BRC Utah Land Use Update for January 13

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   Dear Friends, 
This is one of those "long-winded emails from Brian"... BUT DON'T YOU DARE HIT THE "DELETE" BUTTON! This is one I guarantee you'll want to read every word of. 
This is the first of a two part BRC Utah Land Use Update that details the latest battle over BLM land in Utah. The situation is this: The anti-access crowd is on their 1 yard line and it's entirely possible we could score a touchback. So... 
READ WITH GUSTO! 
Brian Hawthorne 
BlueRibbon Coalition 
P.S. A heartfelt thanks to all who generously support the BlueRibbon Coalition and our efforts to protect recreational access to public lands. Without you, these kinds of "long winded emails from Brian" would be much less enjoyable to read! 

BRC UTAH LAND USE UPDATE - PART 1 

We wanted to get this Utah update out to our members and supporters in Utah early this morning. It's regarding an extremely important lawsuit that saw oral argument in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado, yesterday (January 12, 2005) 
Our motivation was driven in part by recent news stories that contained several errors in fact. It's sad to say, but we're kind of getting used to this sort of thing. The "mainstream media" rarely reports on public lands issues accurately. *sigh* 
Speaking of that, if you would like to express your views in the Utah press via a letter to the editor and are unsure of the facts, or just need a bit of help, contact BRC and we'll do our best to point you to the facts and help you write a good letter. ( contact Teresa Combe for help brteresa@sharetrails.org ) 
Anyhoo... here is an update that put this important issue into proper context. It's going to be difficult to keep it brief because the issue contains intricacies and nuances that aren't easily put into a short email. Apologies in advance. 
Here's the scoop: 
Yesterday, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard argument in a case challenging the BLM's authority to conduct wilderness reviews outside and in addition to that specifically authorized by Congress in Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The whole flambeau began when former Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, had a disagreement with then Chairman of the House Resource Committee, Jim Hansen, about how many acres of BLM lands in Utah ought to be designated as Wilderness. 
Hansen thought BLM did a reasonable job in their original inventory which was open to the public via a 10 year public planning process. Babbitt apparently thought the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) did a better job than his own agency, and ordered an unprecedented, and illegal, re-inventory of Utah's public lands for "wilderness character." 
As you might imagine, folks in Utah had a bit of a problem with that. You can most definitely include BRC and our Utah partners, the Utah Shared Access Alliance (USA-ALL) in that bunch. We vigorously opposed the process Babbitt initiated, which was a blatant attempt to illegally change Congressional directive regarding wilderness on BLM lands on a nation-wide basis. (Don't miss: Utah Land Use Update Part 2 in your email inbox!) 
The State of Utah and the affected Utah Counties filed suit. That suit was initially successful, resulting in a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that stopped Babbitt's re-inventory. BLM appealed and that appeal was affirmed in part and denied in part. Essentially, the appeals court found the State and the counties lacked "standing" to sue. 
I'll never forget how a good friend of mine described that to me. He said the federal government can plan to stab you in the heart, they can purchase the knife, rip your shirt open and place the blade to your skin, but there isn't a thing you can do about it because until the blade pierces your heart, the feds technically haven't really harmed you. So, you can't sue them until the blade has actually pierced your heart." 
That's a great way to describe "standing". What the appeals court decided is that the BLM can inventory to its heart content for any reason they deem appropriate. But until the government uses the inventory in a manner that results in harm to you, the State of Utah, or me... we can't do a thing about it. 
But when the BLM announced that the new Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Vernal Field Office was going to include new Wilderness Study Areas designated pursuant to Babbitt's inventory, "standing" was achieved. The knife had then pierced the skin and was thrusting its way to the heart. Utah renewed its lawsuit, and wisely, the BLM settled. 
In the settlement, Utah dropped its claims when BLM admitted it could not legally designate any new Wilderness Study Areas. BLM maintained it could inventory for "wilderness values", and within the land-use planning process they could identify and adjust management plans to "protect" those qualities. 
