3.2.4 Wilderness
Definition of Wilderness
The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a National Wilderness Preservation System and identified a wilderness area 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.” The
Wilderness Act goes on to further define a wilderness area as “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 |
Section 2(a) of the Wilderness Act requires the BLM to manage wilderness areas so as to lead to, “the preservation of their
wilderness character.” Although the Wilderness Act clearly instructs land-management agencies to protect the wilderness character
of an area, it provides no definition of wilderness character. The definition of wilderness in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness
Act is used by Federal agencies to identify four tangible qualities of wilderness character, saying a wilderness should be:
untrammeled, undeveloped, natural, and provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131–1136) direct the BLM to manage wilderness
areas for the public’s use and enjoyment in a manner that will leave these areas unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as
wilderness by providing for protection of those areas and the preservation of their wilderness character. BLM Manual 6340
(BLM 2012d) provides the BLM with specific guidance in interpreting and carrying out wilderness management goals for designated
wilderness. The BLM accomplishes its wilderness management goals by taking actions to preserve the four primary qualities
of wilderness character described below. However, there is inherent conflict between some or all of these qualities, leading
the BLM to make management decisions that may lead to trade-offs between them.
|
• |
Untrammeled—wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation. The untrammeled quality of wilderness
is degraded by manipulating “the community of life.” Examples include spraying weeds, suppressing fire, lighting fire, stocking
fish and wildlife, or killing predators. |
|
• |
Natural —wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization. Examples of how the natural
quality of wilderness is degraded include the occurrence of non-native species, vegetation communities (upland and riparian)
not meeting Land Health Standards, extirpated or extinct native animals and plants, and the disruption of wildlife migration
corridors. |
|
• |
Undeveloped—wilderness retains its primeval character and influence, and is essentially without permanent improvement or modern human
occupation. The undeveloped quality of wilderness is degraded by the presence of structures or installations such as stock
tanks, water developments, or scientific installations, the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or mechanical transport,
and inholdings. |
|
• |
Solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation—wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. This quality is degraded
by the presence of facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation, management restrictions on visitor behavior, the sights
and sounds of people inside wilderness, and the sights and sounds of occupied and modified areas outside the wilderness. |
A single decision or action may affect more than one of the qualities described above. For example, the decision to build
a water gauging station within a wilderness would affect at least two qualities. The decision to build it would degrade the
untrammeled quality, and the continued presence of the structure would degrade the undeveloped quality. Furthermore, a decision
or action to improve one quality may simultaneously degrade another quality. Building a bridge to reduce site impacts at a
stream crossing may improve the natural quality, but it would degrade the undeveloped and the solitude or primitive and unconfined
type of recreation qualities.
Current Condition
The Dominguez Canyon Wilderness (the Wilderness) was designated under the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, the
same act that created the D-E NCA. The Wilderness is a 66,280-acre area located within the D-E NCA. The Wilderness is part
of what was once the Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Study Area The sandstone canyons and pinyon-juniper covered mesas of the
Wilderness offer excellent opportunities for solitude and primitive types of recreation. Year-round, water runs through the
Little Dominguez Creek creating a great habitat for many birds, mammals and reptiles. Desert bighorn sheep have been reintroduced
to the area and visitors can often see the sheep grazing at the base of the cliffs in the Wilderness. Rock art on the canyon
walls and wickiups on the mesas testify to the thousands of years the Native Americans used the area for hunting, shelter
and as a travel corridor from the Gunnison River Valley to the Uncompahgre Plateau. These canyons also show traces of the
early miners and settlers who lived and worked throughout the area.
In 2010, the four wilderness managing agencies (BLM, United States Forest Service, National Park Service, and United States
Fish and Wildlife Service) began implementing the “Keeping it Wild” wilderness monitoring program. This interagency project
was designed to monitor the four main qualities of wilderness character listed above as well as the fifth quality of “unique
and supplemental values.” The “Keeping it Wild” monitoring protocol was completed for the Dominguez Canyon Wilderness in early
2011 and consists of data from the 2010 calendar year. The results of this monitoring are summarized below by quality of wilderness
character.
Untrammeled
Under the Keeping It Wild monitoring program, the indicators for untrammeled include the number of authorized actions taken
that manipulate biological resources or natural processes (e.g., vegetation treatments, manipulations of wildlife habitat,
manipulating wildland fire, etc.) Using these indicators, the Dominguez Canyon Wilderness is considerably untrammeled. There
were a total of five chemical control weed treatments within the Wilderness in 2010. There were no natural fire starts in
2010, and no unauthorized actions by any group to manipulate plants, animals, pathogens, soil, water, or fire.
