# Proposed Daggett Land Swap



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

What are the real impacts of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act? Daggett County is hoping to allow the Green River to be designated under this Act as part of a land swap that will enable a developer to build a resort on what is currently public land. 
Here's where I read about it:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/58455417-90/county-daggett-wilderness-utah.html.csp
I'm curious what they are willing trade for the tax dollars.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I don't think the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is the concern. The concern is what happens to the two ranches? What happens to the public access to the Green River in Browns Park on the Jarvie Ranch when that Ranch is sold to private hands?

The Swett Ranch is another issue.


the National Wild and Scenic Rivers designation would do nothing except ensure that the "A" and "B" sections of the Green River remain accessible and protected as we know it today. However, things could change with public access to public lands with the transfer of ownership of those ranches to private interests. That's the scary part -- just another instance where the State of Utah wants to sell off OUR public lands so that we can lose access. SCARY!


We've seen this same things in the past. Counties always complain about the loss of tax revenue due to the amount of government owned land. However, when governments offer to pay fees in lieu of taxes to make up for those losses, counties balk. Take a look at the Red River Ranch in Wayne County. That land could have been public land along the Fremont River. In stead, it is a private ranch that does not allow the public access to the river, in which public fish stocked by the DWR (upstream in public stretches) are fished for by high dollar clients. I can see the same thing happening at the John Jarvie Ranch once it is purchased by a private group. Can you say "No Trespassing"?


----------



## GeorgeS (Dec 22, 2010)

I couldn't help but comment on the Daggett County land swap. I agree with PBH that the ranches are certainly a huge concern. The Feds don't want them and neither does the County. Who then will step up to manage them? 
There has been a development (and land swap) proposed for the shores of Flaming Gorge in the recent past. It would have probably gone through if SITLA had been willing to trade some halfway decent land. The development would have been in Linwood Bay and would have excluded the public (unless you pay of course) from any facilities. I'm sure that the resort is still in the works with the proposed Bishop "Grand Scheme". 
Technically, the Green River can't be listed as "Wild and Scenic" because it is a tailwater. However being in the National Recreation Area does give it some protection. If it hadn't been for angler involvement, we would have seen a huge development across from Little Hole!
Daggett County got $130,174 in PILT payments in the last Federal Fiscal Year. PILT payments are based on how much land is in Federal (OUR) ownership and what the County's population is. Daggett County has 361,920 acres owned by you and I. The population in Daggett County is 1,127 people.
Daggett is certainly a wonderful place and has many things to do and see. I am certain that we would lose many opportunities should the transfer of Federal lands to the state occur.
My two cents as always!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

GeorgeS said:


> I couldn't help but comment on the Daggett County land swap. I agree with PBH that the ranches are certainly a huge concern. The Feds don't want them and neither does the County. Who then will step up to manage them?
> There has been a development (and land swap) proposed for the shores of Flaming Gorge in the recent past. It would have probably gone through if SITLA had been willing to trade some halfway decent land. The development would have been in Linwood Bay and would have excluded the public (unless you pay of course) from any facilities. I'm sure that the resort is still in the works with the proposed Bishop "Grand Scheme".
> Technically, the Green River can't be listed as "Wild and Scenic" because it is a tailwater. However being in the National Recreation Area does give it some protection. If it hadn't been for angler involvement, we would have seen a huge development across from Little Hole!
> Daggett County got $130,174 in PILT payments in the last Federal Fiscal Year. PILT payments are based on how much land is in Federal (OUR) ownership and what the County's population is. Daggett County has 361,920 acres owned by you and I. The population in Daggett County is 1,127 people.
> ...


I think 99% of us on here agree with you.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

Listened on the way home to the radio last night to Rob Bishop talk about how we need that Fed Land back- almost willing drove head on into a cement truck.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> Technically, the Green River can't be listed as "Wild and Scenic" because it is a tailwater.


That is not true. There are several tailwaters that are designated in the Wild and Scenic River system. There are three classifications within the system: Wild, Scenic, and Recreational. As it is now, Recreational would be an appropriate classification. I believe it has been identified as Suitable for designation as Recreational in previous Wild and Scenic River reports by the Forest Service and BLM. And while it may meet the criteria for such designation, Wild and Scenic Rivers are much like designated wilderness - they are whatever Congress says they are, regardless of any of the directed criteria. Truthfully, if any river segment in Utah deserves such a designation, it is the Green River.

The discussion in Daggett County right now reminds me of much of the consternation over Jordanelle when it was built. State Parks pushed Bureau of Reclamation to maintain ownership of all the lands between the reservoir and the surrounding highways. They didn't, as it wasn't necessary for the goals set out by Reclamation. So now the development around Jordanelle is what it is. I'm not saying it is good or bad - that depends on your point of view. Some of Utah's greatest recreation waters are a mix of private and public water fronts. Utah Lake, Jordanelle, Pineview, Bear Lake to name a few. Flaming Gorge will always have the publicly accessible points. So will the Green River. I don't think that any kind of waterside resort on the Gorge would really impact a guys' ability to fish out on the big lake, down rig for the macks, or enjoy what is there. And as long as the public maintains open access to the Green to fish from the banks and float it, I'm not against a private lodge development on the river.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Truthfully, if any river segment in Utah deserves such a designation, it is the Green River.


this is an odd statement. I wonder if you could clarify it for me?

