RS 2477
Legislation & Information

Applying the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Guidelines to the Utah Wilderness Debate

www.westerncounties.org

Introduction

In the late 1970's, outdoor recreation researchers at several universities developed a set of guidelines, criteria and requirements which they determined must be met to provide individuals with different types of outdoor recreational experiences. Applying this set of guidelines, called the "Recreation Opportunity Spectrum" or "ROS," to the Utah Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wilderness debate provides important insight and a unique tool to resolve this increasingly divisive public policy issue.

A Brief Description of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a recreational experience and opportunity classification system developed in the late 1970's by researchers at several universities to guide recreational management of public lands. It has been adopted by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.

The ROS consists of six major recreational opportunity classifications. These are generally labeled "primitive," "semi-primitive non-motorized," "semi-primitive motorized," "roaded natural," "rural," and "urban." (The BLM nomenclature is usually the assignment of Roman Numerals to these classifications, with "I" representing the primitive class and "VI" the urban.) The description and comparison of the characteristics of the various classes from the Forest Service and BLM handbooks is reproduced in Appendix A.

The ROS identifies the recreational opportunities a particular area can provide. It is based on the characteristics of the land, the amount of public usage, the degree of active management of the land which can be permitted to achieve the desired recreation experience and similar factors. These factors create a true spectrum (hence the name) with the primitive category at one end and urban at the other end. The definition of the primitive classification generally used is:

An area characterized by essentially unmodified natural environment of fairly large size. Interaction between users is very low and evidence of other users is minimal. The area is managed to be essentially free from evidence of human-induced restrictions and controls. Motorized use within the area is not permitted.

Formally designated wilderness falls within the general "primitive" classification of the ROS. In fact, it is clear that the academics who developed the ROS had the Wilderness Act in mind when they described the primitive segment of the spectrum. Minimum acreage size in the two is identical at 5,000 acres, for example. There is a requirement for very low visitor density to provide the recreational experience. The landscapes must appear unaltered in both wilderness designation and the ROS primitive category. Finally, there is a requirement that the visitor feel that they must be self-reliant and that their recreational activities carry a certain amount of personal risk because of their isolation from the influence of man.

There are a few differences that underscore the fact that wilderness designation is more restrictive in some ways than the broad primitive classification. For example, under the ROS guidelines used by the agencies, non-motorized human powered mechanical devices, such as mountain bikes, could be permitted in a primitive recreation area. They are not allowed in wilderness. These differences are minimal, however.

To deal with these degrees of primitive recreational opportunities and requirements, the ROS categories are sometimes further divided into subcategories. The primitive classification, for example, is further refined by adding a subcategory, "pristine," which describes "areas having high quality solitude and where use is generally not encouraged by the construction of trails." This more restrictive subcategory of the primitive segment of the ROS compares most closely with the recreational experience envisioned in the Wilderness Act, which has similar restrictions.

As a result, in considering the application of the ROS to BLM wilderness, it is important to remember the following axiom:

An area of federal land does not have to meet formally-designated wilderness area standards to qualify for a primitive recreation designation under the ROS. However, no area of federal land can qualify for formal wilderness area designation under the agency ROS guidelines which does not meet at least the primitive category requirements.

In application, this means that when it comes to considering wilderness recreation the BLM must be especially conscientious in applying the strict ROS "primitive" standards and guidelines. An area may qualify to provide a primitive recreation experience but still not qualify for the more restrictive wilderness designation.

The Recreation Emphasis of the Wilderness Act

Before attempting to apply the ROS to the BLM wilderness debate, it is essential to review what Congress intended when it passed the Wilderness Act in 1964. The Wilderness Act is widely perceived to be primarily a land or resource protection Act. This is incorrect. As even a cursory reading illustrates, Congress passed the Wilderness Act primarily to provide the public and future generations with a specialized, primitive type of recreational opportunity. Any resource protection which wilderness designation might afford is secondary to this recreational focus.

