Colorado's Canyon Country Wilderness Proposal

CCCWP AREAS | BACKGROUND INFORMATION | MAPS | ABOUT

Frequently Asked Questions -- In-Depth

Will wilderness designation impact recreational options?

Will wilderness designation affect multiple use?

Will wilderness designation affect current grazing in an area?

Will wilderness designation affect the economy?

Will wilderness designation impact resource industries like natural gas?

Will wilderness designation affect state lands and private inholdings?

Will wilderness designation impact existing water rights?

Does wilderness affect a community's ability to manage and respond to emergency situations?

Will wilderness designation impact the management of wildlife?

Wilderness is supposed to be "roadless" -- why do some CWPs have existing vehicle routes?

Will Wilderness Designation Impact Recreational Options?

Wilderness provides for a balance of uses such as hunting, backpacking, trail running, horse packing, rock climbing, fly-fishing, rafting and kayaking. Recognizing this, the BLM's Wilderness Study Policy gives greater importance to identifying potential wilderness in close proximity to population centers. Although wilderness is closed to motorized and mechanized vehicles, such as off-road vehicles and mountain bikes, passage of the Citizens' Wilderness Proposal will affect just over 20% of the BLM lands in Colorado. Most of the BLM's land will remain open to the full range of non-wilderness uses, including motorized use.

Motorized Recreation
The Wilderness Act (Section 4 (c)) states that there shall be "no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment
or motorboats" and "no other form of mechanical transport" within any designated wilderness area. The Act further states that there shall be no permanent or temporary roads. These prohibitions apply "except as necessary to meet minimum requirements" for the administration of the area for the purpose of the Act.

Off-highways vehicles (OHVs) are typically fourwheel drive vehicles, motorcycles, three- and fourwheel All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs), and snowmobiles. The authors of the Wilderness Act prohibited these machines from designated wilderness with the belief that such obvious signs of civilization and their accompanying noise and potential for environmental damage were incompatible with the objectives of wilderness areas.

Off-highway vehicle conflicts with the wilderness areas proposed in the CWP are few. The BLM did not cite OHV use in any of its wilderness studies as the cause for a non-suitable wilderness recommendation of an area. This in and of itself is a strong indication that the wilderness proposals do not conflict with popular motorized recreation areas.

Many of the proposed wilderness areas are too rugged for vehicle travel and thus have no potential for
motorized recreation. Many areas are simply so far from major population centers that they receive little
pressure from OHVs. The proposed wildernesses are also generally very arid, with few lakes and streams
of the sort that attract campers and fishermen. These desert areas are obviously lacking in snowmobiling
opportunities as well.

Some areas include routes called "ways", defined as unconstructed and unmaintained vehicle routes. Ways are typically two-track routes formed simply from the passage of several vehicles. These ways were frequently created by ranchers or miners. Many ways lead nowhere and are thus of little interest to the recreation public.

Holders of valid existing rights at the time the wilderness is designated, such as ranchers and miners, will continue to have the right to use these ways in a traditional manner after wilderness designation.

BLM prohibits OHV use in most of its Wilderness Study Areas for protection of other resource uses, so currently there are only a few areas that have significant OHV use.

Does Wilderness Designation Affect Current Grazing in an Area?

Grazing is allowable in designated wilderness, with grazing continuing in the ‘same manner and degree’ as it did prior to designation. New developments and uses are not considered a ‘grand fathered’ use, but current developments can be maintained by whatever methods were in use prior to Wilderness designation, including with the use of mechanized equipment and motorized vehicles.

The Wilderness Act (Section 4 (d)(4)) notes that "the grazing of livestock, where established prior to the effective date of this Act, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary" by the appropriate agencies. This provision of the Act was elaborated upon by the United States Congress in House Report 96-1126 in 1980. In that report, the committee expressed its intention that:

"There shall be no curtailments of grazing in wilderness areas simply because an area is, or has been, designated wilderness, nor should wilderness designations be used as an excuse by administrators to slowly 'phase out' grazing."