The anti-access crowd cleverly waited to intervene in this important lawsuit. It is my personal opinion that they carefully chose not to enter the fray until right before Utah achieved standing to renew its claims. By waiting, it gave them opportunity to bring their claims to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado, where the case was heard yesterday. The 10th Circuit is, in their minds at least, a more favorable venue. 
BRC and USA-ALL has been in the thick of this from the beginning. Simply stated, both groups hold the position that the BLM lacks legal authority to conduct a never ending, ongoing wilderness inventory and review process. Congress gave BLM very specific instructions regarding wilderness, and those instructions included a deadline for any and all wilderness review. (please see BRC Land Use Update - Part 2) 
The moment SUWA took their demands to the 10th Circuit, BRC and USA-ALL moved to submit an Amicus Brief (a.k.a. "Friend of the Court" brief). Oral argument was heard yesterday, and BRC spoke to several who attended. According to our sources, the court took most of the time allotted discussing matters of jurisdiction. Some discussion was made about SUWA's claims that the negotiated settlement was made "in the dead of night", without opportunity for interested parties like SUWA to be at the table. 
Stay with me now, because the reporting on this issue has been atrocious and you need to know the facts. 
If you read the "mainstream press" regarding this whole flambeau, you may find the settlement described as: "Utah and the U.S. Department of Interior reached a settlement that eliminated nearly 6 million acres of federal land from temporary wilderness protection". Now... how do I say this without offending someone... Lets just say, that statement belongs in the pasture. 
See, the truth is: there was never any "temporary wilderness protection", or "interim wilderness status"  on any of these lands. That's simply lazy journalism. I like to call it "journalism via fax". It's a situation where the reporter simply splices the media release from the likes of SUWA right into his or her story. Big mistake, if you are interested in informing your readers about the facts surrounding an issue...but then, how many of the "mainstream journalists" are interested in that? 
Ok, sorry, I've digressed. Please forgive. I trust you understand my frustration. 
The fact is, there wasn't any "temporary wilderness protection" granted to any of these lands. What the anti-access crowd points to in the effort to advance this misinformation is a letter from Babbitt directing BLM'ers to give special consideration to lands in SUWA's 5.7 million acre wilderness bill. 
There's a bit of a problem with that. SUWA's wilderness bill has been injected with some sort of wilderness growth hormone and now resembles something like the energizer bunny. It just keeps growing and growing and growing... SUWA's Utah Wilderness bill is now over 10 million acres! Now, you'll never read that on their website or in their newsletter. They don't talk about acres anymore. All they talk about is "protecting landscapes". Hmmmm... Must be a result of their polling data. 
Have I digressed again!? Sorry, I just can't resist the temptations to poke fun at all those clever staffers at SUWA. 
The other item those folks like to point the "mainstream press" to is that wilderness handbook you heard about a while back. I don't know if you remember, but USA-ALL was instrumental in exposing the illegality and impropriety of this "handbook" years ago. Of all the Clinton era land use outrages, the BLM's wilderness handbook was "The Jewel in the Crown." If you've got a minute, check out USA-ALL's analysis of that gem: URL HERE 
Of course, the "mainstream press" gobbles it up and regurgitates it as news.  Rest easy, dear BRC supporter. We are making every effort to inform and educate these reporters. It may not happen right away, but BRC the entire organized OHV community is rising to the challenge and we ARE making a difference. 
Since I've digressed so much... 
 Allow me to send a "way to go" to our Utah partners - USA-ALL. Their new Executive Director, Mike Swenson, is quite impressive. I've worked with Mike on several issues in Utah recently, and I'm darned glad to have him on our team. He's young, but has a very astute knowledge of the legal nuances of federal land use management issues. Could be a result of his interest in becoming a natural resource attorney, or maybe just because he's an avid four wheel drive enthusiast and wants to protect Utah's Red Rock Roads (early Bronco by the way... very cool!). I don't know which, and I don't care. USA-ALL is a great partner, worthy of your support. 
