Interior Says No to New Wilderness Areas

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bwxec/2003/apr/11/041105105.html

Interior Says No to New Wilderness Areas

By ROBERT GEHRKE
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Interior Department intends to halt all reviews
of its Western land holdings for new wilderness protection and to
withdraw that protected status from some 3 million acres in Utah, it
informed Congress on Friday.

By suspending wilderness reviews, the department would limit the
amount of land held by its Bureau of Land Management eligible for
wilderness protection at 22.8 million acres nationwide - a figure
that environmental groups say leaves millions of pristine acres
vulnerable to oil and gas development and off-road vehicle use.
Congress, however, could order additional areas protected.

"The Department stands firmly committed to the idea that we can and
should manage our public lands to provide for multiple use, including
protection of those areas that have wilderness characteristics,"
Interior Secretary Gale Norton said in a letter sent late Friday to
members of Congress.

The wilderness decisions Norton advised Congress about are contained
in a legal settlement of a lawsuit brought by Utah. The settlement
must be approved by federal judge in Utah, who also has yet to rule
on efforts by environmentalists to intervene in the case.

Norton said in 1976 Congress gave the Interior Department 15 years to
inventory wilderness areas, and only those areas identified by 1991
as having wilderness characteristics qualified for protection.

But environmental groups objected when they learned of the decisions.

"This administration's assault on America's wilderness continues,"
said Jim Angell of EarthJustice. "What they're saying is these
wilderness-quality lands throughout the West will continue to be
degraded and continue to lose their eligibility for wilderness. ...
It's just appalling."

Norton also said she was setting aside the 2001 Wilderness Handbook -
a land management policy implemented in the waning days of the
Clinton administration - which required the BLM to protect the
wilderness qualities of lands that could qualify as wilderness areas.

The requirement created millions of acres of de facto wilderness,
even though only Congress can make such designations.

Wilderness areas, as defined by the 1964 Wilderness Act, are those
areas "untrammeled by man," and are protected from oil and gas
development, off-road use, and various types of construction.

The policy changes come as part of a settlement that was to be filed
Friday in federal court in Salt Lake City. Utah had sued the Interior
Department in 1996 over a reinventory of 3 million acres conducted by
then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt.

Most of the lawsuit was dismissed, and it sat dormant for years until
the state amended its complaint last month.

In Utah, specifically, the announcement means that the department
will disregard the results of Babbitt's 1996 reinventory. That
inventory identified 5.9 million acres of Utah land that qualified
for wilderness protection, 3 million acres more than found in the
original inventory during the Reagan administration.

The BLM had been managing the land to preserve its wilderness
characteristics. Now it can be used according to the land-use plans
that had been prepared previously by the BLM, which could include
mining and recreation. Norton noted that wildness quality areas also
could be protected in land use plans without ever being designed as
wildness areas.

"It looks like Interior agrees with me and my Western colleagues that
the BLM does not have the authority to designate new wilderness study
areas, ... doesn't have authority beyond what Congress gave it," said
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "Secretary Norton's actions will bring
resolution to the illegal activities of the past administration."

This was the second time this week that the department has made a
major policy announcement resulting from secret settlement
negotiations with the state. On Wednesday, Norton and Utah Gov. Mike
Leavitt agreed to a process for transferring disputed roads across
federal lands to state ownership.

--

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Environmentalists scrambling to counter Utah wilds lawsuit