Natural
Under the Keeping It Wild monitoring program, the indicators for naturalness include the status of native biological communities,
the abundance and distribution of non-indigenous species, and the actual AUMs of livestock use inside the Wilderness.
Like the D-E NCA as a whole, the BLM went through a process to identify priority vegetation/habitat types and priority species
within the Wilderness. Through this process the BLM identified the following priority vegetation/habitat types within the
Wilderness: desert shrub/saltbush, pinyon-juniper woodlands, sagebrush shrublands, riparian, seeps and springs and aquatic
systems. Desert bighorn sheep and Colorado hookless cactus were identified as priority species, as these species require management
beyond management of their habitat types. Once these priority vegetation/habitat types and species had been determined, the
BLM identified the key attributes and associated indicators of health for each priority vegetation/habitat type and species.
The planning team then established standards for each indicator so that its current condition could be summarized as “poor,”
“fair,” “good,” or “very good.” See Appendix G for a detailed summary of these attributes, indicators and current condition
of these indicators for the Wilderness.
As explained above, indicators and standards were developed for each priority vegetation/habitat type and priority species
to determine an overall ranking of either “poor,” “fair,” “good,” or “very good.” These indicators and standards are being
used to define naturalness in the Wilderness. Using this system, the current status of the native biological communities in
the Wilderness is summarized in Table 3.27 (see Appendix G for more detail):
Overall Current Rating for Priority Vegetation/Habitat and Species in the Wilderness
|
Priority Vegetation/Habitat Type or Species |
Overall Current Rating |
|
Desert shrub/saltbush
|
Good
|
|
Pinyon-juniper woodlands
|
Very Good
|
|
Sagebrush shrublands
|
Good
|
|
Riparian
|
Very Good
|
|
Seeps and springs
|
Good
|
|
Aquatic systems
|
Good
|
|
Desert bighorn sheep
|
Fair
|
|
Colorado hookless cactus
|
Good
|
In general, the priority vegetation/habitat and priority species in the Wilderness are relatively healthy and are healthier
than non-wilderness lands within the D-E NCA. There are, however, some issues that are described below.
Although the desert shrub/saltbush vegetative type is much healthier within the Wilderness than on non-wilderness lands within
the D-E NCA, there are still too many acres lacking site-appropriate mixtures of warm and cold season grasses, shrubs and
forbs. There are also too many acres with high composition of non-native plants, specifically cheatgrass. Both of these indicators
currently rank as “fair” (Appendix G). In particular, a number of acres on the McCarty Bench have a high composition of non-native
plants and an inappropriate mixture of warm and cold season grasses, shrubs and forbs. These acres were determined to be “not
meeting” Colorado Standards for Public Land Health when last surveyed in 2009.
In regard to sagebrush shrublands, three indicators were judged to be in ”poor” or “fair” condition (Appendix G). The expected
composition of the Wilderness’s sagebrush shrubland plant communities is unbalanced (i.e., an unnatural ratio of grass to
shrub to forb). There are also too many acres in the Wilderness with an overabundance of the non-native crested wheatgrass,
which was planted in the 1960s and reduces the biological diversity and ecological value of the community. In addition, there
are too few acres providing sufficient habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse, which require sagebrush cover between 10-30 percent.
In regard to aquatic systems, two indicators are currently ranked as “poor” (Appendix G). This is due to a lack of native
trout in the upper reaches of the Dominguez watershed, which is instead dominated by non-native rainbow and brown trout, and
due to the inaccessibility of the lower reaches of Big and Little Dominguez Creeks to fish coming out of the Gunnison River
to spawn. This prevents the natural movement of the Gunnison River’s native fish species, which include federally threatened
and endangered fish species, as well as BLM sensitive fish species.
Desert bighorn sheep were reintroduced into the area of the D-E NCA beginning in 1983. Although the size of the Dominguez
desert bighorn sheep herd is currently ranked as “good,” the indicator relating to the potential for disease transmission
is currently ranked as “poor” within the Wilderness. There are no domestic sheep grazing allotments in the Wilderness. However,
domestic goats can be currently found in Little Dominguez Canyon due to the continued occupancy of a homestead that was deeded
to the BLM by Mr. Billyie E. Rambo. He continues to maintain his residence in the Wilderness under a “life lease” agreement, and he has maintained a small
flock of goats in the core area for the bighorn sheep since before the bighorns were introduced. Association between goats
and wild bighorn sheep is a concern from a disease transmission standpoint, because goats are not as “gregarious” (i.e., likely
to group together) as some breeds of domestic sheep. In addition, the lack of a herder or monitor makes it difficult to detect
when intermingling occurs.