It's not possible to predict when the appeals court will rule on this issue, and I'm not comfortable predicting what the outcome may be. But the anti-access crowd is worried. They bet the farm on this ridiculous "BLM wilderness handbook", and they aren't one bit happy that it was an outfit like USA-ALL that was instrumental in bringing it down. 
Stay tuned... this should be fun to watch! 
Newsclips: 
Utah-U.S. wilds deal concerns judges 
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2523261 
Appeals court to hear wilderness suit 
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2521735 
Links: 
Federal Land Management and Policy Act:  http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PDFs/FLPMA.pdf 
BRC and USA-ALL's Amicus Brief: http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PDFs/AmiciBrief.pdf 
USA-ALL's review of BLM's "wilderness handbook": http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PDFs/USA-ALL.pdf 

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Doc Savage Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List RCRC Club Visitor Joined: 16 February 2004 Location: Huntsville, Madison County Status: Offline Points: 1180	Post Options Post Reply Quote Doc Savage Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Topic: BRC Utah Land Use Update for January 13 Posted: 13 January 2005 at 7:34am
	Dear Friends, This is one of those "long-winded emails from Brian"... BUT DON'T YOU DARE HIT THE "DELETE" BUTTON! This is one I guarantee you'll want to read every word of. This is the first of a two part BRC Utah Land Use Update that details the latest battle over BLM land in Utah. The situation is this: *The anti-access crowd is on their 1 yard line and it's entirely possible we could score a touchback. So...* READ WITH GUSTO! Brian Hawthorne BlueRibbon Coalition P.S. A heartfelt thanks to all who generously support the BlueRibbon Coalition and our efforts to protect recreational access to public lands. Without you, these kinds of "long winded emails from Brian" would be much less enjoyable to read! BRC UTAH LAND USE UPDATE - PART 1 We wanted to get this Utah update out to our members and supporters in Utah early this morning. It's regarding an extremely important lawsuit that saw oral argument in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado, yesterday (January 12, 2005) Our motivation was driven in part by recent news stories that contained several errors in fact. It's sad to say, but we're kind of getting used to this sort of thing. The "mainstream media" rarely reports on public lands issues accurately. sigh Speaking of that, if you would like to express your views in the Utah press via a letter to the editor and are unsure of the facts, or just need a bit of help, contact BRC and we'll do our best to point you to the facts and help you write a good letter. ( contact Teresa Combe for help brteresa@sharetrails.org ) Anyhoo... here is an update that put this important issue into proper context. It's going to be difficult to keep it brief because the issue contains intricacies and nuances that aren't easily put into a short email. Apologies in advance. Here's the scoop: Yesterday, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard argument in a case challenging the BLM's authority to conduct wilderness reviews outside and in addition to that specifically authorized by Congress in Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The whole flambeau began when former Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, had a disagreement with then Chairman of the House Resource Committee, Jim Hansen, about how many acres of BLM lands in Utah ought to be designated as Wilderness. Hansen thought BLM did a reasonable job in their original inventory which was open to the public via a 10 year public planning process. Babbitt apparently thought the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) did a better job than his own agency, and ordered an unprecedented, and illegal, re-inventory of Utah's public lands for "wilderness character." As you might imagine, folks in Utah had a bit of a problem with that. You can most definitely include BRC and our Utah partners, the Utah Shared Access Alliance (USA-ALL) in that bunch. We vigorously opposed the process Babbitt initiated, which was a blatant attempt to illegally change Congressional directive regarding wilderness on BLM lands on a nation-wide basis. (Don't miss: Utah Land Use Update Part 2 in your email inbox!) The State of Utah and the affected Utah Counties filed suit. That suit was initially successful, resulting in a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that stopped Babbitt's re-inventory. BLM appealed and that appeal was affirmed in part and denied in part. Essentially, the appeals court found the State and the counties lacked "standing" to sue. I'll never forget how a good friend of mine described that to me. He said the federal government can plan to stab you in