"It is anticipated that the numbers of livestock permitted to graze in wilderness would remain at the approximate levels existing at the time an area enters the wilderness system."

"The maintenance of supporting facilities, existing in an area prior to its classification as wilderness (including fences, line cabins, water wells and lines, stock tanks, etc.), is permissible in wilderness. ... Maintenance or other activities may be accomplished through the occasional use of motorized equipment."

"The construction of new improvements or the replacement of deteriorated facilities in wilderness is permissible ... if primarily for the purpose of resource protection."

It is apparent from this Congressional direction that wilderness designation and continued livestock grazing are compatible. It is the opinion of most conservation organizations that the federal agencies administering grazing in wilderness areas have implemented this direction in a manner that has done little to impair wilderness qualities. Livestock operators also apparently have little quarrel with the existing application of these guidelines.

In fact, grazing may even be a boon to wilderness areas. In testimony on several bills concerning Colorado National Forest wilderness additions in 1984, a representative of the Colorado Cattlemen's Association had this to say about the current system:

"The grazing guidelines established by the 1980 Wilderness Act have been very helpful in solving some of the previous problems experienced by grazers in earlier wilderness areas. After working at the local level with these guidelines in place, we have found no abuse of them by the permittees or administrative problems by the Forest Service personnel. In fact, these guidelines have greatly improved the working relationship between the wilderness area grazing, permitting, and the agency personnel responsible for the administration of these wilderness areas." (Statement of Lee Spann, Senate Hearing 98-1244)

The Colorado BLM state office reports there were 493,900 animal-unit-months (AUMs) of grazing preference on BLM lands in Colorado in 1985. The lands proposed by conservationists for wilderness include approximately 37,500 AUMs, or 7.5% of BLM's authorized grazing in Colorado.

Does Wilderness Impact Resource Industries Like Natural Gas?

Some areas in the Citizens' Wilderness Proposal have natural gas potential, and the majority of public lands will remain open to gas development even if all the areas in the Citizens' Wilderness Proposal are protected. Within each wilderness area, only valid mineral rights established prior to the designation of the wilderness area, or prior to BLM’s identification of an area as a Wilderness Study Area, can be developed.

"Subject to valid rights...existing (at the time of wilderness designation), the minerals in the lands designated ...as wilderness areas are withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the mining laws and from all laws pertaining to mineral leasing and all amendments thereto." (Wilderness Act, Section 4(d)(3))

Even with lands off-limits to new leases, wilderness protection has not significantly impeded gas production in the state. On Colorado BLM lands, gas production has increased 555% since 1976, when about 10% of agency lands were first put off-limits to development as Wilderness Study Areas.

The largest perceived conflict with wilderness designation of areas within the CWP proposal comes from potential mineral development. Most of these perceived conflicts arise from energy minerals, such as oil, natural gas, and coal. Hardrock minerals, such as gold and silver, pose few conflicts since most of the proposed wilderness areas are in sedimentary rock formations and are poor source rocks for these hardrock minerals.

Coal
There are no significant conflicts with potential coal resources. There are no wilderness proposals in the two most extensive BLM coal producing regions, the North Fork of the Gunnison River valley and the Craig-Hayden area. BLM’s Resource Management Plans indicate approximately 25 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves on over 1.6 million acres of federal surface and mineral estates. In contrast, the proposed wilderness areas cover only 50,000 acres and 0.7 billion tons of these potential coal reserves.

The proposed wilderness areas thus include a scant 3% of potentially recoverable coal reserves in Colorado,
none of which are in the state's prime coal producing regions.

Oil and Gas
According to BLM’s Resource Management Plans and statewide Oil and Gas Leasing Environmental Impact Statement, almost eight million acres of BLM lands in Colorado are open to oil and gas leasing. The proposed wilderness areas constitute only 13% of the BLM lands open to leasing. Nearly all of these areas have been leased at some time or another, but they were not extensively explored because of lack of interest by the leaseholders.

