OCR Text |
Show ; ; ; ; -. " ;- '-,.- ' ,.,. t - '. . ;.;. ? ' i . ; -.. . , , . - . -- - . , . : - : i. - - J - , ...... - ' t " . e ....... ,-..-.. - y " tort'...'.-- " , . , '- Jj '.-V , f,-. . . ., , ' ' ... ,rs?sr'.vrws'.-- - - "- ' 0, ...... -i - j-""1 ' ' - -. - .,..;''"'" --- - . : , :, : . St' ? " -. . .... Vowing to protect Utah's most important scenic, natural areas while securing the state's transportation infrastructure, infrastruc-ture, Governor Mike Leavitt on Apr. 9 joined Secretary of Interior Gale Norton to announce a process to resolve By Toni Thayer The State of Utah and the U.S. Dept. of Interior entered into an agreement that many are hoping will resolve the bulk of the R.S. 2477 road issues. Utah Governor Mike Leavitt and Secretary of Interior Gale Norton signed the memorandum of understanding (MOUj on Apr. 9. R.S. 2477 is the provision in federal law passed in 1 866 that granted right-of-ways over public pub-lic lands to the counties for construction con-struction of highways that became the transportation network net-work allowing settlement of the western frontier. Under an R.S. 2477 right-of-way, the counties have control of the road, and the right is perpetual as granted by Congress. According to the Utah Association of Counties' webpage, "approximately 90 of all roads in Utah's ten southern south-ern counties are R.S. 2477 rights-of-way." In 1976, Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, giving title of all roads constructed after that date, and crossing public lands, to the federal government. The federal government has control of these "Title V" roads and gives the counties an easement for use. Any work outside of a road's current scope must go through an environmental study and be approved by the federal government. Title V use is not guaranteed to the counties and may be withdrawn by the federal feder-al government. In the past, disputes have arisen between the federal and county governments over control con-trol of roads crossing public lands and their correct classifi- . , cation, as either "R.S. 2477" or "Title V". On June 14, 2000, the State of Utah sent a Notice of Intention to File Suit over Utah's R.S. 2477 roads to the Secretary of Interior. In prepa-raiion prepa-raiion for the legal challenge, the counties inventoried and mapped their roads and gathered J'.-.loi"ii--al information to support their claims. According to Governor Leavitt in an Apr. 9 teleconference, teleconfer-ence, the recently signed deal establishes an administrative process whereby the counties will apply to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for an "Acknowledgement", their acceptance or denial of certain roads as R.S. 2477. The MOU states that the counties will reimburse BLM for "the reasonable reason-able and necessary cost of processing pro-cessing each request". This submittal by the counties coun-ties will initiate BLM's standard public comment, decision-making and appeal processes. If BLM approves the R.S. 2477 status, they issue a disclaimer and record it at the county recorder's office. At any time prior to actual recording of the disclaimer, the counties may withdraw their application. The agreement hinges on seven touchstones as requirements require-ments for those roads that the counties may submit to BLM for their administrative decision. deci-sion. The touchstones are: Clear evidence of existence in, or before, 1976. Travel can be made by normal nor-mal vehicles, such as cars and trucks. Not be in a national park. Not be in a wilderness area. Congressionally designated on or before Oct. 21, 1993. Not be in a wilderness study area, Congressionally designated designat-ed on or before Oct. 21, 1993. Not be in a national wildlife refuge. Not be expanded, but accepted "where is, as is". "The MOU defines a path for resolving the vast majority of disputed claims," said Gov. Leavitt. "This is a common sense, common ground solution that will preserve our natural areas, but give counties the economic eco-nomic certainly they need." Utah Senator Tom Hatch said in an Apr. 14 telephone interview, inter-view, "I'm cautiously optimistic. opti-mistic. It's a step forward. My biggest concern is the, scope of the right-of-way and how we actually administer it." He went on to explain, "The innocent grader who works on a road that meanders f rom 1 2 feet wide, to 15' feet, then to 30 feet, and back to 1 2 feet may have a difficult time determining where tile disturbed area ends and many of the R.S. 2477 road claims in Utah. Some area leaders, while pleased with portions of the Memorandum of Understanding, are beginning to question other parts of it. RS 2477 Roads: Deal Struck By Dept. Of Interior And Utah begins. Someone may see the grading variance and complain that it's new disturbance. I would have felt more comfortable comfort-able with a standard roadway width, like 50 feet in the BLM handbook." Hatch said he received briefings brief-ings from Gov. Leavitt throughout through-out the deal negotiations but that the governor did not directly seek his input. In fact, most of Utah's county commissioners who were on the committee were kept in the dark during the negotiations and were informed after-the-fact in a presentation by Gov. Leavitt, even though all county commissioners originally original-ly voted to participate in the State's road lawsuit. The county commissioners who did work on the behind-the-scenes dealmaking were the representatives from each county coun-ty involved in the State's pending pend-ing lawsuit, the R.S. 2477 litigation litiga-tion committee. Maloy Dodds, Garfield County Commissioner, is Chairman of that committee. In a telephone interview on Apr. 14 he said, "It's not perfect. The good part is that we'll be able to get a determination of an RS 2477 for the majority of roads. The bad part is that the scope's a little vague. The MOU withdraws with-draws the Babbitt policy for use in Utah, and it probably won't be long before it's withdrawn in other areas." Dodds went on, "The Dept. of Interior came up with the disclaimer dis-claimer of interest idea several months ago, and in, Utah, the governor was the driving force behind the agreement with recommendations rec-ommendations made by the committee. The committee's future duties will include getting the process and the steps written down and setting up a timetable." Kane County Commissioner Mark Habbeshaw expressed reservations over the new agreement agree-ment in an Apr. 14 telephone interview, "The terms and conditions con-ditions of the MOU appear to modify the existing scope granted grant-ed under R.S. 2477 by restricting restrict-ing county road work to maintenance mainte-nance within the disturbed area. (See RS2477 on page 2A) RS2477 Roads From Front Page Any construction projects will require a BLM Title V permit, primary control and authority over the road will transfer from the county to the BLM on roads submitted to this process. It might be in the county's best interest not to compromise valid existing rights." According to Dodds, the standards for maintenance and repairs remain the same, "None of that has changed. We'll be operating just like we always have." Utah Rep. Mike Noel has concerns over the MOU's scope, particularly the "where is, as is" criteria. "It depends on what roads we settle on, which ones we end up with. I'm nervous about our 'D' roads and our ability abil-ity to expand and upgrade them if things change in the future." Noel also disagrees that the new administrative process is better than the Dept. of Interior's Hodel Policy that was the counties' guidelines for many years. "We could expand the road as the need required, and we didn't have to go to the federal government for approval or through this type of administrative adminis-trative process." Noel is extremely happy that Sec. Norton has thrown out the Babbitt handbook on the wilderness wilder-ness reinventory and withdrawn 3 million Utah acres slated for the more stringent designation and gives credit to Gov. Leavitt for this deal. Time will tell whether a federal fed-eral administrative process will speed up road status determinations determina-tions or whether it might slow the final outcome due to public comment, appeals and separate lawsuits on individual roads. And, the counties will ultimately ultimate-ly discover how much control, if any, they have lost as they continue con-tinue with their daily maintenance. |