Dear Editor,
Similar to Tory Killian, I could just spit! Unlike Tory Kilian however, I’m not mad, I’m frustrated…. again. I’ve lost count now of how many times I’ve been in this frustrated condition in the ten-plus years of working to pass an Emery County Land Use Bill. The first time I felt like this was when Senator Bob Bennett was not re-elected. The Senator had successfully lead the effort to pass the Washington County legislation that was a catalyst for Emery County to pursue similar legislation. Without Bennett’s presence, was there any hope of making this happen? Turns out the answer was yes, but it took some hard work and the commitment of the Public Lands Council and Randy Johnson, several Commissioners, some state legislators, some partners at the national level, our Washington DC delegation and citizens of Emery County who were willing to be bold in stepping outside their comfort zone to accomplish something for the greater good.
When Emery County began to work with the public and put together federal legislation on public land use, it became obvious that it wouldn’t be easy or always pleasant. Hats off to Public Lands Council members who have endured much at the expense of this effort. I know that most of the public is unaware of the commitment and sacrifice these members (past and present) have made in this effort.
So why am I frustrated? I’m frustrated that ten years later some have forgotten (or perhaps never understood) why Emery County decided to attempt federal legislation. At a time when the Red Rock Wilderness Act was gaining support and a threat of a Presidential National Monument was real, the strategy was to consider congressional designation which would clarify resource use and protection and bring about regulatory certainty in the San Rafael Swell and other areas in Emery County. THIS IS STILL THE STRATEGY! And we probably face even more of that threat depending on ends up in the White House. The greatest challenge has always been to accomplish the legislation in a manner that, as much as possible, allows current resource use to continue. In my opinion, the Public Lands Council has been, and continues to be, faithful to that end!
Tory is very clear in her letter to the editor that she and others are “concerned about recreational jeep and UTV roads, ATV and motorcycle trails- NOT County Roads.” All of these roads and trails add up to just over 500 miles, and are currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management as open, designated routes. A number of strategies have considered shile crafting this legislation, all in the effort to protect this resource. Initially it was hoped that congress would codify (make lawful in federal legislation) the BLM route plan. Turns out that Congress is reluctant, even unwilling, to do that. Another strategy was to “cherry-stem” all of the roads and trails. Where precedence is everything, enough members of Congress were unwilling to do that on such a large scale simply because it hadn’t been done before; this strategy was also not viable. Much brainstorming took place in the attempt to preserve this particular resource use. Currently, the designation of “Recreation Area” seems to solve the dilemma. Roads and trails are simply not an issue for congress in a Recreation Area.
However, the bill requires a management plan to be written. This makes us all nervous. The question is, would the existing roads and trails be included in the management plan? To address that question, we need to consider a process which is totally outside the scope of congress and federal legislation.
Following a lawsuit be Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance brought against the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior (SUWA vs. DOI) regarding the designated, motorized routes in the BLM 2008 Resource Management Plan, a federal judge in Salt Lake issued a settlement agreement. (Kind of like a plea agreement). The settlement agreement requires BLM to re-evaluate many of the designated routes in Emery County and to give particular attention to cultural resources. This is to be accomplished in a specified time period. Congress has no influence, nor should have, on this planning process required by legal arm of government. Tory, to your charge that Randy Johnson and the Commissioners are “doing nothing to help keep routes open because of the settlement.” That statement is false. Emery County will participate in that re-evaluation process as it has done since travel planning began in 2003 because, like it or not, that is the legal process! That is the law!
When all the dust settles, the result of the settlement agreement will likely have more to do with which roads and trails remain open than any other process. The Settlement Agreement will be implemented whether Emery County’s Land Use Bill passes or not.
I need to state that three motorized recreation advocacy organizations (one out of Idaho, one from Colorado and the other based in Moab) signed the settlement agreement, along with SUWA, Earthjustice and The Wilderness Society.
One more clarification: In the route evaluation process, route closure in not an automatic decision should a conflicting resource be present. Mitigation is always possible, which may include minor realignment, removal, and excavation or secure in-place.
Ray Petersen
Emery County
ETV 10 News invites you to share your opinions with its readers. Letters to the editor should include your full name, address and phone number. Only your name and the city you live in will be published. We do not publish anonymous letters. Letters can be emailed to sdraper@emerytelcom.com or mailed to ETV 10 News, 625 E 100 N, Price, UT 84501.
*Disclaimer: The views expressed in Letters to the Editor are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of ETV 10 News or Emery Telcom.