Good News, I think

[UtahFire]

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3626670

If SUWA is unhappy about it, it must me good.

 

[mbryson]

Utah case now model for new BLM road policy
By Joe Baird
The Salt Lake Tribune

An appeals court last fall ruled that state law, not federal policy, is the ultimate arbiter of who owns the dirt backroads that crisscross the West's vast public lands.
Outgoing Interior Secretary Gale Norton today is expected to sign a memorandum that she says largely reflects that court decision, which stemmed from a decade-old lawsuit filed by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance against the Bureau of Land Management over the agency's failure to prevent San Juan, Kane and Garfield counties from grading routes across the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
The order provides a set of guidelines that effectively repeals BLM rules that, since 1997, required states and counties to show proof of construction in order to claim a road under Revised Statute 2477, an old mining law that granted rights of way across federal land. The law was repealed in 1976, but existing claims were grandfathered in, leading to numerous ownership disputes, particularly in Utah.
Under the new Interior policy, counties in the West need only prove road claims under state law. In Utah, that essentially means demonstrating continuous use for 10 years prior to 1976.
Norton says the new Interior guidelines are written in such a way as to give federal land managers and states and counties flexibility in resolving road claims. They "do not impose binding rights or obligations," she wrote in the memorandum.
Utah officials, predictably, hailed the new policy, calling it a victory for states' rights and local control.
"Embracing the 10th Circuit guidelines is appropriate, not only for Utah, but for the nation," said Lynn Stevens, director of the state's Public Lands Policy Coordination office.
And as expected, environmental groups have panned the memorandum, warning that some of the nation's most precious natural assets will now be put at risk.
"There are red flags all over this," said SUWA Conservation Director Heidi McIntosh. "The biggest red flag is that trails and other routes that are now closed to vehicular traffic will be turned over to the counties, which will in turn try turn them into highways."
That 2003 memorandum of understanding that Norton signed with then-Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt - which created a process to sift through the state's road claims and determine ownership - is now history. But Interior officials say the new guidelines and 10th Circuit decision give them plenty of clout to protect resources.
Under the ruling each side must consult the other before moving ahead with any plan to change the "status quo" of a road, according to Dan Domenico, special assistant to the Interior Department's solicitor general. In the BLM's case, that would mean any attempt to close or restrict travel. For the counties, it would mean plans to improve or expand a road.
"If this did anything, it drove a stake through the idea that counties could assert a claim, then willy-nilly upgrade the road without consulting the [federal] agency," said Larry Jensen, a Utah-based regional solicitor for the Interior Department.
Interior officials believe they will have the continued ability to manage off highway vehicle use on county-claimed roads because of what Jensen calls the "spillover effects" OHVs have on public land when they hop off a trail and start creating new ones.
But Stevens, the state's public lands policy director, doubts that the BLM or other federal agencies would have the ability to restrict or close a road to off-road travel under the new guidelines.

Looks like a fair assessment to me.

 

[Jeremy]

There are red flags all over this," said SUWA Conservation Director Heidi McIntosh."The biggest red flag is that trails and other routes that are now closed to vehicular traffic will be turned over to the counties, which will in turn try turn them into highways."

highways???? doesnt a highway need to be paved?

But Stevens, the state's public lands policy director, doubts that the BLM or other federal agencies would have the ability to restrict or close a road to off-road travel under the new guidelines

how long do you think this will last before it will be overturned by someone else?

 

[UtahFire]

highways???? doesnt a highway need to be paved?



how long do you think this will last before it will be overturned by someone else?

SUWA uses the term "highway" to incite anger amoung the general population who do not follow these issues.

They will make statements like "they want to build highways in our national parks". It is propaganda.

 

[Spork]

[Professor Hubert Farnsworth]Good News everyone! [/Professor Hubert Farnsworth]

I've noticed the highway thing. I have a hard time believing the state is going to do anything to improve these old roads when they can't even get the telephone poles out of the roads in lehi...

