Recreational Access and Conservation - Conservation and Public Service Activities

| Introduction | News | Notices | Activities | Education | Forums | Columns | Links | Dedicated to conservation and multiple use of public lands for recreation opportunities. Edited by: John Stewart

Great Victory for Local Land Use Planning Advocates

By: Karen Budd Falen

This letter is to announce a great victory for local land use planning advocates in the federal land planning process.  On September 1, 2001, a Federal Court Judge in the District of Utah ruled that based upon the existence of a local land use plan, the Plaintiffs, Uintah County, Utah and the Ute Indian Tribe had standing to challenge a Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") environmental assessment ("EA") releasing wild horses into a certain area in the County.  The Court found that based upon the County land use plan which advocated a desired wild horse level of "zero" and the County's letter to the BLM stating its position, the County had standing to sue the BLM when the BLM issued an EA that was inconsistent with the County's position.  The Court also granted the same standing rights to the Ute Indian Tribe based upon the BLM's failure to coordinate with the Tribe in violation of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act ("FLPMA").

With regard to the substance of the BLM's decision, the Court ruled that in this case, the BLM failed to comply with the "coordination and consistency requirements" in FLPMA.  Although the BLM claimed that the "consistency with local land use plans provision" in FLPMA only applied to formal land use plans, the Court determined that the consistency review requirements apply "'when the Secretary is making decisions directly affecting the actual management of public lands' whether formally characterized as 'resource management plan' activity or not."

Third, the Court defined the consultation requirement in FLPMA.  According to the Court, "coordination and consultation requires that the BLM have a narrowly focused discussion with the Tribe [and local governments] concerning the proposed agency action. Further the Department of the Interior's Manual requires that coordination include 'a specific description of the places and/or values at issue.'"  (Citations omitted).  Based upon the failure of the BLM to have an adequate consistency review with the local government and Indian tribe, the Court set aside the BLM's decision.

Although I did not write the winning brief, I take credit and give credit to Jim Carton, Ron White, Alex Thal, Adam Polley, Howard Hutchinson, Dick Manning and others for this case.  The Uintah County, Utah land use plan was written based upon the work of the Federal Land Conference.  The legal briefs were based upon materials that I supplied to the counsel for the Ute Indian Tribe and Uintah County, Utah that were based upon the "Catron County model."  You should be very pleased and proud of you work.  WE WERE RIGHT!!!!!!!  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT JUST IGNORE US!!!!!!!

| 4X4Wire | Site Index | Links Index | Search 4x4Wire | | Trail Talk BBS | Events Calendar | Photo Galleries | | Advertiser's Guide | Information | About Us | Please support 4x4Wire by visiting our featured sponsors TreadLightly UFWDA