base311
January 10th, 2001, 03:47 AM
LAST EDITED ON Jan-10-01 AT 07:15 AM (PST)[p]***reposted here without permission from www.moabtimes.com***
Judge rules he has no jurisdiction to close WSA’s to 4-wheelers
by Franklin Seal
staff writer
In the wide-ranging political war over management of public lands in the West, Utah is the scene of some of the most bitterly fought battles. Two weeks ago, conservationists lost the first round of one fight in that broader war.
The issue is the burgeoning use of off-highway vehicles in wilderness study areas and other wild lands. More specifically, it’s the tracks some unruly OHV users leave behind and the new trails they create.
All sides agree that damage to the land is occurring, but they have widely different views about what to do about it. And in the not-so-distant background of this particular legal battle are the larger issues of county road rights vs. conservationists’ goals for ultimately gaining permanent wilderness status for millions of acres of public lands in Utah and across the west. As Congress continues to debate whether to permanently protect such lands, increasing recreational use in some areas could permanently mar the landscape and prevent it from qualifying for wilderness status.
Last year Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance sued the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Land Management saying OHVs were eroding the untouched qualities of wild lands throughout Utah and the BLM wasn’t doing enough to stop it. They asked U. S. District Judge Dale A. Kimball to step in and close to OHV’s the nine most threatened areas, at least temporarily, until the larger case was settled.
On Friday, Dec. 22, the judge said he would not step in.
Some of the nine areas in SUWA’s injunction request have been set aside as official Wilderness Study Areas—WSA’s. Some of the areas are not. The WSA designation means that in the decades-long war over preserving public lands, Congress has not yet decided to declare those sections as official permanent wilderness. At the same time, Congress said it wants to keep them in their relatively pristine state while they "study" the question, ie. until a final decision is made.
After six days of hearings in September, Kimball issued a ruling on several motions in the complicated case three days before Christmas. He dismissed SUWA’s claims regarding nine specific areas, one of which is the Behind The Rocks WSA southwest of Moab. In dismissing those claims, Kimball also wrote that his first ruling made moot a separate SUWA request for a preliminary injunction to close those areas to motorized traffic.
Though the ruling effects only some of the motions made in the case, it indicates SUWA has an uphill battle in the suit from here on out. As of Wednesday evening, SUWA had not decided if they were going to appeal the ruling, according to Mike Reberg, a SUWA spokesman. But on Friday, a report in the Salt Lake Tribune quoted SUWA’s Heidi McIntosh as saying the group had vowed to appeal.
The nine areas SUWA asked the judge to close to OHV’s include the San Rafael Swell, Behind The Rocks, Indian Creek in San Juan County, Wildhorse Mesa near Capital Reef and the Coral Pink Sand Dunes.
Joining the suit on the side of the BLM were The State of Utah, several Utah counties (including Grand County) and several groups advocating access for off-road vehicles—Utah Shared Access Alliance, Blue Ribbon Coalition and Elite Motorcycle Tours of Moab. Seven organizations jumped into the suit in support of SUWA: The Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, Wildlands CPR, Utah Council of Trout Unlimited, Americans Lands Alliance and Friends of the Abajos.
In his 20-page written decision, Kimball said SUWA had argued the BLM was failing to act to prevent damage to the recreation areas. "While Plaintiffs have presented significant evidence about the alleged impairment that is occurring in the WSA’s due to ORV use, BLM has also presented significant evidence about the steps it is and has been taking to prevent such impairment," he wrote. "It appears that BLM has taken various actions, many of them recently—perhaps due, at least in part, to this lawsuit—but, steps have been taken nonetheless. Even Plaintiffs stated during their closing arguments, that the BLM has taken "half steps."
Since the BLM was taking at least some actions, SUWA’s claims were actually complaints about the type, degree and effectiveness of those actions, not about BLM’s failure to act. "This court ‘is hesitant to upset an agency’s priorities by ordering it to expedite one specific action and thus give it precedence over others,’" Kimball wrote, citing precedent. "While the court might agree with Plaintiffs that too little is done too slowly, the court cannot conclude the BLM has abdicated its statutory responsibility for management."
