OCR Text |
Show Commissioners Claim Victory In Burr Trail Appeals Battle Garfield County commissioners, meeting with their attorneys in the Burr trail litigation on Monday at Rubys Inn, decided, after reviewing the lengthy June 6 opinion of the federal appeals court in Denver, that the county had indeed won a major victory. "Work on the road will probably not begin until fall, however," said Commissioner Louise Liston. "It's very dry, and the moisture condition condi-tion of the soil is so low that water would have to be hauled in for construction. "Winter is the ideal time to work out there," said the Escalante resident who is familiar with the area, "and Harper Brothers (the company awarded the construction contract) is tied up with other work." Explaining the near 70-page document, the county's attorneys told the commissioners that in major ma-jor part, the Court of Appeals upheld up-held U.S. Senior District Judge Aldon Anderson's findings, more specifically reharding the county's right-of-way to the Burr Trail. The decision stated that Utah state law will be used to define the scope of an R.S. 247 right-of-way (the federal law under which the county's right-of-way over the Burr Trail was established). The decision stated that the county's right-of-way consists of the width permitted by Utah state law as of Oct. 21, 1976, when the Federal Land Policy Management Act was enacted by Congress, and . it noted that all uses made of the county's right-of-way prior to that date are part of the scope of the right-of-way. More specifically, the decision declares that Garfield County's right-of-way consists of that which is "reasonable and necessary" to ensure the safe travel for all such uses, including improving the road to two lanes so that travelers can pass each other. In their 60 pages of opinion, Judges Stephanie Seymour and James Logan noted that Garfield County cannot be forced to give up its right-of-way and that the proposed pro-posed construction is within that right-of-way. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the U.S. District Court with direction for the Bureau of Land Management to conduct an environmental assessment of the areas where the road borders Wilderness Study Areas. The EA is limited to what is relevant to the BLM's duty to prevent "unnecessary degradation" of the (See BURR TRAIL Page 4) BURR TRAIL , Continued From Page 1-A Wilderness Study Areas. To the extent the District Court determines the project will not adversely ad-versely impact the WSA's, work on the Burr Trail will be allowed to proceed, County Attorney Patrick Nolan reported. The injunction is to remain in effect where the road borders the WSA's while the BLM undertakes its EA. Once the process is completed, com-pleted, the county may apply to the District Court for complete dissolution of the injunction, Nolan said. Interestingly, Judge James Barrett's Bar-rett's nine-page dissenting opinion challenged the wisdom of an environmental assessment, stating that the Burr Trail project had already al-ready been thoroughly studied. Commissioner Liston pointed out that the National Park Service had completed an Environmental Assessment in the area in 1985. She said Garfield County has complied com-plied with Judge Anderson's requirements re-quirements for plant and archaeological studies. The county has spent some $90,000 to repair ihe five k, f crs vandalized on ihe g November, 1987. M The preliminary he . Grant Johnson, arrested and"? 1 with the four counts of ! mischief, all third degree f ! has yet to be held. He J charged with numerous 0lf fenses, all drug-related fn, 1 of 10. , ,0rs Johnson, who was rek bail and is reported to be - : Moab area, is scheduled fo r liminary hearing on Panguitch District Court. |