Beaver Creek
wilderness study area
Should this land be sequestered?
by Bill Houghton
Last time I was there, it was too cold: driving snow and seven stream crossings. This time it was too hot, but I found a way around five of those stream crossings. It seems like nature has a way of doing that to us; and the Beaver Creek area is all natural. Located on the south slopes of Pikes Peak, the Beaver Creek Wilderness Study Area is perfect for “wilderness” designation. But should it be sequestered as the foes of “wilderness” designations charge?
Bordered on the west by the Phantom Canyon Road, on the south by the Beaver Creek state Wildlife Area, on the east by areas west of Highway 115, and on the north by the Pike National Forest, this area is seldom frequented, geologically significant, and environmentally valuable. As my hiking partner put it, “We used to see lots of king snakes, rattlesnakes, and tarantulas along Highway 115; now we don’t see any of them.” The conclusion may be that civilization has killed them all off or that they have retreated into the wilderness and that “survival of the fittest” has rewarded those that stayed away from the highway with more longevity than those that succumbed to the lure of the warm macadam. The rock formations are imposing, as the continuation of Pikes Peak Granite forms tall columns, granite domes, and impassable cliffs. Best of all, there is no motorized access into or through this area.
So why would anyone oppose the designation of this area as “wilderness?” Each of us, as we go about our individual activities, develops a perspective on how our activities can by enhanced or at least preserved. Opposition to “wilderness” designations comes from those who have activities that might be impacted by that recognition. In this case, it may be only that some do not want the designation expanded in fear of having other areas designated. The precedent is important. So what are their arguments?
Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) users object to “wilderness” designations because they are precluded from using their vehicles in these areas. In truth, there may be one old wagon road from the northwest near Skagway Reservoir, but even that is carefully excluded from the area. Most of the area is unsuited for vehicular travel and would remain so unless gold were found somewhere that would justify spending a great deal of money to provide access to the proposed area. The geologists have certified that a gold find is unlikely. Actually, most of the area is unsuited for anything but foot travel. Although horses do go up the Gulch Trail, most of Beaver Creek is so inaccessible that even horses would have a hard time making it through. The Beaver Creek Trail is narrow, exposed, and steep in places; in others, it uses switchbacks that would challenge a good horseman. Fortunately for the OHV users, the Penrose Chaining OHV Use Area is just south of the Beaver Creek State Wildlife Area.
Oil and gas developers object to “wilderness” designations because they are excluded from exploring and developing fields in wilderness areas. Well gosh, in addition to commenting on the likely deposits of gold, the geologists have also concluded that it is unlikely that oil or gas will be found in this area. Still, any area excluded from exploration is an area that the oil companies cannot exploit. They do not want to leave any stone unturned.
County governments do not like “wilderness” designations because they face a potential loss of revenue due to the expansion of federal lands in their areas. Although the designation of a wilderness area is normally accompanied by a federal promise of “payments in lieu of taxes,” in practice the federal government is reluctant to increase these payments as fast as inflation or the growth in value of the land would merit. The offset of increased tourism into these areas is rarely considered of value to the local tax base. The loss of revenues from the sale of grazing animals raised on this land may also have a negative impact on local taxes.
Ranchers do not favor “wilderness” designations because they may eventually lose grazing land as “low cost” feeding alternatives for beef and lamb production. The use of BLM lands for summer grazing is valuable to ranchers because it helps preserve their own lands for winter feeding or other uses. The cost of a BLM lease is minimal, and ranchers do not have to put any effort into assuring that the land is productive for future leasees. They do have to contain their cattle, but it is at minimal levels of effort. The potential value of the Beaver Creek area for cattle or sheep grazing is recognized, but the animals have a hard time getting to any meadows, and the owners have an equally hard time getting them out. The topography of most of the area inhibits the introduction of grazing animals.
In the case of the Beaver Creek Wilderness Study Area, the positive arguments for making the area a “wilderness” are strong, and the negative arguments are muted. The “wilderness’ designation would hurt few and would preserve a significant part of the south slopes of Pikes Peak for future generations. The environmental impacts are positive, and the economic drawbacks are minimal. This area deserves the designation of a “wilderness area.” It is not a matter of sequestering an area from public use, but instead of protecting a valuable asset for the use of the public, not just for special interests. The only major issue is why not expand it to all of the area east of Phantom Canyon Road and south of Pike National Forest.
Bill Houghton is chair of the state education committee and a member of the Pikes Peak Group.