"We were a victim of our own success in this," said SUWA’s Reberg. "When we filed this last fall, we filed it because the BLM had failed to adequately protect federally managed lands from the ravages of off-road vehicle use. Since we filed it, the BLM has finally taken steps to protect these areas."
But Utah Shared Access Alliance’s Executive Director Brain Hawthorne disagreed, saying the BLM had been taking steps, even prior to the lawsuit. He was confident that the ruling indicated SUWA had a tough road ahead of them in the remainder of the lawsuit. If the judge dismissed SUWA’s claims with regard to the nine areas that were most heavily impacted, he said, then they would have an even tougher time proving their case on the other areas around the state.
In a news release following the ruling, Paul Turcke, an attorney for the recreation groups, was quoted as saying, "Hopefully this decision will help stop the ‘management through litigation’ model that seems popular with some activists."
___________end of article
"Joining the suit on the side of the BLM were The State of Utah, several Utah counties (including Grand County) and several groups advocating access for off-road vehicles—Utah Shared Access Alliance, Blue Ribbon Coalition and Elite Motorcycle Tours of Moab."
...maybe we could show our support in some way when SUWA appeals this decision? Any thoughts/suggestions? What would the benefits/drawbacks be to supporting the BLM against SUWA? The larger issue of the damage to lands is definitely of concern to us all; however, my access to sites and the legal use of my parachute therein is my prime concern. What do you people think? Do we mount a support effort or just sit quietly and watch what happens? I'd like to hear back from some of you. Now is the time to act - if action is warranted.
happy new year!
Gardner
P.S. IF YOU WISH TO CONTINUE JUMPING IN MINERAL CANYON, THEN The Utah Wilderness Coalition's proposal for Labyrinth Canyon must not come to fruition - it would include the whole east bank of the Green River... this means Mineral Canyon. If this becomes wilderness area, then we would not be allowed to jump. Please see SUWA's website @ http://www.suwa.org/WATE/labyrinth.html#o4
Judge rules he has no jurisdiction to close WSA’s to 4-wheelers
by Franklin Seal
staff writer
In the wide-ranging political war over management of public lands in the West, Utah is the scene of some of the most bitterly fought battles. Two weeks ago, conservationists lost the first round of one fight in that broader war.
The issue is the burgeoning use of off-highway vehicles in wilderness study areas and other wild lands. More specifically, it’s the tracks some unruly OHV users leave behind and the new trails they create.
All sides agree that damage to the land is occurring, but they have widely different views about what to do about it. And in the not-so-distant background of this particular legal battle are the larger issues of county road rights vs. conservationists’ goals for ultimately gaining permanent wilderness status for millions of acres of public lands in Utah and across the west. As Congress continues to debate whether to permanently protect such lands, increasing recreational use in some areas could permanently mar the landscape and prevent it from qualifying for wilderness status.
Last year Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance sued the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Land Management saying OHVs were eroding the untouched qualities of wild lands throughout Utah and the BLM wasn’t doing enough to stop it. They asked U. S. District Judge Dale A. Kimball to step in and close to OHV’s the nine most threatened areas, at least temporarily, until the larger case was settled.
On Friday, Dec. 22, the judge said he would not step in.
Some of the nine areas in SUWA’s injunction request have been set aside as official Wilderness Study Areas—WSA’s. Some of the areas are not. The WSA designation means that in the decades-long war over preserving public lands, Congress has not yet decided to declare those sections as official permanent wilderness. At the same time, Congress said it wants to keep them in their relatively pristine state while they "study" the question, ie. until a final decision is made.
After six days of hearings in September, Kimball issued a ruling on several motions in the complicated case three days before Christmas. He dismissed SUWA’s claims regarding nine specific areas, one of which is the Behind The Rocks WSA southwest of Moab. In dismissing those claims, Kimball also wrote that his first ruling made moot a separate SUWA request for a preliminary injunction to close those areas to motorized traffic.