Six Wilderness Study Areas have oil and gas leases that predate the enactment of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976 and the subsequent mandated wilderness review by BLM. These pre-FLPMA leases are in Cross Canyon, Demaree Canyon, Grape Creek, Little Bookcliffs, Oil Spring Mountain, and Squaw and Papoose (Mares Tail) Canyons WSAs. Additional roadless areas that are not official WSAs, but are proposed by conservationists for wilderness, contain oil and gas leases. These include Big Ridge, Bitter Creek, Cow Ridge, Dragon Canyon, Granite Creek, Hunter Canyon, Prairie Canyon, South Shale Ridge, Thompson Creek and Vermillion Basin. BLM asserts that it has no ability to condition development of pre-FLPMA mineral leases in WSAs to prevent impairment of wilderness values.

However, leases do not carry with them a right of access and the Interior Department’s administrative court (the Interior Board of Land Appeals) ruled in 1993 that BLM may not issue rights-of-way across intervening federal lands to pre-FLPMA leases if such access would harm wilderness values. Development of the pre-FLPMA leases in the WSAs is therefore by no means a foregone conclusion as BLM might claim and has little relevance to decisions about the suitability of areas for wilderness designation.

Oil Shale
There are no recoverable oil shale resources within any proposed wilderness, simply because there are no roadless areas left in the Piceance Basin.

Does Wilderness Affect State Lands and Private Inholdings?

Where federal wilderness lands surround private or state lands, landowners retain the right to access their lands:

"[W]here State-owned or privately owned land is completely surrounded by...wilderness, such...owner shall be given rights as may be necessary to assure adequate access...or the...land shall be exchanged for federally owned land in the same State of approximately equal value..." (Wilderness Act, Section 5(a)) Conservationists' proposed wilderness boundaries nclude a variety of scattered state and private lands. These lands are integral to the protection of ecologically sensitive sites and whole ecosystems. They also serve to create and define more easily recognizable geographic boundaries.

The proposed wilderness area boundaries include almost 23,000 acres of state school sections and Colorado Division of Wildlife lands, as well as an additional 4,136 acres of state-owned minerals. Another 3,514 acres of private inholdings lie scattered throughout a dozen areas.

The majority of the state lands are state school sections. The Colorado state land board owns 18,455 acres in 15 proposed wilderness areas and Utah owns 2,430 acres in four areas. The Colorado Board of Land Commissioners believes it is their responsibility to extract the maximum revenue possible from these state sections, a policy which may be incompatible with wilderness designation. However, the state lands in question have little or no economic development potential, and the state has expressed an interest in trading potential wilderness additions for other federal lands more suitable to the state's objective of revenue production.

The Colorado Department of Natural Resources stated their willingness to pursue exchanges of wilderness- suitable state lands in a letter dated December 17, 1982, saying "it would be unfortunate to forgo wilderness designation of these areas because we are not willing to tackle bureaucratic barriers." In fact, state agencies have endorsed many of the proposed wilderness areas that include state sections. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) owns 2,040 acres in four proposed wilderness areas. In one area, the CDOW has proposed an exchange of itslands with BLM. In another, CDOW and BLM have a cooperative management agreement in place for the management of the lands in a manner compatible with wilderness.

The 3,514 acres of private inholdings occur in 12 areas. These consist primarily of patented mining claims that the BLM has targeted for acquisition through purchase or exchange. In several instances, the private inholdings are old homesteads no longer occupied. Private lands within wilderness receive a high priority from federal land agencies in terms of budget requests for Land and Water Conservation Funds for acquisition of those lands. In many cases, private landowners are willing to sell or trade their land for more accessible tracts. In addition to the above fee-interest lands, two proposed wilderness areas contain 400 acres in which BLM owns the surface but the minerals are privately held.