the heart, they can purchase the knife, rip your shirt open and place the blade to your skin, but there isn't a thing you can do about it because until the blade pierces your heart, the feds technically haven't really harmed you. So, you can't sue them until the blade has actually pierced your heart." That's a great way to describe "standing". What the appeals court decided is that the BLM can inventory to its heart content for any reason they deem appropriate. But until the government uses the inventory in a manner that results in harm to you, the State of Utah, or me... we can't do a thing about it. But when the BLM announced that the new Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Vernal Field Office was going to include new Wilderness Study Areas designated pursuant to Babbitt's inventory, "standing" was achieved. The knife had then pierced the skin and was thrusting its way to the heart. Utah renewed its lawsuit, and wisely, the BLM settled. In the settlement, Utah dropped its claims when BLM admitted it could not legally designate any new Wilderness Study Areas. BLM maintained it could inventory for "wilderness values", and within the land-use planning process they could identify and adjust management plans to "protect" those qualities. The anti-access crowd cleverly waited to intervene in this important lawsuit. It is my personal opinion that they carefully chose not to enter the fray until right before Utah achieved standing to renew its claims. By waiting, it gave them opportunity to bring their claims to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado, where the case was heard yesterday. The 10th Circuit is, in their minds at least, a more favorable venue. BRC and USA-ALL has been in the thick of this from the beginning. Simply stated, both groups hold the position that the BLM lacks legal authority to conduct a never ending, ongoing wilderness inventory and review process. Congress gave BLM very specific instructions regarding wilderness, and those instructions included a deadline for any and all wilderness review. (please see BRC Land Use Update - Part 2) The moment SUWA took their demands to the 10th Circuit, BRC and USA-ALL moved to submit an Amicus Brief (a.k.a. "Friend of the Court" brief). Oral argument was heard yesterday, and BRC spoke to several who attended. According to our sources, the court took most of the time allotted discussing matters of jurisdiction. Some discussion was made about SUWA's claims that the negotiated settlement was made "in the dead of night", without opportunity for interested parties like SUWA to be at the table. Stay with me now, because the reporting on this issue has been atrocious and you need to know the facts. If you read the "mainstream press" regarding this whole flambeau, you may find the settlement described as: "Utah and the U.S. Department of Interior reached a settlement that eliminated nearly 6 million acres of federal land from temporary wilderness protection". Now... how do I say this without offending someone... Lets just say, that statement belongs in the pasture. See, the truth is: there was never any "temporary wilderness protection", or "interim wilderness status" on any of these lands. That's simply lazy journalism. I like to call it "journalism via fax". It's a situation where the reporter simply splices the media release from the likes of SUWA right into his or her story. Big mistake, if you are interested in informing your readers about the facts surrounding an issue...but then, how many of the "mainstream journalists" are interested in that? Ok, sorry, I've digressed. Please forgive. I trust you understand my frustration. The fact is, there wasn't any "temporary wilderness protection" granted to any of these lands. What the anti-access crowd points to in the effort to advance this misinformation is a letter from Babbitt directing BLM'ers to give special consideration to lands in SUWA's 5.7 million acre wilderness bill. There's a bit of a problem with that. SUWA's wilderness bill has been injected with some sort of wilderness growth hormone and now resembles something like the energizer bunny. It just keeps growing and growing and growing... SUWA's Utah Wilderness bill is now over 10 million acres! Now, you'll never read that on their website or in their newsletter. They don't talk about acres anymore. All they talk about is "protecting landscapes". Hmmmm... Must be a result of their polling data. Have I digressed again!? Sorry, I just can't resist the temptations to poke fun at all those clever staffers at SUWA. The other item those folks like to point the "mainstream press" to is that wilderness handbook you heard about a while back. I don't know if you remember, but USA-ALL was instrumental in exposing the illegality and impropriety of this "handbook" years ago. Of all the Clinton era land use outrages, the BLM's wilderness handbook was "The Jewel in the Crown." If you've got a minute, check out USA-ALL's