Environmentalists scrambling to counter Utah wilds lawsuit

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480035083,00.html

Environmentalists scrambling to counter Utah wilds lawsuit


State wants to kill efforts to identify new sites in West

By Jerry Spangler
Deseret News staff writer

Western environmental groups are scrambling
to fight a lawsuit filed quietly by the state of Utah that threatens to kill
efforts to identify new wilderness areas throughout Utah and the rest of the
West.
On Thursday, a coalition of conservation groups filed a motion in U.S.
District Court to intervene in the lawsuit, fearing the Bush administration
will acquiesce to Utah's demands.
"If the government is not going to defend the ability of the Bureau of
Land Management to identify wilderness, then we want the opportunity to try
to do it for them," said Jim Angell, an attorney with Earth Justice in
Denver, which filed the motion on behalf of the Wilderness Society and five
other groups from Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Arizona.
"This just isn't about Utah, but about every Western state with BLM
lands. The effects are far, far reaching," he added, "and it strikes at
everything wilderness advocates have been fighting for for years."
State attorneys were not available for comment, nor were BLM officials.
Gov. Mike Leavitt is aware of ongoing negotiations to settle the lawsuit but
refused additional comment, said his spokeswoman, Natalie Gochnour.
The state's lawsuit, Angell said, attacks the BLM's ability to identify
new wilderness areas by challenging the legality of all inventories done
after 1991. It also wants the BLM to prohibit citizen efforts to identify
potential wilderness areas and to prevent the BLM from considering citizen
input on areas citizen groups believe have wilderness qualities.
And it would prevent the BLM from considering the wilderness potential
of any area identified after 1991 whenever the agency considers whether to
allow activities like road building, mining, and oil and gas drilling
activities that are prohibited in areas designated as wilderness.
"In effect, we would be stuck in 1991 forever," Angell said. "If an
area has wilderness qualities, but those qualities were not identified until
later, then the BLM would have to turn a blind eye."
The lawsuit is actually a new version of an old lawsuit first filed in
1996 against then-Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt, who ordered a new
inventory of Utah lands with wilderness potential. Much to the chagrin of
state officials, that inventory, completed in 1999, identified millions of
acres above and beyond the 3.2 million acres identified in an earlier BLM
inventory in the 1970s and 1980s.
Several years ago, Utah conservationists conducted their own inventory
and identified nine million acres with wilderness qualities. Under existing
BLM policy, the agency considers the data collected by the conservationists
whenever it makes decisions on what development activities to allow on public
lands.
In 1998, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver gutted the state's
lawsuit challenging Babbitt's authority, dismissing seven of eight issues
before the court. The remaining issue was sent back to U.S. District Judge
Dee Benson for further consideration, meaning the lawsuit was still before
the court.
That remaining issue has languished in Benson's court for the past five
years, although the state's court filings show there were unsuccessful
attempts to negotiate a settlement.
On March 28, the state quietly "amended" its earlier lawsuit to bring
forward an entirely new lawsuit.
Angell said there has been plenty of talk about the lawsuit by Bush
administration officials and there are "strong rumors . . . the
administration is going to roll over."
Under the Wilderness Act of 1964, only Congress can designate
wilderness. But Congress also set up a process through which federal land
management agencies could conduct "inventories" of potential wilderness areas
and submit their recommendations to Congress. Those areas would be protected
as wilderness until Congress acted.
But wilderness issues have stalemated in Congress for three decades. In
rural regions, where the study areas are located, some contend that
bureaucrats have locked up millions of acres of de facto wilderness.
The lawsuit seeks to declare illegal any interim protection.
Efforts by Leavitt and Utah's congressional delegation to end the
three-decade stalemate have proved fruitless.
Now, the state is asking the court to order the BLM to throw out its
existing wilderness policy, articulated in the "Wilderness Inventory
Handbook." That handbook has come under fire by Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah,
and other GOP congressmen, who petitioned Secretary of Interior Gale Norton
to rescind it.
A coalition of 15 national environmental groups responded with a letter
of their own, calling on Norton to halt any attempts to "extinguish the
department's existing policies and requirements with respect to wilderness
studies."
And they defended the handbook as "critical for truly comprehensive
land-use planning as it provides criteria and protocols for the collection of
information vital to determining areas" suitable for wilderness protection.
But the state's lawsuit contends the handbook was adopted with no
public input and that federal wilderness policies violate federal law. The
suit asks Benson to order the BLM to ignore any wilderness "re-inventory"
conducted up to this time, and to "cease and desist from all further
wilderness re-inventory, review and associated wilderness management
activities."

Potential Utah wilds no longer get protection


http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480035403,00.html?

