OCR Text |
Show THE CANYON COUNTRY WATCHDOG By Liz Thomas & Herb McHarg of the MORE WILDERNESS PROTECTION--CONTINUING SAGA You know from the Zephyr June-July issue that in 1976, BLM was given a mandate to identify and protect all potential wilderness areas under its jurisdiction until Congress had a chance to decide which of these areas should receive permanent wilderness designation. In Utah, the BLM fell spectacularly short of fulfilling this mandate. Out of 23 million acres managed by the BLM in Utah, BLM's inventory fell spectacularly short of identifying the lands that possessed wilderness characteristics — BLM claimed only 3.2 million acres qualified as wilderness. These lands were granted interim protection (designated as Wilderness Study Areas or WSAs) until Congress makes its final wilderness designations. BLM has completed a re-inventory of some of the lands it originally excluded from WSA status, and is now preparing an Environmental Impact Statement in order to assess the designation of an additional 2.6 million acres of lands as WSAs, through something dubbed the “202 process.” Q: Which 2.6 million acres are being considered? A: Areas identified by the BLM as having "wilderness characteristics" in their recent Utah Wilderness Reinventory . BLM’s reinventory looked only at areas that were in the old (1996) version of Utah Citizen’s Wilderness Proposal or areas where there were newly acquired federal lands. Roughly speaking, this is the difference between the Citizen’s Proposal and existing WSAs — areas that should have been designated as WSAs 20 years ago. BLM is not currently considering 3.3 million acres of new areas recently identified by the Utah Wilderness Coalition’ prehensive statewi i y. (The UWC will push to have these areas included in the future.) Q: Why is it called the "202 process”? A: "202" refers to section 202 of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA). This is the statute that gives BLM the authority to develop management plans and management plan revisions. Also relevant is section 603 of FLPMA, which directed the BLM to do the first round of wilderness inventories and WSAs. So there are two kinds of WSA: older "603 WSAs" established under section 603 of FLPMA, and newer "202 WSAs" established under section 202 of FLPMA. Q: What's the difference between a WSA and actual designated Wilderness? A: WSAs can be established administratively by the BLM. Designated Wilderness areas must be established via congressional legislation. The ostensible purpose of WSAs is to preserve the wilderness character of an area until Congress has a chance to pass a wilderness bill for that state. For this reason, WSAs are not managed exactly like designated wilderness. Instead, they are managed so as not to "impair" their wilderness character. For example, motorized vehicles are allowed to drive inside of WSAs, so long as they stay on jeep trails that existed when the WSA was established. Ground disturbing activities are generally not allowed within WSAs. In general, WSAs are a very strong protective designation and an important step toward eventual wilderness designation. Q: What's the difference between a 603 WSA and a 202 WSA? A: 603 WSAs were established under a process mandated by FLPMA and can be removed only by congress. (This happens in the "release" language that is often part of wilderness bills.) 202 WSAs can be established by the BLM whenever it chooses, and also can be removed by the BLM, without any congressional action. Also, because of some quirks in FLPMA, new mining claims are handled differently in 603 and 202 WSAs. New mining claims can be established within both kinds of WSA. Within 603 WSAs, new mining claims are managed, as you would expect, so as not to impair wilderness values: no significant ground disturbance is allowed, so the new mining claims are not a serious threat. On the other hand, new mining claims within 202 WSAs are managed just like mining claims in non-WSAs -- 202 WSAs have no protection from mining damage. Q: What can be done about this gaping loophole? A: BLM must go through a separate procedure to "withdraw" the areas from new mining claims. (FLPMA is biased in favor of mining, leaving the BLM with relatively little discretion on how to manage it. Areas can be closed to new mining claims only via an elaborate and tightly proscribed withdrawal process.) Common sense dictates that if you intend to protect wilderness values by establishing a 202 WSA, you should also withdraw the area from new mining claims. We are urging the BLM to follow this common sense approach. Q: How much of the 2.6 million acres being considered in the 202 process will wind up as WSAs? A: No one knows for sure. SUWA believes all (or nearly all) 2.6 million acres should become WSAs, since the BLM has already determined that these areas meet the definition of wilderness, and thus should have become 603 WSAs long ago. Congress clearly intended, when it wrote section 603 of FLPMA, that no potential wilderness should be lost until Congress itself had a chance to decide whether the area should be designated as permanent Wilderness. That’s why Congress gave BLM no discretion in establishing 603 WSAs -- everything that met the definition of wilderness had to be included. The BLM has now admitted that it goofed up and failed to include 2.6 million acres that met the wilderness definition. The BLM should correct this error by making all 2.6 million acres 202 WSAs. Q: That makes a lot of sense. Why wouldn't the BLM do that? A: It’s still possible that they might (or at least come close). But there are indications