analysis of that gem: URL HERE Of course, the "mainstream press" gobbles it up and regurgitates it as news. Rest easy, dear BRC supporter. We are making every effort to inform and educate these reporters. It may not happen right away, but BRC the entire organized OHV community is rising to the challenge and we ARE making a difference. Since I've digressed so much... Allow me to send a "way to go" to our Utah partners - USA-ALL. Their new Executive Director, Mike Swenson, is quite impressive. I've worked with Mike on several issues in Utah recently, and I'm darned glad to have him on our team. He's young, but has a very astute knowledge of the legal nuances of federal land use management issues. Could be a result of his interest in becoming a natural resource attorney, or maybe just because he's an avid four wheel drive enthusiast and wants to protect Utah's Red Rock Roads (early Bronco by the way... very cool!). I don't know which, and I don't care. USA-ALL is a great partner, worthy of your support. It's not possible to predict when the appeals court will rule on this issue, and I'm not comfortable predicting what the outcome may be. But the anti-access crowd is worried. They bet the farm on this ridiculous "BLM wilderness handbook", and they aren't one bit happy that it was an outfit like USA-ALL that was instrumental in bringing it down. Stay tuned... this should be fun to watch! Newsclips: Utah-U.S. wilds deal concerns judges http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2523261 Appeals court to hear wilderness suit http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2521735 Links: Federal Land Management and Policy Act: http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PDFs/FLPMA.pdf BRC and USA-ALL's Amicus Brief: http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PDFs/AmiciBrief.pdf USA-ALL's review of BLM's "wilderness handbook": http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PDFs/USA-ALL.pdf
	Past President, Rocket City Rock Crawlers Past President, Madison County CERT Association

Doc Savage Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List RCRC Club Visitor Joined: 16 February 2004 Location: Huntsville, Madison County Status: Offline Points: 1180	Post Options Post Reply Quote Doc Savage Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 13 January 2005 at 7:34am
	Friends, Below is Part 2 of BRC's Utah Land Use update. I hope you enjoy reading it. If you have any comments feel free to send me an email. Thanks again for your generous support, Brian Hawthorne BlueRibbon Coalition brianh@ida.net The Four Pillars of FLPMA -- My View - by Brian Hawthorne This is a short summary of a presentation on the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) I give to university students from time to time. Interestingly, the first time I gave this presentation was at a People for the West meeting in Central Utah. Several in the audience walked out in disgust. Indeed, to my shock and surprise, many thought my presentation was heresy! The very kind folks in the audience who didn't walk out quietly took me aside and tried to explain why the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) was illegal and why motorized recreationists should vigorously work for its repeal. This occurred right after then President Bill Clinton designated the Grand Staircase National Monument. Sitting in that room were people whose lives, livelihoods, and culture was about to change drastically, and for some, be utterly destroyed. It was also in the heady days of renewed activism among multiple use groups. There was much optimism then. So much optimism, in fact, to believe FLPMA could be overturned and the public lands returned to the states, as it was originally intended at the founding of the Nation and as promised in the very law establishing the State of Utah. Beginning in the early 1970's, Congress and the American people began a debate on whether or not to change national policy for vast areas of the west known as "public lands". Congress was considering changing the policy of "disposal", where the federal government held lands only until they were sold (or otherwise transferred to the states), to "retention" where the federal government would retain and manage the lands for the benefit of the general public. Naturally, western public land states were concerned. Entire communities rely upon access to resources existing on adjacent public lands. Indeed, western custom and culture had grown from a tradition of access to and use of public lands. Many felt that if the policy was changed, appointed and unaccountable bureaucrats living far away from the lands they administered would unduly influence the lives and livelihoods of citizens in the west. In 1976, Congress struck a "bargain" with those western states. The "bargain", expressed in its most simplistic terms, was this: The western states would not oppose the retention of these lands if the Federal Government