Potential wilds no longer get protection By Jerry Spangler
Deseret News staff writer

In a pivotal decision that will dramatically alter the 25-year
wilderness debate, the federal government on Friday agreed with Utah's
legal argument that current federal policies toward potential wilderness
are illegal.
The Department of Interior, in settling the case, has agreed to
remove legal protections now afforded to those potential wilderness areas
identified after 1991, and to discard its current wilderness policies,
articulated in the "Wilderness Handbook."
"Only Congress can create wilderness, only Congress can create
wilderness study areas and only Congress can terminate access to the
resources (on public lands)," said Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, who noted the
Department of Interior and the Department of Justice approached the state
wanting to settle the 1996 lawsuit.
"They concluded it was in their interest to resolve this matter," he
added.
Conservationists were devastated, but not particularly surprised by
the news. "Given this administration, it is no surprise at all it adopted
the most radical anti-environmental position it could," said Jim Angell, an
attorney for Earth Justice in Denver who is representing six regional
conservation groups trying to intervene in the lawsuit.
But that motion on Thursday might have come too late as the state and
federal government filed their own notice Friday that they had settled the
suit.
The case has languished in U.S. District Court since 1998 when the
10th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected seven of eight state claims. The
state and federal government have been negotiating over the one remaining
issue.
On May 28, the state, along the Utah Association of Counties and the
School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, amended their lawsuit,
in effect filing a whole new series of claims that federal land managers
did not have authority to identify or manage wilderness not specifically
authorized by Congress. And there has been no congressional approval for
any wilderness studies since 1991.
In a letter sent late Friday to members of Congress, Interior
Secretary Gale Norton said, "The Department of Interior stands firmly
committed to the idea that we can and should manage our public lands to
provide for multiple use, including protection of those areas that have
wilderness characteristics."
Norton also said she was setting aside the 2001 Wilderness Handbook
a land management policy implemented in the waning days of the Clinton
administration which required the BLM to protect the wilderness qualities
of lands that could qualify as wilderness areas. That requirement created
millions of acres of de facto wilderness.
The settlement affects not only Utah, but all Western states. And it
will have far-reaching impacts on conservation groups throughout the
region, which have used small armies of volunteers to document lands they
believe are worthy of wilderness designation. Federal land managers have
then incorporated those findings into land management decisions.
In Utah, conservationists identified 9 million acres of potential
wilderness.
But the Utah settlement throws all that out. It also discards a 1999
inventory of Utah lands, ordered by then-Secretary of Interior Bruce
Babbitt, that identified 5.9 million acres.
Friday's settlement takes the numbers game back to 1991. In 1976,
Congress allowed for a 15-year inventory of Western lands for wilderness
consideration. And at the end of that period, the Bureau of Land Management
had identified 3.2 million acres in Utah.
Advocates on both sides of the debate agreed that inventory was
flawed, with county commissioners arguing it was too much and
conservationists saying it was too little and blaming the Reagan
Administration with politicizing the process.
But Leavitt says 1991 is a good starting point.
"We have 3.2 million acres to choose from and we ought to get
started," he told the Deseret News. "I am prepared to begin advancing
wilderness proposals to Congress. The only issue is not if, but where and
how much."
Conservationists do not know what their next move will be. But they
vehemently disagree with attorneys for the state and federal government who
agree the federal government has no legal standing.
"The courts have all rejected Utah's argument, and it is appalling
the administration is adopting it," Angell said.
But Utah officials and their attorneys say their argument is rooted
in Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives only Congress the right
to manage public lands.
How did it happen? "It was little by little, accretion with acreage
here and there, until the number in Utah is 9 million acres," Leavitt said.
And it happened during the Clinton Administration when the BLM
expanded its wilderness mission to include wilderness values in its
decisions on whether or not to allow mining, roads, oil and gas exploration
and recreation. Millions of acres across the West were consequently managed
as wilderness, even though they were never part of any inventory sanctioned
by Congress.
"Secretary Norton's actions will bring resolution to the illegal
activities of the past administration," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.



Contributing: Associated Press
E-MAIL: [email protected]
[Unable to display image]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Greetings All,

Wow. What a couple of busy public land use newsweeks. These are
exciting times. There are a lot of very positive things happening. We
encourage all of you to give this Dispatch a very close read.

In this Dispatch, we respond to harsh criticism, track the recent
spate of letters to the editors written by professional wilderness
activists, we have a few words to say about R.S. 2477 and we give the
BLM a hand for a job well done.