Previously designated Forest Service wilderness in Colorado has included a substantial number of nonfederal lands. The state owns approximately 2,300 acres in Forest Service wilderness areas, and there exist another 6,000 acres of scattered private parcels. Because of dedicated effort by Forest Service managers, private nonprofit land trusts, and land exchange proponents, the Forest Service has dramatically reduced its inventory of private inholdings within wilderness areas over the last several years, and in most cases timely acquisition has prevented incompatible development.

Will wilderness impact existing water rights?

Water rights in Colorado are administered under state law, in state water court, under the general principle of "first in time, first in right." Any water right reserved for the wilderness would come later in priority to existing rights. Many of these areas are ‘headwaters’ and so water rights are simply not an issue and in most other areas all available water is already adjudicated. Wilderness, through prohibiting new industrial developments and restricting motorized use, helps protect Colorado's water quality.

As with other federally reserved lands, wilderness areas are implicitly entitled to federal water rights sufficient for the purposes of the designation of the wilderness. The purposes of the designation in most cases include recreation, protection of fish and wildlife habitat, and maintenance of riparian ecosystems, among others.

Wilderness water rights are adjudicated in state water court pursuant to Colorado water law. The priority date for wilderness water rights is the date of wilderness designation of the area. Consequently, BLM wilderness areas will carry very junior priority water rights. Preexisting uses of water will not be affected by BLM wilderness water rights as long as those preexisting uses do not change. If existing water rights users request a change in type or amount of use, then junior BLM wilderness water rights can intervene to prevent changes that degrade the wilderness environment from its condition at the time of wilderness designation.

There are only a few significant conflicts between wilderness designation of BLM lands and private water rights. In a synopsis of potential water rights conflicts with BLM wilderness prepared by BLM for Congressman George Miller on August 19, 1988, the BLM stated that it expected in-depth analysis of the issue "will probably demonstrate that the real impacts are small and easily mitigated."

A major reason for the lack of conflicts is that the majority of proposed BLM wilderness areas are either headwaters areas (the areas are situated at the head of watersheds with the result that no water flows into the areas from outside their boundaries) or areas with no permanent surface water resources. Since many of proposed wilderness areas are located in desert regions, watercourses that flow into non-headwaters areas are generally ephemeral in nature, with no opportunities for upstream diversion, and the discussion of water rights in these cases is a moot point.

There are several proposed wilderness areas that contain significant downstream reaches of major Colorado rivers. Before these few situations are discussed it is important to point out particular areas that do not include rivers:

Browns Canyon near Salida does not include the Arkansas River because the wilderness boundary ends at the railroad right-of-way on the river's east bank.
Bull Canyon upstream of Dotsero similarly does not include the Colorado River; the wilderness boundary ends variously at the railroad tracks or the river’s east bank.
Dominguez Canyon near Grand Junction does not include the Gunnison River; the wilderness boundary ends at the river's west bank.
The Rio Grande wilderness does not include the river since the wilderness boundary ends at the river's west bank.

The major conflicts over existing and potential future water uses from proposed BLM wilderness areas consist of the following:

