Utah sues BLM over closures
- Thread starter Coreshot
- Start date
- Location
- Bountiful, land of rocks
Sweet!!!
Utah sues BLM over 15-year-old road closures
U-turn: The suit seeks to open tracks the state feels were wrongly closed
By Joe Baird
The Salt Lake Tribune
The Attorney General's Office filed suit Thursday against the Department of the Interior over three roads in Juab County, as the state of Utah continues to aggressively pursue road claims in rural counties.
The roads in question range from 6.5 to 9 miles long, and are located in the western, largely uninhabited part of the county. They were closed by the Bureau of Land Management in the late 1980s because, according to BLM officials, they extended into a designated wilderness study area.
But Assistant Attorney General Ed Ogilvie said the roads met the parameters for what has been defined by Congress as a public road, “and these roads meet those criteria in every way. These roads were closed without public input and contrary to law.”
The suit marks the fifth complaint the state has filed against the Interior Department under Revised Statute 2477, an 1866 law that guaranteed public rights of way over federal land. The statute was repealed in 1976, but existing roads were grandfathered in.
BLM spokesman Don Banks expressed surprise at the suit Thursday, noting that the BLM met with state officials Wednesday and no mention was made of the pending legal action. He defended the agency's closure of the roads.
“The closures have been in effect for 15 years, and were enacted through a very public land-use process,” Banks said. “The closures were put in place to protect beautiful areas like Scott's Basin, which was purchased by the Nature Conservancy, then given to the BLM to be held in trust as part of a potentially larger Deep Creeks Wilderness Area.
“The desire for motor vehicle use,” Banks added, “has to be balanced with a sensitivity to natural resources. So we close roads, even when it's not a popular thing to do.”
A local environmental group harshly criticized Utah's suit, charging that the state has ulterior motives.
"When you're talking about roads extending into wilderness study areas, roads that have been closed for 15 years, this isn't about protecting an existing transportation system,” said Heidi McIntosh, conservation director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. “It's about overturning protections for scenic and ecologically fragile lands.”
But state officials are adamant that the roads - Granite Canyon Road, Tom's Creek Road and Trout Creek Road - have legitimate uses. All have been traversed regularly, they claim, by ranchers, sheepherders, prospectors, campers and county residents as far back as the 1930s.
“They were all evaluated and appear to be good candidate roads to select and file upon,” said Ogilvie.
The suit Thursday, and the other filed road complaints, are part of a state program called the Public Roads Over Public Lands Project, an ongoing effort to reclaim control of the state's backways. Ogilvie anticipates that more suits will be filed, even as the state pursues an agreement it signed with the Interior Department in 2003 to submit road claims to the BLM and work cooperatively with the agency to settle the disputes.
“Where we come upon roads that merit the additional filing of lawsuits, we anticipate that that will continue to happen,” he said.
jbaird@sltrib.com
Utah sues BLM over 15-year-old road closures
U-turn: The suit seeks to open tracks the state feels were wrongly closed
By Joe Baird
The Salt Lake Tribune
The Attorney General's Office filed suit Thursday against the Department of the Interior over three roads in Juab County, as the state of Utah continues to aggressively pursue road claims in rural counties.
The roads in question range from 6.5 to 9 miles long, and are located in the western, largely uninhabited part of the county. They were closed by the Bureau of Land Management in the late 1980s because, according to BLM officials, they extended into a designated wilderness study area.
But Assistant Attorney General Ed Ogilvie said the roads met the parameters for what has been defined by Congress as a public road, “and these roads meet those criteria in every way. These roads were closed without public input and contrary to law.”
The suit marks the fifth complaint the state has filed against the Interior Department under Revised Statute 2477, an 1866 law that guaranteed public rights of way over federal land. The statute was repealed in 1976, but existing roads were grandfathered in.
BLM spokesman Don Banks expressed surprise at the suit Thursday, noting that the BLM met with state officials Wednesday and no mention was made of the pending legal action. He defended the agency's closure of the roads.
“The closures have been in effect for 15 years, and were enacted through a very public land-use process,” Banks said. “The closures were put in place to protect beautiful areas like Scott's Basin, which was purchased by the Nature Conservancy, then given to the BLM to be held in trust as part of a potentially larger Deep Creeks Wilderness Area.
“The desire for motor vehicle use,” Banks added, “has to be balanced with a sensitivity to natural resources. So we close roads, even when it's not a popular thing to do.”
A local environmental group harshly criticized Utah's suit, charging that the state has ulterior motives.