In fact, this overriding goal of providing a specialized primitive recreation opportunity inevitably results in resource management trade offs, some of which negatively impact other resource values. Wildlife provides a good example. As the BLM notes in its Final Environmental Impact Statement for recommendation of wilderness in Utah, wilderness designation promotes certain vegetative types which helps some species at the expense of others. (Vol. I, p. 21). The agency cites specific examples of species which will be adversely impacted, such as the Ferruginous Hawk, a sensitive (Category 2) species. (Vol. 5, Grand Gulch section, pp. 16, 27). Other recreation-related restrictions, such as restriction on aircraft and motorized access, can severely restrict or eliminate the application of scientific wildlife management techniques which are essential to restoring some species.

Among the other negative trade offs resulting from wilderness designation are severe limitations on conducting some types of scientific research, the inability to restore or improve watersheds to maintain and enhance water quantity and quality, and great difficulty in controlling and eliminating noxious weed infestations.

Some negative resource impacts of wilderness designation are more indirect. For example, wilderness areas cost more to manage than land maintained in multiple use and, outside of grazing fees, there is no economic return to the public from wilderness areas. Because federal resource management agency budgets are chronically tight, paying for wilderness management inevitably diverts resources which could have been spent on any of an agency's other natural resource management responsibilities.

All of these negative resource impacts are the result of the overriding emphasis of the Wilderness Act in providing a primitive recreation experience. This is best illustrated by looking at the definition of wilderness contained in Section 2 (c) of the Act:

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (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; and (4). May also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

Other evidence is found in Section 4 (c) of the Act, dealing with "Prohibition of Certain Uses" in wilderness areas. In this section, Congress offers further detail on the characteristics and activities which are permitted or prohibited in wilderness. Among these are a requirement that there be "no permanent road within any wilderness area" and "there shall be no temporary road." All forms of mechanized or mechanical transport were prohibited as were the landing of aircraft and any "commercial enterprise." In addition, Congress directed that there be "no structure or installation within such area." These prohibitions further underscore the primary focus of Congress on recreational and aesthetic concerns in designating wilderness rather than land or physical resource protection concerns.

To qualify as formally designated wilderness, Congress directed that all of these listed conditions must first be met. The BLM recognized this requirement in drafting its Wilderness Inventory Handbook (WIH) which the agency issued in 1978 to guide the process of identifying areas to study intensively for possible wilderness recommendation. The WIH on page 6 states:

In the inventory process to identify roadless areas with wilderness characteristics, the key factors to be used:

Size. At least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres of public land.

Naturalness. The imprint of man's work must be substantially unnoticeable.

Either:

An outstanding opportunity for solitude, or

An outstanding opportunity for a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.

To qualify for wilderness study identification an area of public land must be shown to meet both factors 2 and 3. (EMPHASIS IN ORIGINAL WIH TEXT)

It is significant that the two criteria the BLM distilled from the Wilderness Act which an area of public land must meet to be considered even for further study as a possible designated wilderness are both recreation oriented. The first of these, is that the area must appear to be "substantially" free of the "imprint of man's work." As the BLM rephrased this requirement, it was the appearance of being untouched by man that was the controlling factor rather than whether the area was in reality pristine and actually untouched by man.

Appearance, by definition, is determined entirely by human perception. It becomes important to the visitor's recreational experience to the extent that the physical setting is important to that overall experience. Researchers have determined that a wilderness recreational experience requires, among other things, the sense on the part of the individual seeking it that he or she is in a wild area ¹.

The second of these criteria is divided into two parts. Both are straightforward recreational requirements. To qualify for wilderness, an area must meet at least one of them as well as appear to be natural. It must offer outstanding opportunities for either "solitude" or "a primitive and unconfined type of recreation."

