to think they are in a pretty good situation to get it through for whatever reason.

Anyway, I thought I would let you all know...

 

[teotwaki]

I spoke to a friend this morning who works at SUWA. He says the 9 million acres includes making the 3 million of WSA into wilderness -- it really is interesting as it takes Congress to make it Wilderness and in a lot of regards because it's WSA we actually have a staggering lack of amount of Wilderness here highlighting that maybe these guys are more of failures.. I pressed him pretty hard on why don't they just get this stuff in for now and work on the massive grab later or in increments. He seems to think they are in a pretty good situation to get it through for whatever reason.

Anyway, I thought I would let you all know...

Thanks for the update. I wondered about the 9 million number but could not easily find if WSAs were included unless I wanted to spend hours of digging (since I hardly know where to look).

 

[maXTERRA]

"We need to protect public land for the people, not from the people"

Got this from the AMA:

On November 10, U.S. Representative Maurice Hinchey of New York, along with 88 other colleagues, sent a letter
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny22_hinchey/morenews/111009SalazarLetter.html
to the U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar asking that he circumvent normal legislative procedures and administratively close more than 9 million public land acres in Utah. Effectively designating Wilderness areas without public debate or congressional approval only further erodes the public's confidence in their government. Hinchey is attempting to thwart the legislative process by having the public lands described in his bill, H.R. 1925, America's Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2009, administratively protected by the Secretary.

This letter comes on the heels of an October 1 hearing of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources regarding the consideration of H.R. 1925 in which members of Utah's own Congressional delegation testified in opposition to the bill. In fact, not a single member of Utah's delegation supports this legislation. This legislation will ban off-highway vehicle (OHV) access to public lands to those who live and recreate in Utah. To see the Utah delegation and Ranking Member Doc Hastings speak out against H.R. 1925, click here. To read AMA's press release on the hearing,
http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/news/story.asp?id=1375
click here, and click here to read Hinchey's press release on H.R. 1925.
http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny22_hinchey/morenews/091709RedRocksHearing.html

H.R. 1925 would designate 9.4 million acres as federally protected Wilderness, and directly affect the Moab, San Rafael Swell and Chimney Rock areas, among others, in Utah. These popular OHV areas represent some of the most important remaining OHV recreation areas in the state. The proposed Wilderness designation would also make the land off limits to all-terrain vehicle (ATV) riders and mountain bikers.

The AMA needs your help now to stop H.R. 1925. The fastest way to reach your U.S. Representative is to call them. You can find contact information for your elected officials by entering your zip code on AmericanMotorcyclist.com > Rights > Issues & Legislation. Additionally, a prewritten e-mail is available for you to immediately send to your Representative by following the "Take Action" option and entering your information.

Please contact your Representative right away and urge them to oppose H.R. 1925. Encourage your friends and family to voice their opposition as well by using the "Tell a Friend" feature located below.

AmericanMotorcyclist.com
Rapid Response Center

I do not support further wilderness designation in utah, especially HR1925.
I remember all to well the government "GRAB" of the Grand Staircase Escalante area in a similar fashion where there was no debate or process. Just a presidential decree with no due process!

I feel we have PLENTY of wilderness already with the fore-mentioned wilderness and existing national parks and I don't want further closures. Seems every time I'm out, I see further closures or hear of them.

That's my opinion and flame away if you must, But I believe in keeping public land public. Not just accessible for a very small and select group of enthusiasts!

 

[paulj]

Quoting from the Hinchey letter, with my emphasis

As we work in Congress on determining how to protect the wild public lands identified in H.R. 1925, we request that you utilize the considerable authorities granted to you under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and other statutes to administratively protect the wilderness characteristics of the lands contained in the Red Rock legislation until Congress acts to protect them statutorily.

It's been argued that Wilderness designation locks up the area 'for ever'. But it can equally be argued that bulldozing a road destroys the wilderness character 'for ever'. Which forever is longer?

What's with this “Norton-Leavitt wilderness settlement”? Anyone care to defend it?

“Norton settlement agreement” with the State of Utah that bars the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from identifying and protecting BLM lands possessing wilderness characteristics as wilderness study areas,

Norton in this case is Gail Norton, the Interior Secretary during much of the previous administration. Her name came up the other day in a TV documentary on the water use along the Klamath River in Oregon and California. Under her direction a full allotment of irrigation water was released in 2002, followed by a massive fish die off that September. She now works for Shell Oil.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...It's been argued that Wilderness designation locks up the area 'for ever'. But it can equally be argued that bulldozing a road destroys the wilderness character 'for ever'. Which forever is longer?

Argue that a bulldozed road 'destroys the wilderness character forever'... it would be doing us all a favor as that is the crux of the debate for many of us. We don't want new roads into these areas, we want access preserved on the historic existing routes into these areas. With these designations routes will be closed, not acceptable nor environmentally responsible imo. Its my belief that areas with mines, roads, cabins, corrals, etc should not qualify as Wilderness, the BLM's inventories agree, the State of Utah agree and thusfar the will of the people through their elected officials agree. If the ARWA were to be tailored to eliminate closing routes and in fact cherry-stemming those routes as they have done in limited cases, I would be all for it. However as has been stated repeatedly including from the 'horses mouth' they are not willing to comprimise and thus a full blockage of the proposal is warrented and just imo. In the meantime smaller Wilderness Bills and WSA designations such as the Washington County and Cedar Mountain Wilderness will prevail through a cooperative effort of state and federal entities.

...What's with this “Norton-Leavitt wilderness settlement”? Anyone care to defend it?