Though the ruling effects only some of the motions made in the case, it indicates SUWA has an uphill battle in the suit from here on out. As of Wednesday evening, SUWA had not decided if they were going to appeal the ruling, according to Mike Reberg, a SUWA spokesman. But on Friday, a report in the Salt Lake Tribune quoted SUWA’s Heidi McIntosh as saying the group had vowed to appeal.
The nine areas SUWA asked the judge to close to OHV’s include the San Rafael Swell, Behind The Rocks, Indian Creek in San Juan County, Wildhorse Mesa near Capital Reef and the Coral Pink Sand Dunes.
Joining the suit on the side of the BLM were The State of Utah, several Utah counties (including Grand County) and several groups advocating access for off-road vehicles—Utah Shared Access Alliance, Blue Ribbon Coalition and Elite Motorcycle Tours of Moab. Seven organizations jumped into the suit in support of SUWA: The Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, Wildlands CPR, Utah Council of Trout Unlimited, Americans Lands Alliance and Friends of the Abajos.
In his 20-page written decision, Kimball said SUWA had argued the BLM was failing to act to prevent damage to the recreation areas. "While Plaintiffs have presented significant evidence about the alleged impairment that is occurring in the WSA’s due to ORV use, BLM has also presented significant evidence about the steps it is and has been taking to prevent such impairment," he wrote. "It appears that BLM has taken various actions, many of them recently—perhaps due, at least in part, to this lawsuit—but, steps have been taken nonetheless. Even Plaintiffs stated during their closing arguments, that the BLM has taken "half steps."
Since the BLM was taking at least some actions, SUWA’s claims were actually complaints about the type, degree and effectiveness of those actions, not about BLM’s failure to act. "This court ‘is hesitant to upset an agency’s priorities by ordering it to expedite one specific action and thus give it precedence over others,’" Kimball wrote, citing precedent. "While the court might agree with Plaintiffs that too little is done too slowly, the court cannot conclude the BLM has abdicated its statutory responsibility for management."
"We were a victim of our own success in this," said SUWA’s Reberg. "When we filed this last fall, we filed it because the BLM had failed to adequately protect federally managed lands from the ravages of off-road vehicle use. Since we filed it, the BLM has finally taken steps to protect these areas."
But Utah Shared Access Alliance’s Executive Director Brain Hawthorne disagreed, saying the BLM had been taking steps, even prior to the lawsuit. He was confident that the ruling indicated SUWA had a tough road ahead of them in the remainder of the lawsuit. If the judge dismissed SUWA’s claims with regard to the nine areas that were most heavily impacted, he said, then they would have an even tougher time proving their case on the other areas around the state.
In a news release following the ruling, Paul Turcke, an attorney for the recreation groups, was quoted as saying, "Hopefully this decision will help stop the ‘management through litigation’ model that seems popular with some activists."
___________end of article
"Joining the suit on the side of the BLM were The State of Utah, several Utah counties (including Grand County) and several groups advocating access for off-road vehicles—Utah Shared Access Alliance, Blue Ribbon Coalition and Elite Motorcycle Tours of Moab."
...maybe we could show our support in some way when SUWA appeals this decision? Any thoughts/suggestions? What would the benefits/drawbacks be to supporting the BLM against SUWA? The larger issue of the damage to lands is definitely of concern to us all; however, my access to sites and the legal use of my parachute therein is my prime concern. What do you people think? Do we mount a support effort or just sit quietly and watch what happens? I'd like to hear back from some of you. Now is the time to act - if action is warranted.
happy new year!
Gardner
P.S. IF YOU WISH TO CONTINUE JUMPING IN MINERAL CANYON, THEN The Utah Wilderness Coalition's proposal for Labyrinth Canyon must not come to fruition - it would include the whole east bank of the Green River... this means Mineral Canyon. If this becomes wilderness area, then we would not be allowed to jump. Please see SUWA's website @ http://www.suwa.org/WATE/labyrinth.html#o4