would manage them under multiple use/sustained yield principles, protect valid existing rights, limit wilderness review and consider the needs and concerns of adjacent communities when formulating land use plans. These important provisions are the "four pillars of FLPMA," and they are the critical components in the "bargain." FOUR "PILLARS" OF FLPMA: First, and perhaps most important, was the mandate to manage lands under the principles of Multiple Use. Particularly, Section 202 subsection (c)(1) specifically requires development and revision of land use plans on the basis of "principles of multiple use and sustained yield. " FLPMA section 102(a)(7) also specifically requires that goals and objectives be established by law as guidelines for public land use planning, and that management be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law. Second was the preservation of valid existing rights, including grazing rights, mining claims, oil and gas leases, water rights and rights of access granted pursuant to R.S. 2477. The third "pillar" was specific instructions to the Secretary of the Interior to formulate land use plans that are consistent with State and local plans "to the maximum extent he finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act." This provision included provisions to coordinate land use inventory, planning and management activities not only with other federal agencies, but specifically with agencies of the State and local government. The fourth pillar of FLPMA consists of very specific instructions regarding Wilderness. Those instructions are contained in Section 603 of FLPMA wherein Congress instructed the agency to inventory all of their lands, identify which were definitely not of wilderness quality and then to begin an intensive inventory and analysis to determine which of the remaining lands would be recommended for inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation System. Congress was so specific as to set a deadline for completion of this task. A critical part of the "bargain" was that there be no mandate in FLPMA and no process requirement for engaging in an ongoing, never ending wilderness inventory and review. Once the "603 Process" was completed, the agency was supposed to have been done with wilderness inventory and review. The question of which lands should be included in the National Wilderness Preservation System would then be between Congress and the American People. Radical environmentalists have chipped away at each of those pillars one by one. That's why BRC is keeping an eye on your local BLM planning team. Congress gave your local BLM planner very specific instructions regarding things like Wilderness, recreation, and relationships with adjacent communities. It's called multiple use and sustained yield, and we intend to hold them to it. John Mellencamp wrote in one of his songs "Every one of us has got to choose between right and wrong, giving up, and holding on..." Well, speaking for myself, I have chosen right over wrong, and I'm not giving up or letting go of my commitment to multiple use. Irrespective of whether or not FLPMA is constitutional, or repealing FLPMA is a realistic goal, the majority of the motorized recreationists I represent today don't think this is the best course of action. Not at all. Instead, the vast majority of the folks I represent firmly believed the original precepts of FLPMA are genius. I imagine some of you will write me strongly worded emails telling me that I've been "up in the night" and I'd better quit talking heresy. It won't do any good. I'm a fan of FLPMA, and a believer in multiple use. Perhaps...someday... the radical wilderness advocacy groups will drive us so far that in order to save our culture we'll need to scrap FLPMA and demand the federal lands be transferred to the states as it was promised in Utah's enabling act and as was done in the original 13 colonies. Until then, I'm not giving up. Brian Hawthorne is Public Lands Director for The BlueRibbon Coalition, a national recreation group that champions responsible use of public and private lands based in Pocatello, Idaho. BRC represents over 10,000 individual members and 1,100 organization and business members, for a combined total of over 600,000 recreationists nationwide. www.sharetrails.org Newsclips: Utah-U.S. wilds deal concerns judges http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2523261 Appeals court to hear wilderness suit http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2521735 Links: Federal Land Management and Policy Act: http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PDFs/FLPMA.pdf BRC and USA-ALL's Amicus Brief: http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PDFs/AmiciBrief.pdf USA-ALL's review of BLM's "wilderness handbook": http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PDFs/USA-ALL.pdf
	Past President, Rocket City Rock Crawlers Past President, Madison County CERT Association