July 29, 2003

In this Issue:

House of Representatives Votes on Yellowstone Snowmobile Amendment
Bush Administration Asks Supreme Court to Hear Off-road Vehicle Case
Off-road Vehicle Sparks Major Utah Wild Fire
Denver Post Highlights Public Land Giveaway

House of Representatives Votes on Yellowstone Snowmobile Amendment - In a dramatic vote on July 17, the U.S. House of Representatives acted on an bi-partisan amendment offered by Representatives Rush Holt (NJ), Christopher Shays (CT), Nick Rahall (WV) and Timothy Johnson (IL) to protect Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks from the damage caused by snowmobiles. The amendment received support from members from 42 states and a majority of all Representatives in the west. However, following last minute arm-twisting and vote switching by the Republican leadership, this measure was not adopted following a 210-210 tie vote.

Following the vote, Congressman Holt said: "I am proud of the bipartisan coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans that today took a stand to protect our nation's oldest and most treasured national park from destruction. Our fight to protect Yellowstone will go on."

Congressman Rahall, the Senior Democrat on the House Resources Committee, said: "Once again, the Bush Administration's judgement is being polluted by the haze their industry friends are creating before their eyes. Otherwise they would see that the environmentally sound policy would be to phase out the use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone."

Read Representative Holt's press release:

The amendment would have barred the Department of Interior from using funds provided in fiscal year 2004 to implement any decision authorizing large-scale snowmobile use in the parks. The amendment would allow the Department to implement the original Park Service decision to phase out the machines with a one-year delay.

This issue now shifts back to the American people. In the weeks ahead, they will have another chance to express their views about the appropriateness of snowmobile use in our first National Park. When the public had a similar opportunity last spring, more than 80 percent of all comments received by the Park Service supported protecting these parks by phasing out snowmobiles. The Department of Interior is expected in early August to publish a draft rule to implement its snowmobile policy. A public comment period will follow. A final rule is expected to be issued this fall.

Bush Administration Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Off-Road Vehicle Case - On July 18, the Administration formally requested that the Supreme Court overturn a ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (in Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton) which concluded that federal courts can compel the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to act to protect public lands from damage caused by uncontrolled off-road vehicle use. While the Administration is couching its challenge and the issues at stake in procedural terms, overturning this decision could have sweeping implications not only in Utah, but also for public land management in general.

In the SUWA case, the Court of Appeals ruled that the public can challenge agencies' failure to act to protect public lands even if that failure is the result of agency inaction. The Court further held that management actions described in land use plans, including commitments to monitor impacts associated with off-road vehicle use and to develop travel plans, are nondiscretionary duties under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act because that law clearly states that the BLM will manage public lands in accordance with land use plans. As a result, the Court concluded that the public can challenge the agency for failing to actually conduct mandatory activities to which it commits in such plans. Finally, the Court concluded that the public can compel the BLM to take a "hard look" at new information associated with exploding off-road vehicle use to determine if supplemental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is warranted. While the Court did not conclude that provision of such information in and of itself mandates supplemental review, it made clear that an agency can not simply refuse to consider new information.

In its petition to the Supreme Court, the Administration challenges each of these conclusions. It maintains that the public can only challenge, and courts can only compel, final agency actions, but the failure of an agency to act as part of its day-to-day operations can not be challenged or required. The Administration contends that land use plans and the management actions they proscribe are essentially discretionary and can not be enforced in court. It states that plans only serve to limit agencies from undertaking actions "inconsistent" with those plans. If the Supreme Court accepts this argument, then land use plans will be worth little more than the paper on which they are printed. Finally, the Administration argues that NEPA analysis is only required for proposed major federal actions - inaction by land managers does not necessitate review of impacts to the land, water and air quality or wildlife. The Administration presents an extremely narrow interpretation of the requirement for supplemental analysis in response to significant new circumstances or information by arguing that such analysis may only be required if the agency has proposed an action.

The Administration's request for review does not guarantee that the Supreme Court will agree to hear this case. However, when making decisions about the small number of cases to consider each session, the Court gives significant weight to requests from the government. The Court will most likely decide whether or not to take this case this fall.

Read July 22 article on this case in the Salt Lake Tribune:

Off-road Vehicle Sparks Major Utah Wild Fire - According to the National Incident Information Center, a joint federal operation that tracks all major wild fires, an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) operating cross-country sparked the largest wild fire in Utah this season. The Center reports this blaze, known as the Bulldog Fire, had consumed nearly 32,000 acres through July 28 in the Henry Mountains of southern Utah. According to the Center, the next largest fire still burning in the State late last week covered fewer than 2,000 acres. Federal officials describe the cause as follows: "Human caused. Sparks from an ATV ignited dry grass and quickly spread." The Salt Lake Tribune reported on July 15 that "[I]nvestigators 'have seen tracks that backed up into the grass, and that was the ignition point,' said Murray Shoemaker, spokesman for the federal-state team battling the blaze."

This incident demonstrates another of the many threats associated with cross-country travel by ATVs, dirt bikes and other off-road vehicles. Travel through tall grass and light brush dramatically increases fire risk. Limiting off-road vehicles to designated roads only could help to reduce such risk in the future.

For additional information about this incident, visit Utah Fire Info.gov:

Denver Post Highlights Public Land Giveaway - In a comprehensive assessment of routes that could be claimed by Moffat County, Colorado under RS 2477, the Denver Post highlights the questionable nature of many and the direct connection between RS 2477 claims and off-road vehicles. The Post reports that "Some of the county's claimed rights of way include portions of constructed roads suitable for a family car. But most are dirt two-tracks, cow paths - even century-old routes where no trace of anyone's passing remains." The County is asserting questionable claims across Dinosaur National Monument, Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge and thousands of acres in the Vermillion Basin.

The County does not attempt to disguise the fact that claiming routes is part of a concerted effort to: 1) make it more difficult for Coloradans to protect pristine areas as Wilderness and 2) maintain unlimited use of dirt bikes, ATVs and other off-road vehicles on public lands. The County's Natural Resources Director "acknowledges the far-reaching claims are an attempt to head off repeated attempts to designate Moffat County's first wilderness areas. But the county also wants to preserve unlimited access for the 'huge number' of motorcyclists and other off-road enthusiasts who flock to the BLM lands every weekend, he said."

While some deny that RS 2477 claims will adversely affect private property, a former Moffat County Commissioner disagrees. Neil McCandless explains that county officials "… have failed to consider the impact of their claims on private property owners. 'The county's claims end at private property, but I think a lot of these motorized guys are just going to keep on going.'"

Read complete article:

Contact:
Scott Kovarovics, Director
Natural Trails and Waters Coalition
(202) 429-2696
scott_kovarovics@tws.org

The Natural Trails and Waters Coalition includes conservation, recreation and other groups working to protect and restore all public lands and waters from the severe damage caused by snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, jet skis and all other off-road vehicles.