Posted January 6, 2014
In Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance v. Burke, No. 2:12CV257DAK, 2013 WL 5916815, D. Utah
(Nov. 4, 2013), the United States District Court for the District of Utah considered
a case involving the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) decision in approving
resource management and travel plans governing the management of 2.1 million
acres of BLM land in south-central Utah.
The court held that the BLM failed to meet regulatory requirements to
implement the minimization criteria by examining the relevant data and
articulating a satisfactory explanation for its action. For a copy of the decision, please contact
the National Agricultural Law Center at nataglaw@uark.edu.
For more information on environmental law, please visit the
Center’s Environmental Law Reading Room here.
Background
Plaintiffs, several conservation groups including
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Wilderness Society, National Parks Conservation Association, Grand Canyon
Trust, Sierra Club, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Center for Native
Ecosystems, and the Utah Rivers Council filed an action against the Acting
Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management at the U.S. Department of
the Interior. Id. at *1. The groups appealed the BLM’s 2008 Richfield RMP and
Travel Plan. Id.
The Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA) directs the BLM prepare land use plans to govern the
management of public lands. Id.
(citing 43 U.S.C. § 1712(a)). The FLPMA
requires the BLM to manage public lands “under principles of multiple use and
sustained yield” and “in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific,
scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water
resource, and archaeological values.” Id.
(citing § 1732(a), § 1702(a)(8)). Id.
The RMP balances factors and multiple uses of public lands. Id.
Analysis and Holding
In short, this case involved the environmental
sensitivity of areas surrounding off-highway vehicle (OHV) routes, road and
trail designations, air quality standards, designation of Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACECs), and designation of wild and scenic rivers. Id.
at *3.
The plaintiffs argued that BLM violated its own OHV
minimization criteria, 43 C.F.R. § 8342.1(a)-(c); the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c); the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. § 470f; federal and state air quality standards, 43
U.S.C. § 1712(c)(8); the FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1712(a); and the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act (WRSA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1273(b), 1286(b). Id.
The court held that: (1) the BLM failed to apply the
minimization criteria when it prepared the Travel Plan; (2) the BLM complied
with NEPA’s “hard look” requirement with respect to the impacts of OHVs; (3)
the BLM violated the NHPA by failing to take into account the impact of OHV routes
on archeological sites; (4) the BLM sufficiently considered the impacts of OHVs
in the context of climate change; (5) the BLM complied with FLPMA when
considering air quality standards; (6) the BLM complied with prioritizing
ACECs, with the exception of the proposed Henry Mountains ACEC; and (7) the BLM
complied with the WRSA in its determinations of eligible and suitable rivers,
except Happy Canyon, Buck, and Pasture Canyons spring areas. Id.
at *19.