The proposed Beaver Creek Wilderness includes several miles of Beaver Creek's two forks below Skagway and Rosemount Reservoirs. Operation of these reservoirs controls the flows in Beaver Creek through the proposed wilderness. The Colorado Division of Wildlife owns Skagway Reservoir on West Beaver Creek and manages it for wildlife habitat by maintaining a full pool, essentially routing all inflow directly to the outlet. CDOW intends to file for instream flow rights to West Beaver to the confluence, and main Beaver Creek below that to the Beaver Creek State Wildlife Area. Colorado Springs operates Rosemount Reservoir on East Beaver Creek as part of its municipal system. Water from Rosemount Reservoir is diverted to the city via pipeline and is thereby removed from the Beaver Creek watershed.
Cross Canyon and Mares Tail Canyon include approximately 30 miles of desert riparian zones with flowing streams fed by the many substantial springs of the geologic strata of the Montezuma Valley west of Cortez. The streams in the main canyons and their tributaries flow year-round. BLM holds water rights to many of the area's springs, such as the major spring in the middle of Ruin Canyon in Cross Canyon WSA. Though private agricultural lands lie upstream of the proposed wilderness areas, they receive their irrigation water via canals and pipelines that are unrelated to the canyons's water sources. Irrigation return flows do not appear to have much if any direct bearing on the canyons’s stream flows.
Dolores River Canyon includes approximately 30 miles of the Dolores River between Slickrock and Bedrock, downstream of McPhee Dam and major irrigation diversions to the Montezuma Valley. The river's flow is controlled by the Bureau of Reclamation's releases from McPhee Dam and by preexisting irrigation diversions. The Bureau of Reclamation has discussed modifications of its flow regime to benefit the coldwater trout fishery immediately below the dam (which is located 50-60 river miles upstream of the wilderness) as well as recreational whitewater boating.
The proposed Grape Creek Wilderness includes approximately 12 miles of Grape Creek below DeWeese Reservoir and drains much of the Wet Mountain Valley. The irrigation reservoir controls flows through the proposed wilderness. Both BLM and the Colorado Division of Wildlife are working with the irrigation company to mitigate stream flows to enhance the trout fishery.
Cross Mountain includes several miles of the Yampa River below Maybell and above Dinosaur National Monument. This reach of the Yampa has been designated critical habitat for several endangered fish species, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in all likelihood would issue jeopardy opinions for any new substantial water diversions upstream on the Yampa mainstem. Dinosaur National Monument has no federal reserved water rights to flows in the Yampa River. Cross Mountain includes the site of the Cross Mountain Dam once proposed by the Colorado River Water Conservation District.
More than ten miles of the Yampa River are in the proposed Wilderness, including a segment that would be inundated by the Colorado River Water Conservation District’s proposed Juniper Mountain Dam.

Because of concerns about impacts to the designated critical habitat of several native fishes, it appears unlikely Juniper Mountain Dam will ever be built. The Duffy Tunnel diversion, down stream from the area, is intentionally excluded from the wilderness boundary.

The circumstances surrounding each of these areas are unique. Solutions to meeting the needs of wilderness resource water rights while honoring existing uses must be tailored to the singular situation of each downstream area.

Wilderness is supposed to be 'roadless,' but some places have existing vehicle routes -- if I can drive my jeep there, can it be 'roadless'?
The term 'road' when applied to the issue of wilderness is a specific legal term based on the clear intent of Congress, as specified during discussion and passage of the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Accordingly, BLM uses the following road definition derived from the House Report accompanying FLPMA:

The word 'roadless' refers to the absence of roads which have been improved and maintained by mechanical means to insure relatively regular and continuous use. A way maintained solely by the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road. (Report 94-1163, page 17, May 15, 1976)

Further clarification on what constitutes regular maintenance is provided by minutes from the House Public Lands Subcommittee Markup Session of September 22, 1975 (pages 329-332), where the above report language was discussed:

Rep. Steiger: "Mr. Chairman, if I may, and I would confine this to the report, but I would like to spell out, which I gather was never done in the Wilderness Act, what we are talking about when we talk about a road. I think the accepted deal in the Forest Service is that it is a graveled and graded road and that sort of thing. As far as I am concerned, I think we are talking about a road that is in any way maintained and improved, a dirt road improved by grading, or the placing of culverts, or by the making of bar ditches and that sort of thing. I don't think we mean jeep trails and that sort of thing, and there is a difference" (House Public Lands Subcommittee Markup Session of September 22, 1975, pages 329-332).

The road definition in the House Report was clearly intended to delineate which vehicle routes would disqualify Wilderness Study Areas and which would not. Furthermore, it is clear that Congress intended that vehicle routes that do not meet this definition of road should not exclude an area from wilderness consideration, for protection as a Wilderness Study Area or for designation as wilderness.

» Print version of FAQ (pdf)

| contact us |