Finally, we've got a BIG CONTEST! The contest will give you a chance
to prove you know more about land use issues than the Editors of the
Salt Lake Tribune.

Yes, we really are having too much fun!

Thank you all so very much for your support. Everyone at USA-ALL
appreciates the kind words we've received in the last few weeks.

Enjoy!
Brian Hawthorne
Utah Shared Access Alliance



USA-ALL Monday Dispatch for the week of April 21, 2003

USA-ALL Gets Ripped For Not Claiming Credit On Key Land Use Win

The rumor you have heard is true. The BLM has abandoned the effort to
nearly double the amount of Wilderness Study Areas. Contrary to the
reporting in the Utah and the National press, existing WSAs are still
here. Only Congress can change those.

Some folks felt as if we should have taken more of the credit.
We've actually received some harsh criticism because we hadn't.
That's very flattering. But this was truly a combined effort on the
part of all multiple use interests. We may have griped the loudest
and pounded on more desks, but it would be inappropriate to claim
that it was our efforts exclusively, or even primarily, that won this.

What tipped the scales?
Well, we told the story of how our elected representatives stood firm
on the issue, and that was very powerful. A coalition of Western
Counties, and the National Association of Counties also pressed the
issue. Virtually every multiple-use stakeholder opposed the policy.
No one gave up.

Finally, after waiting as long as possible for a policy change from
Interior, the Utah Association of Counties and the School and
Institutional Trust Lands Administration brought the issue to a head
via their lawsuit. Then, and only then, did Interior start to look
closely at rescinding the policy.

I'm just guessing here, but we're willing to entertain the
possibility that the Department of the Interior under the Bush
administration is much more sensitive to concerns of actual line
officers who have to implement these leftover Clinton/Gore policies,
which seemed to have been totally politically motivated. Line
officers were beginning to receive 'new and supplemental information'
(requests to add more and more WSAs) every time they turned around.
Utah BLM did not want to see three major Resource Management Plan
(RMP) revisions become mired in this ill-conceived policy. Without
settlement of the issue, they would never be able to update those
plans. Maybe the real credit belongs to the BLM (I can't wait to see
the emails I'm going to get for saying that!).

The Fat Lady is not Singing!
A couple of the emails suspected there may be a reason we aren't
crowing about it. It's a valid question considering the shameless
self promoting we usually do. Crowing about this victory may be a tad
premature. Wilderness Advocacy Groups (WAGs) are petitioning, en
masse, to intervene. Until the settlement survives these legal
challenges, we'll hold off on any celebratory planning.

Still... in the vernacular of Homer Simpson.... Woo Hoo!



USA-ALL CONTEST!!!

The April 20 2003 edition of the Salt Lake Tribune printed a
remarkable opinion piece titled "Assaulting Wilderness". It was
remarkable in that it contained so many falsehoods and mistakes we
are left to wonder if someone over at the Tribune isn't just utterly
ashamed it made it to print.

We've decided to illustrate how factless it was by holding a contest.
Here is your chance to demonstrate that you know more about public
land management issues than the Editors at the Salt Lake Tribune.

Here is what to do:
Read the Trib's opinion and count the falsehoods. Send us an email
with the number of falsehoods as well as where they occur and WIN!
(In the case of multiple correct answers, the winner will be chosen
at random).

The Prize:
The winner will receive a very rare Team Access golf shirt. These
shirts were custom made for representatives from the Utah 4-Wheel
Drive Association, United Four Wheel Drive Association, BlueRibbon
Coalition and Utah Shared Access Alliance for this years Easter Jeep
Safari. Sorry, the winner is limited to either a large or 2X large.

Good Luck!

Assaulting Wilderness
<http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04202003/opinion/opinion.asp>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04202003/opinion/opinion.asp

HINT: We count each and every inaccuracy and every falsehood, no
matter how small. This Includes one technical falsehood as well as a
specific fault in the writers logic and reasoning.
IMPORTANT: Note that the online version reprints one paragraph twice
(apparently some sort of formatting error). Be careful not to count
the falsehoods in that paragraph twice.

