Bears Ears National Monument

[WasatchWill]

So today was the day resource extraction companies could start seeking claims on the lands recently opened up by the monument reductions for both BENM and GSENM.

For all the fears of mining and other such industries and operations eager to pounce on the lands that had previously been off limits, it doesn't sound like there's much interest if any from anyone wanting to move right in any time soon. Let's all be grateful that coal has been and is in a decline, as is Uranium and so on. This all confirms what I figured would happen, at least for a while. That is, I think most of these BLM lands will largely stay untouched by lease claims, except for maybe a few isolated spots where some gas and oil operations could go in, at least for the foreseeable future, even if the courts don't end up restoring the previous boundaries to the monuments. So...hopefully, as markets trend and swing to other demands and technologies, the lands released from the monuments that we've all enjoyed, will continue to have less appeal to the big energy companies as it seems to be the case right now, and thus remain more pristine and open to recreation to those who've enjoyed them as such, just as they were before and after they had been put into monuments.

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46252402&n...ped-from-utah-monuments-open-to-claims-leases

Honestly, I wasn't as put off by the Bears Ears reduction as others...as it's been my understanding that ARPA still stands to protect all the ruin sites throughout and what not, and that Grand Gulch along with the other Cedar Mesa canyons across the road will still be somewhat protected with their permit system and all that. Again, I think the lands will largely remain as they were before BENM and its boundaries was ever even an idea. It was the big reduction in GSENM that made me more upset.


EDIT - Ooops!!...guess it started yesterday, and I didn't realize some other posts were already put up on this yesterday.

 

[WasatchWill]

Yes, there are a lot of oil wells in the bears ears and cedar mesa area already. Most of them exploratory in nature. However, if the cost of oil rises, it may be economically viable to extract. If you drive south along 261 at night, you can see dozens of wells off to your east. To put it in more concrete terms, there are old drilling operation s at the fish and owl parking, as well as where slickhorn meets the river.

I'm holding out hope that oil doesn't make any dramatic increases anytime soon with the increase in electric vehicle production as technology improves there, in addition to expanding public transportation projects in urban areas, and so forth.

 

[Jackson]

Thanks @gnwatts and @LarryBoy for those explanations. Much appreciated.

 

[Reef&Ruins]

Apparently oil and gas leasing was front and center for Bears Ears reductions. Yes I realize it is the (failing) New York Times, but worth a look nonetheless
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/climate/bears-ears-national-monument.html

 

[LarryBoy]

I'm shocked, shocked, to find out that drilling is going on here.

 

[Wanderlust073]

So utah public schools are funded in large part by land sales, have been since 1896, and lost 110,000 acres of saleable land by presidential fiat in 2016.

Is there a movement in Utah to increase taxes to cover that portion of school funding so that funding via resource exploitation will never again be a consideration when it comes to land preservation movements? Is there widespread support and acceptance of such a tax increase, in equal measure to the reaction observed when shrinking the monument boundaries was proposed?

Obviously I ask this tongue-in-cheek, but details like this one are interesting and never seem to be presented during the 'hey let's report this as simplistically as possible so people can get their righteous indignation on without getting hung up on details' stage of public debate.

 

[Nick]

So utah public schools are funded in large part by land sales, have been since 1896, and lost 110,000 acres of saleable land by presidential fiat in 2016.

Are you suggesting they lost sellable state land by the proclamation of Bears Ears in 2016?

 

[Brendan S]

So utah public schools are funded in large part by land sales, have been since 1896, and lost 110,000 acres of saleable land by presidential fiat in 2016.

Is there a movement in Utah to increase taxes to cover that portion of school funding so that funding via resource exploitation will never again be a consideration when it comes to land preservation movements? Is there widespread support and acceptance of such a tax increase, in equal measure to the reaction observed when shrinking the monument boundaries was proposed?

Obviously I ask this tongue-in-cheek, but details like this one are interesting and never seem to be presented during the 'hey let's report this as simplistically as possible so people can get their righteous indignation on without getting hung up on details' stage of public debate.

All of the state land was being swapped anyway. Zero state trust land was going to be lost.

 

[Nick]

All of the state land was being swapped anyway. Zero state trust land was going to be lost.

Yep. If anything, it would have been a boon to the state since most of those state parcels were locked up and inaccessible. Look at how well the state made out with the swap after GSENM. They got lots of cash and traded for land that was much more valuable to them.

Just look a all those little blue SITLA parcels surrounded by federal lands on the map below, many of which are worthless to the state without a swap like could've/should've happened with Bears Ears. GSENM used to be the same way.

https://trustlands.utah.gov/download/maps/statewide/SurfaceMineral_st36x48_shd.pdf

 

[Wanderlust073]

The Utah govt wonk quoted in the article was unaware of this or something? Speaking of details that seems a major one the article omits.