The definition of the term "solitude" provided in the WIH is "1. The state of being alone or remote from habitations; isolation. 2. a lonely, unfrequented or secluded place." Here again, determining whether any opportunity for solitude exists, much less an outstanding opportunity, depends entirely upon human perception. Indeed, solitude can only be defined in terms of human perception. It is not a natural resource which has any intrinsic value. It has value only as it relates to human use or perception. For some people, simply enjoying solitude, the perception that one has "gotten away from it all" is a recreational diversion in and of itself. For others, it is as essential from an auditory perspective to having the perception that one is in a wild area as the natural appearance criteria already discussed is from a visual perspective.

The second component of this second test an area must pass before being considered for wilderness designation is a simple and straightforward recreational requirement. It is that the area must offer an outstanding opportunity to enjoy primitive and unconfined recreational pursuits. These have been further defined as those which are human powered but non-mechanized, which require no "infrastructure" to pursue and which potentially range across a wide area such hiking or camping.

It is important to understanding the intent of Congress in adopting the Wilderness Act that it did not define wilderness simply as a pristine parcel of federal land, as would be expected if the primary concern was with land or physical natural resource protection. No matter how untouched or pristine an area of federal land might be (or as the BLM interpreted it, "appears" to be), it cannot be designated as wilderness unless it can pass one of these two recreation tests, opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined recreation.

The Wilderness Inventory Handbook further underscores the fact that wilderness designation is primarily a recreation management scheme. Page 6 states:

Wilderness protection is but one of many methods available to BLM to protect and manage environmental values. Wilderness designation will not be used as a substitute for these other management methods.

Under FLPMA, the Bureau will identify Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and provide for their appropriate protection. This includes management for cultural and historical resources, endangered species, critical wildlife habitat, environmental education areas, outstanding and research natural areas, and the like. (EMPHASIS ADDED)

Other guidance that wilderness is not primarily a natural resource protection management designation is found in the portion of the BLM Planning Manual (at 1613.06) dealing with Areas of Critical Environmental Concern which states:

An Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) is the principal BLM designation for public lands where special management is required to protect important natural, cultural and scenic resources or to identify natural hazards. Therefore, BLM managers will give precedence to the identification, evaluation and designation of areas which require "special management attention" during resource management planning...An ACEC designation will not be used as a substitute for wilderness suitability recommendations.

"Wilderness values," then, are recreational values and not physical natural resource values. The overall protection of physical (as opposed to recreational) natural resources values is accomplished primarily through the broad provisions of FLPMA and particularly through the power it gives the agency to apply special protective measures to particularly sensitive areas.

In light of this, applying the ROS is not only useful but essential in evaluating whether an area being recommended for wilderness, regardless of the source of that recommendation, legally qualifies for wilderness designation.

Applying the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Criteria in the Utah BLM Wilderness Debate

The ROS identifies those characteristics which must be present for a user to enjoy the wilderness recreational opportunity Congress intended to provide to the American people when it passed the Wilderness Act. These characteristics include evaluating whether and to what extent there is evidence of or the presence of human impacts, signs, trails, buildings or shelters and the proximity of roads, railroads and other evidence of human imprints. The latter, the proximity to motorized transportation, is especially critical to solving the Utah BLM wilderness problem.

The most obvious impact on a primitive recreation experience of the proximity of a road, railroad or trail where motorized vehicles are used is from the noise they produce. The impact is most pronounced on the opportunity for solitude. Where the auditory impact of these activities can be perceived by a recreationist, the opportunity to experience solitude diminishes or vanishes.

In addition to the auditory impact of motorized devices, there is a visual impact of the roads and the devices themselves on the appearance of naturalness. As noted, a prohibition in Section 4 of the Wilderness Act specifically disqualifies an area of federal land from further wilderness consideration if roads are present. In addition, it is clear that the presence of roads too close to an individual wishing to experience primitive recreation can prevent him or her from realizing that goal, even if they are outside the area designated for primitive recreation.