Non-indigenous species are not significantly impacting the natural character of the Dominguez Canyon Wilderness. Nine invasive
species have been documented within the Wilderness and only four of them in an area of significant size (see Table 3.28 below).
Weeds in the Wilderness
|
Species |
Acres |
Percentage of Wilderness |
|
Bull thistle
|
0.26
|
0.001%
|
|
Canada thistle
|
87.77
|
0.137%
|
|
Common burdock
|
0.26
|
0.001%
|
|
Field bindweed
|
0.003
|
0%
|
|
Halogeton
|
90.89
|
0.137%
|
|
Musk thistle
|
0.259
|
0.001%
|
|
Russian knapweed
|
16.2
|
0.0245%
|
|
Tall whitetop
|
0.26
|
0.001%
|
|
Tamarisk
|
74.67
|
0.119%
|
|
Total
|
270.57
|
0.41%
|
Livestock grazing is a historic use in the Dominguez Canyon Wilderness. The 2009 designating legislation directed the BLM
to manage established livestock grazing in the Wilderness in accordance with the 1964 Wilderness Act and the guidelines set
forth in Appendix A of the report of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives accompanying
H.R. 2570 of the 101st Congress (commonly referred to as the Congressional Grazing Guidelines). Established grazing in the
Wilderness is managed under three allotments; the Gibbler Common Allotment, the Wagon Park Allotment, and the Dominguez Allotment
(Table 3.29). All three allotments include lands both inside and outside of the Wilderness. The actual use of all three
allotments varies from year to year depending on a variety of factors including, but not limited to, weather, forage, available
water, and permittee operations. As such, actual AUMs inside the Wilderness are estimates based on permittee post-use reporting
and the rangeland management specialist’s knowledge of the allotment.
Grazing in the Wilderness
|
Allotment |
AUMs Used |
Comments |
|
Dominguez
|
~500-1,000
|
The grazing permit for the Dominguez Allotment authorizes 4,800 AUMs of grazing use. 35,366 acres (61%) of the allotment
are in the Wilderness. Livestock operators use the Wilderness along the Gunnison River to move cattle between the permittee’s
private property holdings. Livestock operations also use the mesas and ridges in the southern part of the Wilderness. Since
there are no livestock water developments in the Wilderness part of the allotment, use is limited in much of the allotment
to times when snow is available. When snow is available, up to 1,200 AUMs are used in the Wilderness. If snow is not available,
the number of AUMs used in the Wilderness part of the allotment is significantly less, and the Wilderness portion of the allotment
that is used for grazing is primarily along the Gunnison River.
|
|
Wagon Park
|
440
|
The grazing permit for the Wagon Park Allotment authorizes 1,164 active animal-unit months (AUMs) of grazing use. 20,110
acres (62%) of the allotment are in the Wilderness. Livestock operators use the Wilderness (Big Dominguez Canyon in the Spring
and Little Dominguez Canyon in the fall) to trail cattle. Operators in this allotment also use the Wilderness for grazing
on the benches below Wagon Park, Steamboat Mesa, Middle Mesa, Long Mesa and around Starr Mesa in the fall. The allotment
is intensively managed outside the Wilderness (vegetation treatments, pasture fences, water developments, etc.). As a result,
the majority of the AUMs used in the allotment are outside the Wilderness.
|
|
Gibbler Commons
|
680
|
The grazing permit for the Gibbler Common Allotment authorizes 3,275 active AUMs. 10,601 acres (20%) of the allotment are
in the Wilderness. Within the allotment, there are two general uses of the Wilderness for livestock operations. First, the
Horse Mesa part of the Wilderness is used as part of a pasture rotation. On a rotating basis, cattle use the Farmers Canyon
(which does not include the Wilderness) pasture during the spring and the Slope pasture (which includes the Horse Mesa part
of the Wilderness) in the fall/winter. The current operations rotate this use pattern every two years. The second use of
the Wilderness in the Gibbler Allotment is around Triangle Mesa. This part of the Wilderness is used in the fall/winter as
cattle from the Wagon Park Allotment are moved either into Cactus Park or along the Gunnison River. The allotment is intensively
managed outside the Wilderness (vegetation treatments, pasture fences, water developments, etc.). Combined with the low percentage
of wilderness in the allotment, the intensive management outside the Wilderness results in the majority of actual AUMs in
the allotment being used outside the Wilderness.
|
|
Total Annual Use:
|
~1,620-2,120
|
|
Undeveloped
Under the Keeping It Wild monitoring program, the indicators for undeveloped include physical developments or structures (buildings,
fences, corrals, mines, etc.), the number of times motorized vehicles use the Wilderness (both authorized and unauthorized),
and the impact of inholdings. There is one residential structure complex within the Wilderness. The Billyie E. Rambo homestead in Little Dominguez Canyon consists of an old house, an outbuilding, old farming implements, ranching and farming
supplies. The property the homestead occupies has been deeded to the BLM, and Mr. Rambo has a lease to occupy the property
for his lifetime.