 

[IntrepidXJ]

The Utah govt wonk quoted in the article was unaware of this or something?

They need to always play the victim with the Feds.

 

[Brendan S]

Yep. If anything, it would have been a boon to the state since most of those state parcels were locked up and inaccessible. Look at how well the state made out with the swap after GSENM. They got lots of cash and traded for land that was much more valuable to them.

Just look a all those little blue SITLA parcels surrounded by federal lands on the map below, many of which are worthless to the state without a swap like could've/should've happened with Bears Ears. GSENM used to be the same way.

https://trustlands.utah.gov/download/maps/statewide/SurfaceMineral_st36x48_shd.pdf

Agreed, land swaps like these are typically great for the state. The GSENM swap consolidated a bunch of scattered parcels into gas-rich land mostly in Uinta basin that was far easier to actually make money from.

 

[IntrepidXJ]

If the new GSENM boundaries stick, I sure hope the Fed. Gvt. goes after Utah to recover these costs...

Yep. If anything, it would have been a boon to the state since most of those state parcels were locked up and inaccessible. Look at how well the state made out with the swap after GSENM. They got lots of cash and traded for land that was much more valuable to them.

Just look a all those little blue SITLA parcels surrounded by federal lands on the map below, many of which are worthless to the state without a swap like could've/should've happened with Bears Ears. GSENM used to be the same way.

https://trustlands.utah.gov/download/maps/statewide/SurfaceMineral_st36x48_shd.pdf

 

[Jackson]

That whole "land swap" concept is very interesting, and I had no idea about it until reading your recent posts, @Nick and @Brendan S. Makes good sense that it would be helpful to the state to get those small parcels combined.

Great discussions on here!

 

[Wanderlust073]

It doesn't really make sense though. Zinke and Trump were devils bought and paid for by big energy companies so those companies could rush in and get their hands on lands that had no real value; that Utah state organizations were better off trading away for other lands with better potential for sale/lease to energy companies? There's either a critical detail I'm missing, or the narrative just falls apart. The fact that no one is actually rushing in to do anything at all appears to bolster the latter.

 

[Nick]

It doesn't really make sense though.

That pretty much sums it up. Like if you talk to a local San Juan county resident about why they oppose monument designation. If they learn the facts, it pretty much comes down to them not wanting crowds. But then they pour money into tourism advertising. I don't even know how many times I've heard their ads on NPR telling me to come hike and play in beautiful San Juan County. I truly believe it's just an echo chamber. They believe that a monuments will ruin their lives because that's what they've heard over and over, so they say it, and everyone believes it all, with no evidence to back it up.

 

[Reef&Ruins]

It doesn't really make sense though. Zinke and Trump were devils bought and paid for by big energy companies so those companies could rush in and get their hands on lands that had no real value; that Utah state organizations were better off trading away for other lands with better potential for sale/lease to energy companies? There's either a critical detail I'm missing, or the narrative just falls apart. The fact that no one is actually rushing in to do anything at all appears to bolster the latter.

I think this is just it... what I have noticed is that with Trump (and by extension in this case, Zinke) is that there is a feeling/desire that they want to support someone who supported them, so whatever is asked for is done. Even if it doesn't always make sense.

 

[IntrepidXJ]

It doesn't really make sense though. Zinke and Trump were devils bought and paid for by big energy companies so those companies could rush in and get their hands on lands that had no real value; that Utah state organizations were better off trading away for other lands with better potential for sale/lease to energy companies? There's either a critical detail I'm missing, or the narrative just falls apart. The fact that no one is actually rushing in to do anything at all appears to bolster the latter.

The critical detail is that Utah wants total control of the land in the state. They'll support anything that gets them closer to that goal. Read up on the Sagebrush Rebellion for a little history.

 

[cjhaines]

Speaking of land swaps, now there's this:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environ...-to-the-full-140-mile-hole-in-the-rock-trail/

 

[Reef&Ruins]

I posted the full info in the Escalante National Park thread but in case anyone didn't see the Bears Ears specific part of the information there I will reproduce it below:

Bears Ears National Monument Meetings:

Monday, March 26th, 4:30-8 pm, San Juan High School, 311 N 100 East, Blanding, UT 8451

Tuesday, March 27th, 4:30-8 pm, Bluff Community Center 3rd East and Mulberry Bluff Rd, Bluff, UT 84512

This is apparently going to be a way to get your voice heard by the BLM with respect to the reduction in the monument, etc. It also appears it will be the best and perhaps only way to do so.