The other impact of roads and motorized devices on the wilderness recreational experience is more subtle but also more important. That is the impact on the perception of the recreationist who is seeking a primitive and unconfined recreation experience. Researchers have found that an essential element in that experience is the perception that the recreationist is in fact removed from civilization and its influences--and easily available help from outside sources if they get into trouble. As one recreation researcher put it in describing the primitive ROS classification, "In the "primitive" class the user is forced to be self-reliant and expects low levels of user density." In order to achieve the "greater feelings of challenge and achievement" from a primitive recreation experience, the user must have "opportunities for solitude, risk and challenge." (Emphasis added) (From Outdoor Recreation, Charles I. Zinser, 1995, pp. 265-269)

The proximity of roads, trails and railroads, then, are recognized as being incompatible with a wilderness recreation experience not only because of their auditory, visual and perceptual intrusions, but from a more subtle psychological perspective as well. Not surprisingly, in factoring in the characteristics which must be present to provide a primitive recreation opportunity, recreation researchers have made the proximity of roads one of their primary criteria in the ROS matrix.

The attempt of these researchers to apply this "remoteness criteria" on the ground has fundamental impact on the Utah wilderness debate. They have determined that as a general rule a road, a trail where motorized transport is permitted or a railroad can be no closer than three miles from any area in which a primitive recreation opportunity can be realized.

Both the Forest Service and the BLM recognize this guideline. Appendix B gives the "remoteness criteria" from both the Forest Service's "ROS User's Guide" and from the BLM's Draft Recreation Inventory Handbook "Chapter VI--Recreation Experience Opportunities." Both use the 3 mile set back as the requirement for the Primitive (Class I in BLM parlance) recreation opportunity class.

This 3 mile road and motorized trail proximity criteria has tremendous potential impact on the Utah wilderness debate. Many BLM Wilderness Study Areas (WSA's) have boundaries which are drawn literally up to the berm of roads. To be fair to the agency, the WSA boundaries were set in the late 1970's and early 1980's before the ROS was developed. Nevertheless, the BLM's action to make roads the boundaries of areas being considered for wilderness has elicited strong criticism of the agency over the years. It does not take something as sophisticated as the ROS to understand that it is impossible to find solitude next to a road and that a primitive and unconfined type of recreation is not possible where one must look before crossing a road to avoid possibly being hit by oncoming vehicles. It merely takes common sense to recognize this obvious conflict with Congressional intent in enacting the Wilderness Act.

While the agency is powerless to change the boundaries of WSA's once they have been designated (this can only be done by an act of Congress), the agency did have the power to draw the boundaries of the recommended wilderness areas back from the edge of roads. In many instances, this is what the BLM did (though seldom 3 miles back as the ROS would require). In other instances, the boundaries were left virtually alongside roads. At the time the final recommendations were made, the ROS had been fully developed and was in wide use.

In some instances, the BLM may be able to make a case for recommending boundaries closer than 3 miles. The draft BLM guidelines for using the 3 mile set back states that:

...the parameters in Table 1 (that is the 3 mile setback in the "Remoteness Criteria" of the ROS which is reproduced in Appendix B) is to be used only as a guide. Lines between classes should reflect topographic and vegetative differences which adequately screen out the sights and sounds of humans to the same extent as the generalized distance guidelines. Relatively flat terrain with low tree cover, or large bodies of water, may require greater distances to achieve screening for remoteness, while deep canyons or heavily wooded terrain might provide equivalent screening with less distance. The fundamental determinant is the type of experience which one would expect to have in any given area based on the existing situation.

In other words, some areas with relatively flat terrain with very low vegetation (which characterizes much of the BLM-managed land in Utah) may require greater than a three mile set back from roads to offer a primitive recreational opportunity. In other cases, the presence of canyons or cliffs might allow for a shorter set back as far as the visual and auditory requirements to enjoy a primitive recreational experience are concerned. This flexibility on the set back distance does not, of course, apply to the psychological portion of the primitive recreational experience. Unless the individual knows that he or she is actually remote from a road, regardless of whether there are any visual or auditory impacts, the primitive recreational experience will be diminished or destroyed.

A set back of 3 miles from a road is probably a good working average distance, realizing that it may be more in some areas and less in others depending on local conditions.

