Caribou Gear Tarp

Wilderness Study Areas - GAO Review Interesting read.

Sytes

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
12,870
Location
Montana
This has been present for a good while - waiting for Congress to take care of business. This is a surface scratch of the info within... Cheers to all who have an interest. Whatever that interest might be. For myself, I would like to see this resolved though it appears Congress will always have more pressing matters... One reason I imagine some support MT's interest to see WSA's wrapped up and returned to their original status. After all, it has set with the study of the multifaceted uses since..? I would prefer to see the study concluded with Congress following up with the GAO review.

Federal Land Management:

Status and Uses of Wilderness Study Areas

RCED-93-151: Published: Sep 23, 1993. Publicly Released: Oct 25, 1993.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the wilderness study areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service, focusing on: (1) legislative guidance and agency policies governing wilderness study area management; (2) the various activities and uses of the study areas; (3) the ways these activities and uses affect the areas; and (4) agency actions to monitor and restrict these uses and repair damage.

GAO found that; (1) wilderness study areas are areas that are identified, either by Congress or agency officials, as having certain characteristics that qualify them as wilderness; (2) BLM and the Forest Service have implemented policies designated to protect wilderness study areas; (3) motor vehicles and mechanized equipment are generally prohibited in wilderness areas; (4) Congress has allowed for certain types of recreation in wilderness study areas such as riding all-terrain vehicles, motorcycles, snowmobiles, and mountain bikes; (5) surface disturbance or damage by motorized vehicle use is a concern of the managing agencies, as well as environmental groups; and (6) agency managers have several mechanisms for managing wilderness study areas and mitigating resource damage such as monitoring uses in study areas, restricting uses if necessary, and repairing any ensuing damage. - https://www.gao.gov/products/RCED-93-151

From the 108 pg .pdf: https://www.gao.gov/assets/220/218719.pdf Page #12 is the table of contents to help navigate to the areas that fit your interests.

This has been a great read for any interested in the Wilderness Act and Wilderness Study Areas.

A congressionally designated wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act
of 1964, is an area where natural forces prevail and where people are
visitors who do not remain. According to the act, a wilderness should be
protected and managed to preserve its natural conditions. Despite this
general operating framework, however, the Congress has authorized many
activities-such as recreation, commercial outfitting and guide services,
and livestock grazing-that can affect conditions in wilderness.

The Congress has allowed many different uses, such as primitive
recreation and grazing, to occur in wilderness and in wilderness study
areas. Different users have different perspectives on what a wilderness
should be and on what effects of use are acceptable in wilderness study
areas, In the study areas we visited, the effects and damage we saw were b
concentrated in relatively small and accessible areas. Because people have
various concepts about “wilderness,” they will also have different opinions
about the severity of “man’s imprint” on potential and designated
wilderness, However, the final decision about an area’s suitability for
wilderness rests with the Congress.

The various human uses in wilderness study areas may also affect users’
perceptions of an area’s wilderness characteristics of naturalness and
solitude. Users’ expectations about a “wilderness experience” and about
wilderness study areas vary. For example, some users believe that any loss
of naturalness due to human use is unacceptable. For them, the presence
of motorized use or livestock in wilderness study areas is distasteful.
Others may have a higher tolerance for physical effects in wilderness
study areas.
Furthermore, users with expectations that a wilderness study area will
provide a given level of solitude may be offended by the presence and
effects of other uses, such as motorized and mechanized recreation.
Agency officials generally view many of these social effects as transitory,
as these forms of recreation would not be allowed if the study area were
designated as wilderness.

Because of the large number of wilderness study areas, we could not visit
every one. However, we visited and gathered detailed information on 33
wilderness study areas. In selecting these areas, we first sought opinions
from BLM and Forest Service officials and from several conservation and
environmental groups about which areas had sustained the “worst”
surface disturbance or damage resulting from various uses. In addition to
these 14 areas, we judgmentally selected, with input from agency officials,
19 others to visit. In selecting these areas, we sought to obtain a variety of
conditions, uses, and geographic features. Table IV.1 shows the areas we
visited.

