Bush Public Lands Policy Under Fire

Bush Public Lands Policy Under Fire

By J.R. Pegg, Environmental News Service (ENS)

April 24, 2003

Washington, DC - Recent policy decisions by the Bush administration's Interior Department represent the greatest threat to America's public lands in decades, conservationists told reporters at a press briefing today.

Interior Department Secretary Gale Norton is conducting a broad assault on the protection of wilderness under the management of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), conservationists say, and rather than protecting America's natural resources, wild places and biodiversity, Norton is actively working to open up public lands to more drilling, mining and road construction.

"It is as if suddenly the word 'wilderness' does not exist any more," said Mike Matz, executive director of the Campaign for America's Wilderness. "This amounts to colluding with corporations for control of every American's birthright."

The three specific decisions that have drawn such ire from conservationists directly involve the states of Utah and Alaska, but have important precedent for BLM lands across the United States.

BLM, which is under the authority of the Interior Department, manages some 260 million surface acres in 12 Western states, including Alaska. BLM oversees more land than any other federal agency.

The decisions include the use of an 1866 law to establish rights of way across BLM lands and agreements that eliminate any further wilderness designation of BLM lands by the Interior Department.

Conservationists blasted the administration for not involving the public in its decisions, a complaint that has become a frequent criticism of the Bush administration's Interior Department. Conservationists warn that the Bush administration's policies are endangered special places, including much of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

"These are irresponsible decisions, but not surprising ones from this administration," said Dave Alberswerth, director of the Bureau of Land Management program for The Wilderness Society. "The decisions are a disservice to the majority of Americans and contrary to public law."

The announcement on April 11 that Norton had reached a settlement with Utah over wilderness designation the conservationists say effectively removes wilderness protection from lands managed by the BLM.

The settlement stems back to a suit by Utah against the Interior Department in 1996 over a BLM reinventory that identified three million more acres in the state that qualified for wilderness protection that the agency's inventory in the 1980s had identified.

Although their legal case was largely rejected by the courts, the state renewed its challenge last month and the Bush administration brokered a settlement that revokes BLM's authority to conduct wilderness inventories in any state or to establish new Wilderness Study Areas in any state. Interior Department Secretary Gale Norton says her policies foster a needed sense of cooperation and balance economic and environmental interests.

The settlement also revokes the Wilderness Inventory Handbook, which is a set of guidelines for BLM managers to assess wilderness protections for federal lands affected by proposed resource development, and it disallows the use of a 1999 comprehensive statewide BLM reinventory of Utah's public lands.

"The settlement eliminates wilderness as one of the multiple uses agencies are required to look at," Matz said. "The Bush administration simply met behind closed doors and settled the complaint in favor of development interests."

The Bush administration's settlement limits the amount of BLM land eligible for wilderness protection to some 23 million acres unless Congress orders otherwise. Less than three percent of BLM land is currently protected as wilderness.

"Under the settlement, the BLM is never again going to look for wilderness quality land or protect wilderness quality land," said Ted Zukowski, an attorney with Earthjustice.

In addition to the Utah settlement, Norton pushed forth another major policy shift for BLM on April 11, instructing the agency to cease wilderness reviews in its resource management planning in Alaska and consider wilderness only where it is broadly supported by elected Alaska officials. In a letter to Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, Norton explains the decision as part of a belief that local officials are better suited to wilderness legislation.

"Pursuing wilderness designation is not an exclusive option for identifying and protecting important environmental values," she wrote.

Conservationists sharply disagree, and say Norton has failed on her responsibility to balance the uses on federal lands managed by the Interior Department.

"Secretary Norton's decision is incredibly shortsighted and in direct conflict with her own promises during her confirmation hearings," said Eleanor Huffines, Alaska Regional Director with The Wilderness Society.

It is inappropriate for BLM not to review its lands for wilderness designation, she said, because the agency has never done a comprehensive review of the 70 million acres in Alaska under its authority.

"We do not even know what is out there," Huffines said. "The administration is denying the American public any input into the long term protection of these public lands."

Illegal decisions

The wilderness decisions are illegal, the conservationists say, because the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires the Interior Department to maintain current, continual inventories of BLM lands and to establish and revise resource management plans for public lands.

The BLM is required to present these inventories to Congress so members can identify what to do with these lands, explained Alberswerth, and Norton is "abdicating that responsibility."

Conservationists are also questioning the legality of the Bush administration's interpretation of a right of way law that they believe could allow private interests, and state and local governments to bulldoze through federal lands.

On April 8, Norton signed a memorandum of understanding with the state of Utah to establish a process to use an 1866 law known as RS2477 to recognized rights of way across BLM lands.

The law intended to serve grant the right to construct and use highways across public lands that were not otherwise reserved or protected for other public use.

Although repealed in 1976, claims on right of ways prior to the repeal can still be made. When announcing the settlement, both Norton and Utah Governor Mike Leavitt said it only applies to existing publicly traveled and regularly maintained roads.

It does not apply to environmentally sensitive areas, Interior Department officials say, but conservationists believe this is untrue.

The actual language of the agreement rolls back existing law, according to Heidi MacIntosh, conservation director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and does not place the limits conveyed by Bush administration officials.

"They are trying to put the best possible face on this," MacIntosh said. "If the only thing at issue here were the real constructed roads, we would not be arguing about this."

There was no environmental review of what these claims could do, MacIntosh said, and it will allow Utah to pursue "bogus RS2477 claims" such as dirt roads, paths made by offroad vehicles, and even stream beds.

The legal action that resulted in this memorandum of understanding was brought by the state of Utah and the National Association of Counties, which urged Norton to adopt a policy approach to RS2477.

"Counties have seized on this as their get out of wilderness free card," MacIntosh said., adding that some six million acres of BLM could be affected by RS2477 claims under the memorandum issued by Norton.

Estimates range from 15,000 to 20,000 claims, which could "wreck havoc" with wilderness protection plans, MacIntosh said.

The concern is not just for Utah, explained Pam Eaton, Four Corners regional director of The Wilderness Society, because the agreement sets a precedent for other states to seek similar memorandums of understanding with the Interior Department.

Conservationists say they will look to Congress and possibly the courts to remedy these decisions. Several Congressional Democrats have voiced concern about the Interior Department's policies and have requested explanations from Norton.