The Critical Role of RS 2477 Roads

Applying the ROS proscription against roads being closer than 3 miles to an area and still have it provide a primitive recreational opportunity takes on particular importance because of the nature of most of the roads which access and cross the public lands of the West. If the federal agencies controlled these roads, and could close them at will, they clearly could create primitive recreation areas almost anywhere they wanted simply by closing enough roads and trails. In fact, that is exactly what the BLM is attempting to do in the San Rafael Transportation Plan, discussed briefly below.

However, in the case of almost all roads accessing and crossing the public lands of the West, the roads are not under the control of any federal agency. They are a almost always a "given" which BLM recreational planners must work around in determining whether a primitive recreational opportunity is available on a particular piece of land. Understanding why this is the case, as well as why the San Rafael Transportation proposal is totally unrealistic, requires at least a brief background on what are called "RS 2477 roads."

RS 2477 (short for Revised Statute 2477) is a law which was adopted by Congress in 1866 to aid in opening the frontier to settlement. This law is only one sentence long and states in its entirety:

The right-of-way for the construction of highways over public lands not reserved for public uses is hereby granted.

Congress, under the Constitution has sole and complete authority over the public lands (Article IV, Section 3). No independent jurisdiction is given to the executive branch in this area. All elements of the federal executive branch, from the president down to the BLM have only delegated authority from Congress. In adopting the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976, Congress repealed RS 2477. However, in several places in FLPMA, Congress specifically reaffirmed and "grandfathered in" the validity of all rights-of-way in existence on the on the date of passage, including, of course, RS 2477 rights-of-way. Congress made the RS 2477 grants directly to the grantee, bypassing the federal agencies entirely.

In Utah, and in most of the public lands states, the RS 2477 right-of-way grant was made to counties. This grant is a property right protected under the Constitution and conveys with it a bundle of associated rights in addition to the right to establish the road on that right-of-way. This bundle of rights, many long established in the common law, includes the right to maintain the road and even upgrade it under certain circumstances. The effect of this law is to make the federal government's interest in the right-of-way the "servient estate," while that of the right-of-way holder, usually a county, becomes the "dominant estate." Consequently, while the legitimate interests of the servient estate holder are protected from unnecessary and undue degradation by the activities of the dominant estate holder, the holder of the servient estate cannot interfere with the dominant estate holders legitimate exercise of its bundle of rights.

As a result, no federal agency can close an RS 2477 road for any reason. Neither can the agency determine whether a valid grant was made by Congress to a county or other right-of-way holder. It can only make a determination for its own administrative purposes whether it will recognize a right-of-way holder's assertion that a valid grant was made. If there is disagreement between the agency and the right-of-way holder, the question of the validity of the assertion must be resolved by the courts. Much more extensive information is available at the Official RS 2477 Internet Web site, www.rs2477roads.com.

Consequently, if a road is located within three miles of a parcel of land the BLM wants to designate as a primitive recreation area, including recommended wilderness, closing that road is not an option. If there is a road or motorized trail within that distance, and the BLM cannot make a case that some extenuating circumstance such as topographic features allows for an exception, then the area simply cannot be qualified for the primitive ROS classification.

This reality of RS 2477 has not stopped the BLM from trying to use the ROS 3 mile set back to close an "offending road," however. That is precisely what the agency attempted to do in the draft San Rafael Transportation Plan.

The San Rafael Transportation Plan As An Example Of Applying ROS Criteria To Roads

A good example of the BLM applying the ROS primitive road proximity guidelines is the proposed San Rafael Transportation Plan. In this plan, the BLM proposed closing several roads or leaving them open based on the road proximity guidelines of the ROS. Appendix C reproduces a section of that transportation plan which specifically seeks to justify a road closure on the basis of the primitive classification guideline of a 3 mile "setback" from the nearest road. In other cases the road set back requirements were used to justify proposals to keep certain roads open.