Response To Tribune's "Assaulting Wilderness" Opinion:

It's good to see opinion based on FACT in the pages of the Tribune.
It's just too bad it doesn't happen more often.

See: Over the Top
<http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04242003/public_f/50604.asp>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04242003/public_f/50604.asp

And don't miss: To Manage and Protect
<http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04282003/public_f/51914.asp>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04282003/public_f/51914.asp

BLM Does Something Right

Hey, you BLMers who read our dispatch need to be less sensitive about
our criticism. It's our job to criticize the agency, and our duty to
point out the errors of agency employees that can be described as;
agenda driven (are we politically correct or what?) That being said,
we'd like to give the BLM credit for something they did that was,
actually, very smart.

Here's the story:
It was interpreted that BLM's San Rafael Travel Plan made all vehicle
travel off designated routes illegal. However, the travel plan didn't
designate short spur-roads that access popular campsites. Big
problem! Vehicle based camping is HUGE in the swell. It's perhaps the
most popular activity of all.

Just in time for the spring season, the BLM issued camping guidelines
that allowed vehicles to access existing campsites. Good job, BLM.

I suppose you would call these 'interim guidelines'. What the BLM is
planning insofar as dispersed camping is still very much up in the
air. We recommend contacting the BLM with your comments and
suggestions. Call 435-636-3600 or email the Planning Team at:
[email protected]

See: BLM Provides New Camping Guidelines
<http://www.ut.blm.gov/sanrafaelohv/campingbrochure.pdf>http://www.ut.blm.gov/sanrafaelohv/campingbrochure.pdf

Professional Environmental Activists = Professional Letter Writers

Check this out:
A. Oscar Olson from Salt Lake City wrote an excellent letter to the
editor regarding SUWA's intense whining about the Memorandum of
Understanding between Utah and the BLM on R.S. 2477 roads. Olson's
brilliant and entirely fact based letter was published in the
Thursday April 17 edition of the Salt Lake Tribune.
See: SUWA Obstructionists
<http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04172003/public_f/48639.asp>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04172003/public_f/48639.asp

As you might imagine, the Tribune published a rebuttal to Olson's
letter. The rebuttal was written by well known wilderness activist
Amy Brunvand. That's certainly to be expected. What's amazing about
it was that Brunvand's rebuttal was printed in the Tribune's April 19
edition, just 2 days after Olson's letter. Wow!
See: Roads and Wilderness
<http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04192003/public_f/49273.asp>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04192003/public_f/49273.asp

That caught our attention...
USA-ALL's Rainer Huck likened the speed in which the Tribune prints
letters from professional environmental activists to: the speed at
which light travels!!
See: The Wilderness Myth
<http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04252003/public_f/50975.asp>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04252003/public_f/50975.asp

More From Professional Environmental Activists:

Along with Brunvand's factless letter, the Tribune printed this from
Rebecca Ciccone, Utah Campaign Coordinator for the Sierra Club's
Student Coalition
See: Suspect Roads
<http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04282003/public_f/51915.asp>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04282003/public_f/51915.asp

Bob Brister, Outreach Coordinator, for SUWA sent this to the Deseret News.
See: Don't destroy wilderness
<http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480038458,00.html>http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480038458,00.html

I'm wondering if this isn't the Derek Goldman who worked for the
ultra-radical Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads (
<http://www.wildlandscpr.org/>http://www.wildlandscpr.org/ )
See: Hatch Should Be Honest
<http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04162003/public_f/48299.asp>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04162003/public_f/48299.asp

I wonder.... do you suppose they get paid by the word?

It Ain't Easy, Being Green

I guess this years Earth Day was a little cloudy for
environmentalists. We feel really bad for them.

Environmentalists seeing gray skies on Earth Day
<http://www.desnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480037713,00.html>http://www.desnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480037713,00.html

Taking stock on Earth Day
<http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480037612,00.html>http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480037612,00.html

Is the Environmentalist Celebration Still in Style?
<http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04222003/utah/50085.asp>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04222003/utah/50085.asp

LaVarr Webb NUKES Ted Wilson's Pro-SUWA Argument

A new member to our ACTION ALERT list sent this to us today. We had
missed it entirely! It's a great Deseret News "Wilson & Webb". LaVarr
Webb obliterates a Ted Wilson argument, which seemed to allege
environmental issues will hurt Utah Republicans "down the road".