I'll defend it, the BLM and the State of Utah saw the train wreck that is the ARWA. The BLM can't find 1/3 of the acres SUWA calls 'Wilderness', the State can't. This agreement put things back into the realms of acceptable case by case proposals and designations rather than boundary less sweeping designations that would be clarified and detailed after becoming law.

SUWA and cohorts don't want to compromise and I've really come to believe they worry less about the actual preservation and more about the idea of preservation. The selling factor of potential Wilderness is a much better fundraiser than actual Wilderness designations

The situation on the ground is telling enough. Despite factual massive increases in OHV use and outdoor recreation of all realms, the Wilderness continues to grow. So while they complain on one hand at the massive damage happening on the ground, they keep finding more eligible Wilderness in these same areas?

Do yourself a favor and go drive these routes into what could be Wilderness. With the exception of a grass-centered two track into the hills there is often zero trace of man, the exact solitude I see when choosing a place to hike, camp, bike, relax. Come to those areas in another 20 years and they will look the same and they will still be threatened by closure to protect them from ourselves

I'm still baffled by the hypocrisy. I wish I could discount my purported impact the way some seem to be able to. To be able to drive a dirt road in my Suburu with a 'Protect Wild Utah' sticker in the back window, that same sticker is sold to fund the exact group that wants to shut that same road to motorized access to purportedly stop the impact. To be so naive and arrogant about 'my impact' lol.

 

[craig333]

They're trying to do much the same thing in CA. Designate multiple Wilderness areas in one bill. Drives me nuts. How can I can I call my representative and discuss my issues and concerns with one area I'm familiar with when the bill covers so many areas, no one could familiarize themselves with all the areas. So I call up and state my opposition to the bill. My opposition is duly noted and tossed into the pile of "people opposed to Wilderness" which couldn't be farther from the truth.

My wishes for the environmentalists.

1) Bring up one area at a time so we can discuss the issues of each area on its own merit.

2) Post accurate maps. One area familiar to me has very good forest service maps yet the ones posted by the wilderness people have little detail leaving us to wonder just what boundaries they really want.

3) Be upfront about your intentions. Again I'll bring up an area familiar to me thats proposed for wilderness. A single Jeep trail runs through there. Just one. Is it grandfathered in or not? Can't tell from the maps and no one is willing to just say "we're leaving it in" or "we don't think its appropriate for the area and proposing to leave it out". Just say what it is.

4) Don't include area's that so obviously are not even close to having wilderness characteristics. Same area I'm talking about, probably 75-80% is good potential wilderness yet for some some reason they include a section that is heavily roaded (and yes, we could certainly discuss removing some, more than a few are redundant) and used for camping, hunting, fishing etc.

5) Bring the other interested parties into the discussion. Yes its a pita. But just trying to say "this is what we want" and trying to ram it down it just guaranteeing opposition. It may be that you can't or won't compromise but why not at least have some discussion first?

 

[maXTERRA]

Thanks Kurt.
Very well spoken and I'm in complete agreement with you.
Just the fact that an eastern politician who has spent little or no time on the the ground here is trying to dictate how our state lands should be managed irks me to the core.

 

[Wonderland]

What ever happened to doing what our mothers taught us? "Sharing"

But no, radical environmental groups don't like to share.

They need to read this book: Scenes in America Deserta, especially the chapter Man and Mojave.


http://www.amazon.com/Scenes-America-Deserta-Reyner-Banham/dp/0262521431

 

[paulj]

They're trying to do much the same thing in CA. Designate multiple Wilderness areas in one bill. ...

Earlier this year I looked at the Omnibus that was passed in March. It was a collection of bills that had been under consideration for some years. I looked at a few of those.

One dealt mostly with the Eastern Sierras. The sponsoring California Reps held town meetings in Mono and Inyo Counties. Based on those meetings, and no doubt comments received directly, the boundaries were adjusted in various ways. I noticed in particular that various streams were cherry-stemmed, because they were used as water sources by area ranchers. As far as I could tell, the maps had plenty of detail.

We discussed access to the Bristle Cone Pine forest in the White Mountains. People were saying 'got to visit that forest before all access is cut off'. However the legislation, and maps, made it quite clear that part with the (burned) visitor center was going to remain open to visitors (as a designated special forest, not wilderness), and the main road beyond the center was cherry stemmed, as were various mine claims.

In Oregon, the legislation turned some existing (and well defined) WSAs into Wilderness.

The Idaho bill left things a bit more open ended, delegating to BLM the task of specifying access roads, etc. I think the new Wilderness areas were all pre existing WSAs. Some WSAs were released. Clearly there was a lot of local input, since area ranchers and county supervisors wanted to clear up the status of the WSAs, have some say on the use of county land by nearby military base, and limits on ORV use (on both BLM and private lands).

At least with the March bill, the best sources of information were the web sites of the sponsoring Congressmen.

 

[Guinness44]

Bikes are MECHANIZED and not allowed in wilderness. Hooves will be banned too (later, as in other places has happened.) IF you dont feed the hooves the APPROVED feed, for days ahead.... which commands carefull changes.... they ARE BANNED NOW. So boots? Make tracks too. Fact is: on our landuse meeting the new people were wanting wilderness, we took them on a trailrun, and they had NO IDEA about the area. Its just cool to make a wilderness. It blows u away, when one of them people ride in your truck: "I have never been here." "Wow, I thought they would be trails ALL over, this is not BAD at all, I dont see a problem with them preexisting twotrack trails... bla bla". So them people from NY, stay in NY, and accept our way of living in our corners.