"When you're talking about roads extending into wilderness study areas, roads that have been closed for 15 years, this isn't about protecting an existing transportation system,” said Heidi McIntosh, conservation director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. “It's about overturning protections for scenic and ecologically fragile lands.”
But state officials are adamant that the roads - Granite Canyon Road, Tom's Creek Road and Trout Creek Road - have legitimate uses. All have been traversed regularly, they claim, by ranchers, sheepherders, prospectors, campers and county residents as far back as the 1930s.
“They were all evaluated and appear to be good candidate roads to select and file upon,” said Ogilvie.
The suit Thursday, and the other filed road complaints, are part of a state program called the Public Roads Over Public Lands Project, an ongoing effort to reclaim control of the state's backways. Ogilvie anticipates that more suits will be filed, even as the state pursues an agreement it signed with the Interior Department in 2003 to submit road claims to the BLM and work cooperatively with the agency to settle the disputes.
“Where we come upon roads that merit the additional filing of lawsuits, we anticipate that that will continue to happen,” he said.
jbaird@sltrib.com
- Location
- Sandy, Ut
COOL 
waynehartwig
www.jeeperman.com
- Location
- Mead, WA
very cool....
We ran into that Granite Canyon Closure during our NAXJA IC west desert run this June. It was a serious downer to what looked like the start of a unique old road, we were getting excited about it then all of a sudden and IMHO in a bad spot there were the WSA signs in the middle of the road. I hiked up the road a piece beyond the closure signs, it was in great shape still.
My points in support of the lawsuit are;
A: so that road continues up the mountain 6 to 9 miles; therefore it does not qualify as wilderness, at least withing the corridor of that road.
B: It is already closed for 15 years? that doesn't make the closure right, no time like the present to correct it.
C: The area's remoteness affords it a certain respite from abuse simply by the small numbers of visitors that venture out that far, contrast for example the highly visited wilderness areas along the wasatch front, you can still access the main canyons but then hike into the protected backcountry and enjoy it just fine. I'm not saying pave the roads into the Deeps or anything, I wouldn't want that either, just leave em be.
D: The place is unique for all the reasons stated on SUWA's website and deserving of wilderness recognition WHERE THE AFOREMENTIONED closed ROADS DON'T EXSIST. I would be all for it if they would just keep the roads open, it works every where else there are road corridors near designated wilderness. There is no excuse
This post is useless without pics so here is my album, the photos of the area in question begin on page 2. Enjoy
http://community.webshots.com/album/379876935hfIFNN
My points in support of the lawsuit are;
A: so that road continues up the mountain 6 to 9 miles; therefore it does not qualify as wilderness, at least withing the corridor of that road.
B: It is already closed for 15 years? that doesn't make the closure right, no time like the present to correct it.
C: The area's remoteness affords it a certain respite from abuse simply by the small numbers of visitors that venture out that far, contrast for example the highly visited wilderness areas along the wasatch front, you can still access the main canyons but then hike into the protected backcountry and enjoy it just fine. I'm not saying pave the roads into the Deeps or anything, I wouldn't want that either, just leave em be.
D: The place is unique for all the reasons stated on SUWA's website and deserving of wilderness recognition WHERE THE AFOREMENTIONED closed ROADS DON'T EXSIST. I would be all for it if they would just keep the roads open, it works every where else there are road corridors near designated wilderness. There is no excuse
This post is useless without pics so here is my album, the photos of the area in question begin on page 2. Enjoy
http://community.webshots.com/album/379876935hfIFNN
Samuraiman
Sand Pile
- Location
- St George Utah
Roads
I think even if the state doesn't have success with this suit, there are more on the agenda. Suwa is right there will be more lawsuits like this and that is exactly what will happen until the people are back in control of the land in there state. Awesome
I think even if the state doesn't have success with this suit, there are more on the agenda. Suwa is right there will be more lawsuits like this and that is exactly what will happen until the people are back in control of the land in there state. Awesome
Latest update.
Article Last Updated: 9/09/2005 02:07 AM
Wilderness in limbo as 'roads' are redefined
State of Utah, rural counties call court ruling a big victory
By Judy Fahys
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
It was settled for a time, when a road is a road in backcountry Utah.
No longer.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decided Thursday a lower court had the definition all wrong. Now U.S. District Court Judge Tena Campbell must apply a new definition, one set by the appeals court and lauded as a victory by three Utah counties and the state of Utah.
Still, neither side would predict whether the 120-page decision will eventually result in more or less designated wilderness. But everyone agrees it could have an enormous influence in settling which of roughly 10,000 rural Utah tracks are indeed "roads," and ultimately, whether the land around them still qualifies as wilderness.