 

[dunatic67]

I've noticed the highway thing. I have a hard time believing the state is going to do anything to improve these old roads when they can't even get the telephone poles out of the roads in lehi... [/QUOTE]

I love those telephone poles....

This is good news for land use rights.

 

[Don B]

SUWA is down to making stupid statements because there is not much else they can do these days. The agreement being worked out will be a real blow to their redrock wilderness act.

I believe this agreement is part of the negotiations between the Interior Dept. and Mark Habbeshaw of Kane Co. It's probably better news than it's face value, but in the agreement it has to look like the Fed's aren't losing so that they can save face.

 

[Jeremy]

SUWA uses the term "highway" to incite anger amoung the general population who do not follow these issues.

They will make statements like "they want to build highways in our national parks". It is propaganda.

i understant thier use of the word "highway" i just forgot to use the sarcasm smilie.

is this really good news? or is it something that could verry easily be over ruled by a "green" judge?

 

[Hickey]

"There are red flags all over this," said SUWA Conservation Director Heidi McIntosh. "The biggest red flag is that trails and other routes that are now closed to vehicular traffic will be turned over to the counties,

That sounds pretty positive.

 

[Don B]

If it is accepted that a county or state has a legitimate right of way, that is something they own, it will be much more difficult for a green judge to take this away. Of course they will try to find ways around it, but it will be much more difficult. This is a big step in the right direction.

 

[Houndoc]

Unfortunately you always run the risk of a set-back, but we should smile when we can.

 

[Todd Adams]

highways???? doesnt a highway need to be paved?(

You have to understand the term "highway" used in the original 1866 RS 2477 law meant a travelway which could translate to a footpath, wagon road or even a waterway for boats. Today we think of it as a paved road but that was not the case in 1866. There is an obvious reason SUWA uses the original term due to our present definition of highway today.
Todd

 

[UtahFire]

Well said Todd.

 

[greenjeep]

Sounds good to me!!

I wonder what this means for Salt Creek road in the Needles District??

 

[Todd Adams]

Sounds good to me!!

I wonder what this means for Salt Creek road in the Needles District??

Don't know. Why don't you give Paul Henderson a call or go see him. You should know where his office is. As I remember $10K out of the MUD Fund was directed at this.
Todd

 

[greenjeep]

So, I called Paul Henderson, and after about 20 minutes of talking, his answer is 'we don't know.'

Alot of it comes down to how all of this will be implimented on the ground. His thinking is that everything will probably remain the same until the current lawsuit is resolved, unless of course the judge says wait a minute, this new ruling changes everthing. Either way it will probably be a while before anything happens.

 

[Todd Adams]

Thanks Dave.

 

[Rick B]

is this really good news? or is it something that could verry easily be over ruled by a "green" judge?

There is only one court higher than the 10th Circuit, chances are that the US Supreme Court isn't ever going to hear this case.

What I see this decision doing is putting everything at a stalemate, the counties can't make road "improvements" without the management agency's approval and the management agency can't close any roads without the counties approval. so neither side can do anything without the other's approval.

 

[Don B]

Is that a bad thing? Actually the counties may perform routine maintanance on their right of ways. They just won't be able to make improvements without approval of the agency managing the land the right of way is on I.E. the BLM.

Having the roads recognized as legitimate right of ways prevents the BLM from closing these roads and is much better than what we have been working with.

 

[UtahFire]

Is that a bad thing? Actually the counties may perform routine maintanance on their right of ways. They just won't be able to make improvements without approval of the agency managing the land the right of way is on I.E. the BLM.

Having the roads recognized as legitimate right of ways prevents the BLM from closing these roads and is much better than what we have been working with.

It is still early to see how this all shakes out. My take is that the counties will have much more say on what happens to roads/trails. I would much rather work with counties on keeping trails open than with the BLM.

It will be interesting to see how this effects SUWA's "America's Redrock Wilderness Act". If passed, this legislation will dramatically effect us all.