ORV group appeals BLM restrictions
Environmentalists say they will continue to battle the group when the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver takes up the case.
In 2001, Utah Shared Access Alliance filed suit challenging what the BLM termed emergency closures and restrictions in Grand and Box Elder counties.
Areas involved changed as the case progressed. In the latest figures, about 250,000 acres in Grand County and 189,000 in Box Elder County are involved. According to the group, the BLM "closed more than half the roads" in the 189,000 acres in five sections of Box Elder County.
"BLM took all actions without performing any environmental analysis or allowing public comment," says a press release by the access group.
In 2001, BLM spokesman Don Banks responded to Utah Shared Access Alliance complaints by saying, "Our emergency restrictions were imposed only when and where necessary. And in each case, the BLM has had the support of the local government, the partner and land-management agency and a vast majority of land users."
Paul W. Mortensen, lawyer for Utah Shared Access Alliance, said, "The key issue is BLM's ability to bull ahead and do mass closures without public participation and" compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
He said that after the group sued, BLM backed down on some closures and signs that went beyond its own rules.
Also following the group's action, he said, the BLM backed off on restrictions in Indian Creek Canyon, San Juan County, and reduced the restricted area in Box Elder County, from 451,000 acres to 189,000 acres.
Restrictions have been placed on public land all over Grand County, Mortensen said.
Steve Bloch, lawyer for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of the BLM, said Utah Shared Access has taken the approach that regardless of the environmental damage caused by ORVs, riders are "entitled to take those vehicles anyplace" they would like.
"What the court said is that's simply not the case," he said.
When the BLM concludes that ORV use is causing serious damage, it's appropriate and necessary for the agency to take immediate steps and close the area to that type of use, he said, or to restrict use so it is more manageable.
"As a part of this case, the court had to review evidence compiled by the BLM that there were things like crushed soils, trampled vegetation, impacts to streams, impacts to wildlife, threats to ranching," he said.
"All of those impacts are exactly the types of things that BLM is required to safeguard against."
SUWA will argue to the appeals court that federal agencies should be secure in knowing they can take immediate action to safeguard the environment, Bloch said.
E-mail: bau@desnews.com
You can be the first to comment on this story.