Utah Assistant Attorney General Ralph Finlayson called the appeals ruling "a wonderful victory" for the state and Kane, Garfield and San Juan counties.
"It makes a huge difference in many ways," said Finlayson, who had argued against Campbell's adopted definition of roads.
In two past decisions on the case, Campbell had relied on standards set out by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance [SUWA] originally filed suit in 1996, after road crews from the three counties began grading dirt trails and stream beds on federal lands and calling them county-controlled roads under RS2477, a Civil War-era law that gave counties rights of way over federal lands.
"The previous decisions provided clear guidelines, and this decision is really confusing," said Scott Groene, executive director of the conservation group. "The result of this [ruling] will be enormous amounts of litigation to flesh out this decision."
The appeals court Thursday directed Campbell to scrap the definition that had guided her earlier rulings, based on criteria established by the BLM. For instance, the agency said a road was only a road when there had been "mechanical construction," such as grading.
But, the three-person appeals court, which includes former University of Utah law school professor Michael McConnell, said Congress never gave the BLM authority to decide the issue. And, siding with the state and the counties, the judges agreed with Utah law's guideline that roads are roads if they have seen "continuous use" for 10 years.
The BLM had no comment. Its attorneys had not seen the case.
Groene said SUWA would consider its options for fighting the ruling within the court's 45-day deadline. He predicted the ruling would create a "management nightmare" for federal land agencies, which oversee lands through which the disputed roads go in such places as the Grand Staircase National Monument and near Canyonlands National Park.
Under the Wilderness Act, land must include at least 5,000 acres and be road-free to be eligible for protection. By grading dirt tracks, counties effectively render wildlands ineligible for wilderness designation under the law and leave the lands open to motorized travel.
Finlayson denied the ruling was about wilderness and insisted it was about the control counties have over their backcountry routes.
"I'm after roads," he said. "I'm not after wilderness."
fahys@sltrib.com
Article Last Updated: 9/09/2005 02:07 AM
Wilderness in limbo as 'roads' are redefined
State of Utah, rural counties call court ruling a big victory
By Judy Fahys
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
It was settled for a time, when a road is a road in backcountry Utah.
No longer.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decided Thursday a lower court had the definition all wrong. Now U.S. District Court Judge Tena Campbell must apply a new definition, one set by the appeals court and lauded as a victory by three Utah counties and the state of Utah.
Still, neither side would predict whether the 120-page decision will eventually result in more or less designated wilderness. But everyone agrees it could have an enormous influence in settling which of roughly 10,000 rural Utah tracks are indeed "roads," and ultimately, whether the land around them still qualifies as wilderness.
Utah Assistant Attorney General Ralph Finlayson called the appeals ruling "a wonderful victory" for the state and Kane, Garfield and San Juan counties.
"It makes a huge difference in many ways," said Finlayson, who had argued against Campbell's adopted definition of roads.
In two past decisions on the case, Campbell had relied on standards set out by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance [SUWA] originally filed suit in 1996, after road crews from the three counties began grading dirt trails and stream beds on federal lands and calling them county-controlled roads under RS2477, a Civil War-era law that gave counties rights of way over federal lands.
"The previous decisions provided clear guidelines, and this decision is really confusing," said Scott Groene, executive director of the conservation group. "The result of this [ruling] will be enormous amounts of litigation to flesh out this decision."
The appeals court Thursday directed Campbell to scrap the definition that had guided her earlier rulings, based on criteria established by the BLM. For instance, the agency said a road was only a road when there had been "mechanical construction," such as grading.
But, the three-person appeals court, which includes former University of Utah law school professor Michael McConnell, said Congress never gave the BLM authority to decide the issue. And, siding with the state and the counties, the judges agreed with Utah law's guideline that roads are roads if they have seen "continuous use" for 10 years.
The BLM had no comment. Its attorneys had not seen the case.
Groene said SUWA would consider its options for fighting the ruling within the court's 45-day deadline. He predicted the ruling would create a "management nightmare" for federal land agencies, which oversee lands through which the disputed roads go in such places as the Grand Staircase National Monument and near Canyonlands National Park.
Under the Wilderness Act, land must include at least 5,000 acres and be road-free to be eligible for protection. By grading dirt tracks, counties effectively render wildlands ineligible for wilderness designation under the law and leave the lands open to motorized travel.
Finlayson denied the ruling was about wilderness and insisted it was about the control counties have over their backcountry routes.
"I'm after roads," he said. "I'm not after wilderness."
fahys@sltrib.com
waynehartwig
www.jeeperman.com
- Location
- Mead, WA
I bet SUWA is going CRAZY right now!