In fact, the roads which the BLM transportation plan addressed were asserted by Emery County, Utah, as RS 2477 roads and therefore outside the authority of the BLM to either close or keep open. What is significant to this discussion is not so much whether the BLM has the authority to close roads based on the ROS proximity guidelines but the fact that it proposed to do so on that basis. Unless the agency wants to argue that it can apply either part of a double standard whenever it is convenient, it must also apply the ROS guidelines to wilderness, including the 3 mile set back.

Putting It All Together: Implications For The Utah Wilderness Debate

It is now clear that there are several fundamental implications from applying the ROS criteria to the Utah wilderness debate. With its focus on human perception of naturalness and its clear requirement that potential wilderness areas must provide "outstanding opportunities for solitude and a primitive and unconfined type of recreation," the 1964 Wilderness Act clearly is a recreational-driven law. The Forest Service and the BLM have adopted the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to guide recreation planning and management.

The ROS sets certain parameters and requirements that must be met before a particular type of recreation experience can be delivered, including a wilderness or primitive recreation experience. One of those parameters is that there can be no roads, railroads or trials open to motorized recreation use closer than 3 miles to the edge of any primitive recreation area. The presence and continued use of almost all the roads over the public land managed by the BLM in the West are outside the control of the agency, because they exist on rights-of-way granted to county government directly by Congress under RS 2477. Consequently, the BLM cannot close these roads or dictate in any way the time or intensity of use, although it has attempted to do so and used the ROS 3 mile primitive recreation set back requirement as a justification. The San Rafael Transportation Plan is an example of such an attempt.

Many boundaries of the BLM's Utah Wilderness Study Areas, and even many of the BLM's recommended wilderness areas, violate the agency's ROS 3 mile road set back requirement for primitive recreation areas. Yet, Congress has clearly directed that wilderness areas are to be created primarily to provide the type of recreational opportunities which fall within the "pristine" subclass of the primitive ROS classification, the most restrictive recreational classification in the entire ROS.

It is clear that the only way the BLM can meet its own recreational guidelines and comply with the intent of the Wilderness Act is to move the boundaries of all recommended wilderness and WSA's back three miles from any asserted RS 2477 right-of-way which it has recognized as a valid assertion. It must also immediately determine for its own administrative purposes whether it will recognize the validity of any other asserted RS 2477 road within three miles of a recommended wilderness area. Until it has done this, it cannot determine which of its recommended wilderness areas meet its own ROS guidelines and therefore which meet the requirements of the Wilderness Act.

Finally, it must provide this information to Congress as quickly as possible. Only Congress can designate formal wilderness on federally-managed lands. It could (and in fact has done so on occasion) designate as wilderness areas of federal land which do not meet these ROS criteria. However, that prerogative is exclusive reserved to the Congress.

It is the responsibility of the BLM under Section 603 of FLPMA to inventory the lands it manages for wilderness characteristics and to report to the President (who then reports to Congress) on those areas "having wilderness characteristics described in the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964." As noted, those wilderness characteristics are overwhelmingly recreation-related. There is no authority granted to the BLM to recommend for any reason areas which do not have wilderness characteristics as specified in the Act. There especially is no authorization for the BLM to recommend areas which do not meet the requirements of the Wilderness Act simply because of past actions by Congress which may have designated areas which do not meet the criteria in the Act.

If the agency believes that there are extenuating circumstances which would justify setting wilderness boundaries closer than 3 miles from a road, it certainly can convey that to Congress. But in doing so, it must make it clear that this is a departure from its guidelines and that Congress must decide what to do with respect to that particular parcel of land.

The importance of the application of the ROS criteria to the Utah wilderness issue is illustrated by the maps in Appendix D. The road network of two Utah counties, San Juan and Juab, along with the BLM WSA's and the "re-inventoried" lands are shown. Then the county road network is shown with a 1.5 mile buffer along the road and a 3 mile buffer. Since the 3 mile buffer is a guideline, the smaller, 1.5 mile buffer is shown to illustrate even the impact that width has on potential wilderness areas. The reader is reminded that in some areas, the buffer may need to be wider even than the three miles shown to satisfy the ROS criteria.