that BLM will exclude some areas that have pre-existing oil and gas leases. The rationale for this is that if there are areas where companies are likely to exercise their existing rights to build new drill pads and roads, it would make little sense to try to manage these areas as a WSAs. The flaw in this argument is that (a) history shows that most leased areas will see no ground-disturbing activity, (b) it’s hard to predict which few leases will have activity, and (c) ground disturbance can often be reclaimed in the typical case where no oil is found (not perfectly reclaimed, but reclaimed enough that WSA management still makes sense for the areas as a whole). Thus if the BLM tries to guess in advance where O&G exploration will take place, it will end up unnecessarily excluding areas where no ground-disturbing actions will ever occur. For these reasons, BLM should include leased areas even if there’s a possibility of O&G exploration on existing leases. If it turns out that there’s so much ground disturbance in the future that WSA management no longer makes sense, BLM has the option of removing the WSA status from the affected areas. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance Cedar City living YAY, thanks to Stiles’ school of how to win new friends-- writing a mini-editorial about how pathetic and lonely my personal existence is in Cedar City--one of his loyal readers from this side of the state stopped in to say hi recently. Of course, this reader is not a local from CC, but is from Kanab, where apparently the Zephyr is not yet banned. I can't reveal the identity of the visitor as his name would be mud if folks from Kanab found out he had 1) visited with the enemy, and 2) actually reads that subversive agitator paper from Moab. Since we last talked, Cedar City has added an 8-plex theater and is breaking ground for the new, bigger than just BIG Super Walmart. No doubt the little coffee and bookstore combo will be next, followed on the heels by a local brew pub. In the middle of all of this dust-raising construction (did I mention the new bank buildings and cemetery expansion?), is the endangered Utah prairie dog, which is apparently found in only a few locations around CC and nowhere else. However, progress in CC is not to be deterred by these pesky, plague-carrying rodents. If they can be rounded up and relocated to the shiny new prairie dog preserve north of town, without much hassle, fine and dandy. If they can't be trapped and removed, then tough luck, they face the bulldozer head on. But, to keep things in perspective, the mortality rate for these relocated prairie dogs is a whopping 95%. So either way--forced official relocation or bulldozer showdown--these little guys are in a losing battle with no real hope of escaping alive. The Utah prairie dogs should be to Cedar City as the swallows are to Capistrano, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to happen. Lonesome Liz...somewhere in southern Utah. ATV's attack Recent field checks have confirmed that illegal ORV use is on the increase in existing Wilderness Study Areas, not only in SE Utah, but in the western side of the state as well. Parunuweap, Canaan Mountain, Red Mountain, and Spring Creek Canyon WSAs in SW Utah have newly created ATV trails running through stream beds and over plants, pulverizing fragile desert soils in the process. The riders either pull out, or merely run over, the WSA signs that indicate that motorized vehicles are not permitted in an area, or are permitted only on the designated trail. Just to keep this in perspective — out of nearly 23 million acres of BLM lands in Utah, over 90% is open to cross-country ORV use. Not enough?). SUWA recently inquired as to why this illicit activity was being allowed to continue, and in some areas to explode, given that the BLM is aware of the damage that it causes to riparian areas, soils, vegetation, wildlife, etc., and is aware that new trails are being blazed almost daily. One local BLM office responded that its wilderness /natural resources staff person (singular) had been detailed to noxious weed patrol--cutting down Scotch thistle outbreaks every day for the past several weeks. Not that noxious weed control isn't a worthy cause. But the point is that BLM should have its recreation and wilderness staff working to maintain the wilderness characteristics on the lands that remain wild before they are lost. More guzzler appeals SUWA has filed another appeal with the Interior Board of Land Appeals to stop the installation of 30 water developments in the West Desert. Several of these developments are proposed for the Wah Wah Mountains, an area included in America's Redrock Wilderness Act, HR 1732. Same old story as with the previous two pending appeals. These wildlife developments are to benefit the non-native chukar partridge (a game species). There have been 118 of these water developments proposed for the West Desert in the past 18 months --52 already installed. These water developments are likely to cause the natural functioning ecosystems in the area to change. In addition to the impacts to the ecosystems, the BLM has used just such water developments to exclude areas from wilderness consideration, due to the impact on the naturalness of the area. PFUSA Look out, People for the USA (PFUSA) is on an organizing blitzkrieg in southern Utah and may be knocking on your door soon. Expect to hear that: your “inalienable rights” (“God-given”) are being ripped away from you and that you must fight for those rights; that “wilderness proposals are a threat to our freedom,” and that “wilderness” land can |