There are approximately 5.2 miles of fencing within the Wilderness. There are 33 separate fences in the Wilderness. All the
fences were developed for livestock management. Most (29) are constructed with either barbed wire or woven wire. There are
a few brush fences on Camp Ridge and along the Gunnison Pack Trail. There are two corrals, one constructed with posts and
poles, near the mouth of Dominguez Canyon and one constructed with brush along the McCarty Trail.
There is a steel gate along the Triangle Mesa route. The gate was installed by the BLM during the period the area was managed
as a WSA to restrict motorized travel around Triangle Mesa.
There are 13 water developments within the Wilderness (9 in the Wagon Park allotment, 4 in the Gibbler Common allotment and none in the
Dominguez Allotment ). Additionally, prior to the Omnibus Act there was a proposal to construct seven earthen ponds in the
Dominguez Allotment portion of the Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Study Area. The ponds were first proposed in the early 1980s
and have not been constructed. The Omnibus Act states that the BLM “may allow construction of new livestock watering facilities
within the Wilderness in accordance with (i) section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act; and 2) the guidelines set forth in Appendix
A of the report of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives accompanying H.R. 2570 of
the 101st Congress (H. Rept. 101–405).” New facilities will be permitted by the BLM only for the purpose of enhancing the
protection of wilderness character (BLM 2012d).
None of the existing water developments are slated for closure, and all are judged in good working order. The impoundments
are all on ephemeral streams and have no impact on year-round streams.
There are two existing rights-of-way within the Wilderness. Both C17563 and C20070 at Steamboat Spring are public water withdrawals
from land laws and mineral entry. In addition to these ROWs, there are three known abandoned mines within the Wilderness.
All three have been reclaimed according to Abandoned Mine Reclamation standards.
All three livestock allotments have authorized motorized use. Permittees generally use motorized vehicles to distribute salt
and check the status of water developments. CPW monitors the bighorn sheep herd with helicopter flights. Occasionally, the
helicopter lands inside the Wilderness. Unauthorized motorized use does occasionally occur in the Wilderness. Generally
the unauthorized use is limited to the areas along the boundary. Occasionally, wilderness patrol reports note unauthorized
motorized use deep into the Wilderness along the McCarty and Gunnison Pack Trails.
There is only one inholding within the Dominguez Canyon Wilderness. CPW has a 640-acre parcel on Sowbelly Ridge, Tatum Ridge,
and Camp Ridge. There is very little chance of further development of this area.
Opportunities for Solitude and Primitive and Unconfined Recreation
Under the “Keeping It Wild” monitoring program, the indicators for opportunities for solitude include the amount of visitor
use, the number of miles of routes, the number of the BLM-provided recreation facilities, the number of user-created recreation
facilities, and the number of management restrictions placed on users.
Visitor use of Dominguez Canyon Wilderness is best described as light to moderate and subject to seasonal variations. The
BLM estimates total recreational use of the Wilderness is approximately 12,000 visits per year, on the basis of trail counters
and patrol observations.
There are five primary recreation access points to the Wilderness (Cactus Park, Dominguez Campground/Trailhead, the Gunnison
Pack Trail, the McCarty Trailhead, and the mouth of Dominguez Canyon). In 2005, the BLM constructed a bridge across the Gunnison
River at Bridgeport to provide safe, legal foot access to the Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Study Area – in contrast to hikers
trespassing over a nearby, private bridge. The BLM estimates recreational use in the Wilderness via the Bridgeport Bridge
totals 9,000 visits per year (75 percent of all wilderness visitation).
The other popular access to Big Dominguez Canyon is by boaters on the Gunnison River. There are several popular campsites
outside the Wilderness at the mouth of Big Dominguez Canyon. Many float groups consist of up to 25 people leading to occasional
crowding and temporary loss of solitude if they all hike into the Wilderness together.
The Dominguez Campground is located adjacent to the Wilderness boundary at the top end of Big Dominguez Canyon. The campground
is at an elevation of 7,000-feet, which prevents much use during the winter but is more comfortable during the summer. Visitors
can hike into the upper end of Big Dominguez Canyon from this site, with the majority of visitors only hiking a mile or two
before turning around.