Not surprisingly, the acreage of the potential wilderness which qualified shrank substantially or disappeared entirely. Clearly, less BLM-managed land actually qualifies for wilderness designation than the 1.9 million acres the agency has recommended.

Specific implications for "cherry stemming"

The ROS criteria for road proximity is especially devastating to the practice of "cherry stemming" roads in proposed wilderness. In this practice, roads intruding into a parcel of federal land which might otherwise qualify as wilderness are drawn outside of the area by bringing the boundaries of the wilderness up along either side of the road and around its terminus. Technically, it is not in the proposed "wilderness area" though this process clearly violates the spirit and intent of the Wilderness Act which requires that wilderness areas be "roadless."

The practice is used occasionally by the BLM but is most extensively employed by wilderness advocates as a device to "qualify" as much BLM-managed land for potential wilderness designation as they can possibly can. Their motivation is not to designate true wilderness. Rather they are much more interested in attempting to defeat the intent of the American people as contained in FLPMA and other laws that the vast majority of BLM land be managed under a multiple use management regimen.

Because the boundaries of the same proposed "wilderness area" are drawn right up to the road and the 3 mile set back applies to both sides of the cherry stem, the application of the ROS has a particularly significant impact on any areas containing cherry stems. It results in a "shrinkage" of approximately 3840 acres per mile of cherry stemmed road (the equivalent of 3 sections of 640 acres each on each side of the road).

Specific implications for the Utah Wilderness Coalition's "Re-inventory"

Both the Utah Wilderness Coalition's original 5.7 million acre wilderness proposal and its revised "discovery" of nearly 9.2 million acres in its re-inventory of BLM land announced in the summer of 1998 are particularly severely impacted by the application of the ROS wilderness criteria to their recommended areas. Part of the reason is their extensive use of cherry stemming as discussed above. A major part of it, however, is the UWC's tendency to draw the boundaries of the areas they recommend for wilderness right up to the edge of roads.

While the BLM did this with WSA's in many instances, the area the agency recommended for wilderness within that WSA was frequently smaller and therefore farther from surrounding roads. These BLM recommended areas are frequently still in violation of the ROS guidelines, but they are closer to meeting them than the UWC recommendations.

As a result, where hundreds of thousands of acres of BLM-recommended wilderness disappear when the ROS criteria are applied, literally millions of acres of UWC recommendations suffer the same fate. Appendix F demonstrates the impact of the application of the ROS road set back to selected UWC recommended areas.

Specific implications for the BLM's Re-inventory

The BLM has concluded a re-inventory of the lands which the UWC says qualify for wilderness designation but which are outside the 3.2 million acres of WSA's. As a result, the agency claims to have found that a little more than 5 million acres of land it manages has "wilderness characteristics."

As can be seen from the maps of San Juan and Juab county, the application of the ROS buffer recommendations has a major impact on the original WSAs. Because the BLM "re-inventory" areas are generally smaller in area and closer to established roads almost none of them survive the application of a 1.5 mile buffer much less the 3 mile buffer.

Certainly the ROS guideline must be a major factor in an FLPMA Section 202 planning process which might seek to designate any of these areas as so called "administrative WSAs."

1.The perceptive reader will no doubt have noticed that in translating the much more extensive and detailed language of the requirements of the Wilderness Act to this oversimplified phrase, much of the original intent of Congress has already been altered by the agency. This oversimplifying and departure from the intent of the Act by the BLM continued in the actual inventory work and is responsible for a good portion of the problem with the Utah BLM recommendations. A detailed discussion of this dilution of the intent of Congress is outside the scope of this analysis, but such a discussion can be found in the Utah Association of Counties' analysis of the BLM's wilderness re-inventory, entitled "A Critique of the Approach and Procedures of the Utah BLM Wilderness Re-inventory" available from the Association and also posted on the Utah Wilderness Web Site, www.utahwilderness.com.