See: Wilds advocates are in for a wild time
<http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,485032678,00.html>http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,485032678,00.html

I found something Ted Wilson said interesting. He said; "No one wants
to mountain bike or hike next to an oil rig." Really? Well, Ted's a
former Salt Lake City Mayor and a big-shot professor (or something)
so maybe I shouldn't say this, but, that's just stupid. People bike
by oil rigs all the time. They bike right by mines too. In fact, some
of the most popular "mountain bike trails" are actually roads that,
more often than not, were constructed for access to an oil rig, or a
mine.

Do you think Teds ever been to Moab? Where do you suppose he thinks
all those mountainbike trails (roads) came from? This is very odd.
Very odd indeed.

This is kind of off the subject, but my favorite is that oil well
right next to Hwy 313. (
<http://www.milebymile.com/main/United_States/Utah/State_313_1/United_States_Utah_road_log.html>http://www.milebymile.com/main/United_States/Utah/State_313_1/United_States_Utah_road_log.html
) I'd bet most of you drove right by it a hundred times and never
noticed it. I wonder how many people biked right next to that one.

Wilderness Advocates Are Probably Really Bummed To Read This...

2 new reservoirs and a new OHV park. The Environmentalists worst nightmare!

See: Sand Hollow Becomes Utah's 41st State Park
<http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04192003/utah/49311.asp>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04192003/utah/49311.asp

And: Groundbreaking held for reservoir work
<http://www.desnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480037809,00.html>http://www.desnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480037809,00.html

Sportsmen's Conservation Efforts Featured

Hunting enthusiasts bag big game -- for big, big bucks
<http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04272003/utah/51765.asp>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04272003/utah/51765.asp

Utah Tops in Conservation Tag Money
<http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04272003/utah/51764.asp>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04272003/utah/51764.asp

A Few Words About R.S. 2477

About the Press:
A friend of mine made an off-hand comment about the recreational
access problems being solved on BLM lands in Utah. He was under the
impression that there would be dirt bike trails in National Parks and
all those WSAs had been released to multiple use management. I think
he reads the Salt Lake Tribune.

The Utah and National Press has been derelict in their reporting on
R.S. 2477. I agree with USA-ALL's President, Rainer Huck -- that the
press is eager to uncritically publish the radical environmentalist
party line. I can't tell you how many times we saw this quote in
newspapers: (attributed to the National Parks Conservation
Association) "... the regulation [Interior's Disclaimer Rule] could
allow mining companies and other developers to force the building of
thousands of miles of new roads through pristine western public
lands, including national parks".

That's a remarkable statement. What's more remarkable is that no one
in the press challenged it.

I want all of USA-ALL's members and supporters to know that we talk
to the press quite often regarding the miss-reporting on these
issues. The argument that talking to the press doesn't do any good
doesn't wash with us. We view it as an obligation that is directly
tied to our mission to represent your interests. Sadly, I have to
report that the individual reporters reply to our criticism with sort
of a collective shrug. We'll keep trying. If you want to help, let us
know. We'll work together so that each of our efforts can be more
effective in the future.

About the MOU:
The Memorandum of Understanding negotiated between Utah's Governor
Mike Leavitt and Interior Secretary Gale Norton was touted as a major
breakthrough, a 'process' that will resolve the vast majority of the
disputes over these rights-of-ways. (See:
<http://www.utah.gov/governor/newsrels/2003/newsrel_040903.html>http://www.utah.gov/governor/newsrels/2003/newsrel_040903.html
)

That sounds nice, but I'll go out on a limb and make a prediction
here: Our grandchildren will be fighting over these rights-of-ways.

The MOU establishes a process by which the state and counties may
make application to the BLM for a 'disclaimer of interest' on certain
roads. The agreement limits applications to roads established prior
to 1976 that are passable by automobiles and trucks with 4 wheels,
that have been the subject of some type of periodic maintenance, and
are not within Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, National Parks and
Fish and Wildlife Refuges.