Here are the conclusions via GAO - Forest Service:
Of the 117 areas, 40 were designated study areas by the Congress, through
various laws. Accordingly, unless the law specified otherwise, these areas
require a congressional decision to release them from study area status.
Another 49 study areas were identified through the forest planning
process. The Forest Service can release these areas from study if the
approved forest plans for the areas do not recommend that the areas be
designated as wilderness. The remaining 28 study areas were identified
under an earlier Forest Service process, the Roadless Area Review and
Evaluation II (RARE II) process.’ As of April 1993, the Forest Service’s
wilderness study areas have been in study area status for an average of
about 10 years.
Of the 117 areas, the Forest Service has recommended that 78 (either in
whole or in part), comprising over 4.6 million acres, be designated as b
wilderness. From the congressionally mandated study areas, 2.5 million
acres in 19 areas have been recommended for inclusion in the wilderness
system. From the areas identified through the forest planning process,
1.8 million acres in 45 areas have been recommended. From the areas
identified through the RARE II process, about 322,000 acres in 14 areas have
been recommended. For seven areas, no recommendations have yet been
made.

Here are the conclusions via GAO - BLM:
Of the 762 wilderness study areas, 603 were designated as WSASu nder
Areas section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).
Accordingly, these areas require a congressional decision to release them
from study area status. Of these areas, 23 had previously been identified as
primitive or natural areas; FLPMA required that BLM include such areas in its
wilderness review. These areas are called Instant Study Areas (ISA).
Another 97 WSA.wSe re designated under section 202 of FLPMA. BLM can
release these areas from study if its approved land use plans for the areas
do not recommend that the areas be designated as wilderness. The
remaining 51 WSASw ere created under both sections 603 and 202; that is,
parts of the areas were designated under one section, and other parts
under the other. The one study area mandated by the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) is to be administered to maintain
its existing wilderness character until the Congress decides otherwise. As
of April 1993, BLM'S wilderness study areas have been in this status for an I,
average of 12.6 years. Eighty-eight percent had been established as study
areas by December 1982.
Of the 752 wilderness study areas, BLM has recommended that 336 (either
in whole or in part), comprising 9.5 million acres, be designated as
wilderness. From the section 603 WSAS8, .3 million acres in 269 areas have
been recommended for inclusion in the wilderness system. From the
section 202 WSASa, pproximately 167,000 acres in 35 areas have been
recommended. From the combined section 603 and 202 WSASa, bout
966,000 acres in 31 areas have been recommended. From the
ANILCA-mandated study area, 4 1,000 acres have been recommended. Five
study areas are still under consideration.
 
Agreed. End the "Study Area" designation and make a decision. Either make them a Wilderness Area or, return them to their previous designation. 30...40 years "should" be sufficient time to determine the question of whether or not these areas need the additional protection of a Wilderness Area. Typical governmental bureaucracy though - can't make a decision about anything.
 
Would love to have the discussion on WSA's. The problem is the two stooges leading this from Montana have no problem lying to you.

"nearly 700,000 acres of WSA's in Montana that the agencies found were not suitable for wilderness designation."

I wonder if they ever read the ESA's for many of the WSA's included in their special interest bill.

5rpxkmx.jpg
 
Would love to have the discussion on WSA's.
Would it not be appropriate to update the analyses and recommendations which are now many decades old and then arrive at well-vetted congressional decisions for the various areas in question? The carte blanc dissolution of WSA's seems a stupidly overly simplified solution to a complex issue ... proposed by (insert your description based on your own bent) Montana congressmen.
 
Would it not be appropriate to update the analyses and recommendations which are now many decades old and then arrive at well-vetted congressional decisions for the various areas in question? The carte blanc dissolution of WSA's seems a stupidly overly simplified solution to a complex issue ... proposed by (insert your description based on your own bent) Montana congressmen.

From my perspective, it has been evaluated and presented for Congressional review. The only aspect that has any sense of slightly adjusted impact from the GAO review, off the top of my thoughts, are wider mtn bicycle tires. Hooves and shoes, mechanical and motorized have been studied. No sense wasting more time. submit what has already been detailed within the GAO. This was evaluated based on environmental groups, FS, BLM and detailed studies conducted.

If there is time for Congress push to release, there is time to apply the results as already greatly detailed. To involve the anti extremes of both sides into a bitter battle of words is asking for more trouble than what may or may not add or reduce to the WSA's as studied. Way too much bitterness from both extremes as it is.

two pennies worth. Was a great read.
 
Last edited:
From my perspective, it has been evaluated and presented for Congressional review.
I share the same perspective, however, that was a Congress of forty years ago that began kicking the can down the road. Likely many aspects are similar to then, but many have also probably changed, as well as resource values, wilderness values, recreational uses, and a myriad of other factors. Again, why the rush to simply rescind WSA's protections and ignore recommendations for some of the wilderness designations?

I also share your perspective of the GAO review, but I don't think Gianforte's bill is to review recommendations ... but to simply rescind WSA designations? Please correct me if I am misunderstanding.
 
Back
Top