Other common access points to the Wilderness include the Cactus Park Trailhead and the McCarty Trailhead in Escalante Canyon.
The number of miles of routes in a wilderness and the amount of recreation facilities can influence the quality of both solitude
and primitive types of recreation. Routes provide easier access to visitors. As a result, the opportunity for primitive
types of recreation is enhanced (i.e., a hike or horseback ride is more enjoyable on a route than cross-country). Conversely,
the presence of a route can result in fewer opportunities for solitude (i.e., people are more apt to be on routes than off
routes, increasing the chances that a visitor would encounter other visitors). Recreation facilities are similar. Available
facilities can enhance a recreation outing (e.g., a trail sign can make navigation easier), and the more facilities available
can result in increased visitation. The result is fewer opportunities for solitude.
There are 100.6 miles of routes in the Wilderness (22.4 miles of single track and 78.2 miles of double track). There are
no trail signs or other BLM-provided recreation facilities inside the Wilderness. Twelve user-created undeveloped campsites
have been documented inside the Wilderness.
Unique and Supplemental Values
Under the “Keeping It Wild” monitoring program, the indicators for unique and supplemental values include the status of cultural
resources and status of indigenous species that are listed, or are candidates for listing, as threatened or endangered. The
Dominguez Canyon Wilderness is known for the presence of Colorado hookless cactus and a wealth of cultural resources. Cultural
resources are discussed in greater length in other sections of this document, but it should be acknowledged that they drive
visitor use and may require special protective management within the Wilderness at some point in the future.
Wilderness Focus Groups
In December 2010, Colorado Mesa University’s Natural Resource and Land Policy Institute held two focus groups on wilderness
issues. The Grand Junction focus group had 27 participants and the Delta focus group had 13. Both meetings followed the same
script with some minor additions based upon conversation and questions, particularly in the Delta group.
The focus groups were set up to determine community preferences for future management of the Dominguez Canyon Wilderness.
Emphasis was placed on the preservation of wilderness character and more specifically on the inherent qualities of wilderness
character. Some trade-offs could arise when one or more qualities conflict with each other.
Five qualities (untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, solitude and unconfined recreation, unique and supplemental values) were
explained to participants at the beginning of each meeting. A series of questions were then asked in which participants were
given a choice between two potential trade-offs for one or more of the qualities of wilderness character. Participants used
a hand-held clicker to make a selection on a range of 1 to 5, representing whether they felt strongly about one quality over
another, had a milder preference for one quality, or didn’t have a preference at all. The focus group concluded with a series
of questions based upon five wilderness zones created by the BLM for these meetings. Participants were asked to identify their
most important quality for each wilderness zone, their second most important quality for each zone, and their least important.
Example of a Wilderness Focus Group Question:
Title: removal of an old gate
Trade-off: untrammeled vs. undeveloped
Situation: a large metal gate was installed on an old route before the area was designated as wilderness. Should the BLM go in and
remove the gate (trammeling the Wilderness) to improve the undeveloped character of the Wilderness?
Participants then had 15-20 seconds to make a selection from one of five choices:
A – strongly prefer untrammeled
B – somewhat prefer untrammeled
C – I don’t know or I don’t prefer one to the other
D – somewhat prefer undeveloped
E – strongly prefer undeveloped
Responses to this question are shown in Table 3.30 below.
Responses by Community
| Response |
Delta |
Grand Junction |
Both Focus Groups |
|
Response A
|
5
|
5
|
10
|
|
Response B
|
1
|
6
|
7
|
|
Response C
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
|
Response D
|
1
|
5
|
6
|
|
Response E
|
1
|
6
|
7
|
|
Total
|
9
|
25
|
34
|
For example, a Delta participant’s comment about the first question was “it’s just taxpayer money to take the gate down, it’s a waste of money.” Delta participants were clearly in favor of not removing the gate (6 to 2) and maintaining the untrammeled character of
the Wilderness, whereas Grand Junction participants were evenly split (11 to 11) between removing the gate and leaving the
gate.
The focus groups concluded with a series of questions designed to determine what participants felt was the most important
quality of wilderness character within the Dominguez Canyon Wilderness.
Through responses to these questions, some themes emerge about the participants’ views about future management direction of
the Wilderness. There were significant differences between attitudes of the Delta focus group and the Grand Junction focus
group. The Delta focus group showed a strong, steady preference for preserving the untrammeled character of the Wilderness
as well as maintaining the opportunity for unconfined recreation. The Grand Junction focus group was more diverse in their
responses but with a general preference in favor of naturalness and the unique and supplemental qualities of the Wilderness