The application process begins with an agreement to re-imburse the
BLM for the costs of processing the application. If the Utah BLM
State Director determines the road meets the requirements of
"applicable statutes and regulations", and the terms of the
agreement, then the Department of the Interior will issue a
recordable disclaimer of interest limited to the width of "ground
disturbance" existing at the date of the signing of the MOU (April 9,
2003).

Regardless of whether or not the MOU will succeed as advertised, we
think Governor Leavitt should get an "A" for effort. The MOU comes
close in many respects. As with many of the Governor's initiatives,
the stakeholders are trying to find ways to: "make it work". We'll
keep you posted.

A Few Comments On Heidi M's Perspective:
Heidi McIntosh, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance's lead attorney and
"Conservation Director" wrote an op-ed in the Sunday, April 20 3003
edition of the Salt Lake Tribune (see link below). I'd like to
weigh-in on a couple of her statements.

She says the issue is not about roads. It's about Wilderness. Her
assertion is that a "tired, old federal law enacted in 1866" will
allow western counties to claim dry washes, cow paths and hiking
trails will disqualify lands for Wilderness designation. That's an
argument that is very convenient for them at this moment. Another
argument that they have found convenient in the past was that "the
presence of roads, even paved roads, do not disqualify lands for
Wilderness". Which is it, do you suppose?

Heidi makes an interesting statement: "There's no doubt that there
are legitimate R.S. 2477 claims. The famous Burr Trail and the
Buckhorn Wash Road are just two examples". Now she says the Burr
Trail is a legitimate 2477 road. What were they saying a few years
ago? Didn't the Burr Trail become famous precisely because SUWA and
other WAGs argued that it was an illegitimate 2477 claim?

Heidi and her friends assert that R.S. 2477 is a: 'tired, old, out of
date, civil war era (etc. etc.) law'. That is an argument that is
becoming tired and old itself. Couldn't you make the same argument
about the Bill of Rights? What about the Antiquities Act, passed in
1906? I doubt Heidi would call that one tired and old.

The point is this: The facts don't jibe with their agenda, so they
make them up. That's why their arguments are inconsistent. As long as
the press continues to eagerly print the party line, McIntosh and her
compatriots are good to go.

What is missing in the reporting, and what I want you all to
understand, is that R.S. 2477 and the rights-of-ways associated with
roads across federal lands was AFFIRMED, by Congress, when they
passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976.

Congress specifically bypassed the Executive branch (the BLM) by
transferring ownership of roads directly to the counties and the
state. R.S. 2477 was a self executing law, there is no application
process required. Heidi says this isn't about roads. But it is. It's
about public access. It's about your ability to view and enjoy the
millions of acres of public lands in Utah and other states.

There is universal agreement: Existing roads should remain open. A
vast majority of the people want to have access to their lands. These
roads are National Treasures and they should be preserved and
protected. Every single one of these roads is valuable. The only road
that isn't valuable, is one with a gate on it.

Activist Says Governor's Process Is Flawed, Unfair
<http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04202003/commenta/49369.asp>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04202003/commenta/49369.asp
Governor Suggests 'Common Ground' Solution
<http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04202003/commenta/49370.asp>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04202003/commenta/49370.asp
Udall and 86 members of Congress say Norton road policy is against the law
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/04/17/state2053EDT7622.DTL>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/04/17/state2053EDT7622.DTL

Newsclips:

Forest Tinderbox Foreseen
<http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04282003/utah/51970.asp>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04282003/utah/51970.asp
State gets jump-start on plan for gray wolves
<http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480036494,00.html>http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480036494,00.html
Motocross developer makes no-fee pitch
<http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480036397,00.html>http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480036397,00.html
Lawsuits Shape Bush Forest Policy
<http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04202003/utah/49617.asp>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04202003/utah/49617.asp
Greens and Farmers End Discussions
<http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04202003/utah/49622.asp>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04202003/utah/49622.asp
Groups intervene in Sierra lawsuit
<http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480037963,00.html>http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480037963,00.html
Push for more logging in the Sierra to curb fires
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/23/MN245433.DTL>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/23/MN245433.DTL
Forest Service wants to ignore mass e-mails
<http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/5695813.htm>http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/5695813.htm