"If any river segment in Utah deserves such a designation, it is the Green River."

Why does the current designation for the Virgin River not deserve it's status?
Why shouldn't Pine Creek, Mamie Creek, and Box Creek (all make up portions of the Box / Death Hollow Wilderness Area) NOT be deserving of this status?
Fremont River?
Colorado River?
Escalante River?
Paria River?

The Green River certainly also deserves this protection, but Utah certainly has other rivers that deserve that designation.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

My own view is that if it is a Creek, it doesn't deserve that level of recognition.

The Virgin River is nice, but regionally at best. The Colorado River - certainly a nationally significant river and meets every intent for recognition under the WSR Act. Green is national significant at well. Remont? Escaleante? Paria? Not nationally significant according to any of the criteria in the WSR Act. Doesn't mean they aren't great rivers, beautiful, lots of fun, and worthy of note. But in my own view, having done several formal analysis to determine eligibility for consideration under the Wild and Scenic River Act, The Green (you can argue segments, but certainly the A & B, as well as Desolation Canyon) and the Colorado - especially below Lake Powell and through the Grand Canyon. 

But the reality with the Wild and Scenic River Designation - is that it is about tourism more than it is resource protection. Only Congress can designate a stream under the Act, as it should be. But that throws it into the political realm, not the reality realm. The Niobrara River in Nebraska is a PERFECT example. It is a tailwater, channeled stretch, surrounded by farmlands on both banks. Yet the designation as Recreational under the WSR Act has brought a ton of recreation dollars to the town of Valentine. When in reality, floating the Niobrara is about 1/2 step up from floating an irrigation canal in SE Idaho. But Nebraska's congressional delegation saw $$ in the designation, so it was designated. 

In Utah's case, Utah's congressionals are so anti-designation of anything, that they've missed out on designating some places that truly should be. The Green is a prime example. Utah has lots of beautiful, wonderful rivers and streams. But to be considered for inclusion in the national system of Wild and Scenic Rivers, the list is short - and includes the Green and Colorado.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Gary -- thanks for your response. I guess we'll just have to disagree.

The nice thing with a few that I mentioned, especially those in the Escalante system, is that due to their remoteness they already have some level of protection.


FWIW -- nothing in the act says that it must be "nationally significant". I understand that politics certainly plays into the relm of national significance. The only requirements are that the river contains some level of "outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational value...".

Those "creeks", "streams", or "brooks" mentioned in my earlier post all contain some "outstanding" features that would qualify for inclusion. It's the political climate that excludes them. No big deal -- no real sweat off my back.


again, thank you for the explanation.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

It's all good PBH. The outstandingly remarkable values is where the judgement call comes in. Depending on the agency handbook, the phrases usually used require "more than regionally significant." And according to the agency handbooks on doing the inventory evaluations, you are required to inventory and analyze every single stream, course, rill, dry ditch, or puddle. You have to include ephemeral streams even. So it doesn't even have to have water in it most of the year.

I've done several inventories and evaluations in 4 different states. And that is an interesting position. Because you can get a stream like the Fremont - great little river, and the people in that area LOVE the Fremont. When you hold it next to the Salmon River in Idaho, the WSR portion of the Missouri through the Breaks in Montana, the North Fork of the Platte through the Miracle Mile in Wyoming, or the Green River through Desolation Canyon, it makes it hard to make a case that the Fremont is par with those streams. That is the advantage/disadvantage of having done these analysis in several states - it certainly changes my perspective on what really is outstanding. 

If the goal is to protect what makes many of these smaller streams or rivers special to folks, there are other tools in the tool box in my view. Like you pointed out, some are within designated wilderness or wilderness study areas, or within national parks or monuments. Some of these great streams can be best protected with Forest Plan or BLM Resource Management Plan decisions to "avoid any level of development within 1/2 mile or high water marks on PBH Creek." These kind of planning decisions will slide under the radar and in all reality, provide better protection than a WSR designation. Putting a WSR designation on a stream is a magnet to people, and that can screw things up. 

In Utah, I'd maybe expand the list beyond the Green and Colorado a little. I'd add the Provo, from headwaters to the mouth of Provo Canyon as "recreational." I'd add the Weber from its headwaters to the mouth of Weber Canyon as recreational. I'd add the Dirty Devil as Wild, and MAYBE parts of the Virgin and San Rafael as scenic, though I'm not sure. I'd need to evaluate the specific segments.


----------

