Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Federal Budget

Information & Access

Nonprofit Advocacy

Regulatory Policy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo
April 21, 2003 Vol. 4 No. 8:   


Published: 04/21/2003

Printable Version
Email to a Friend




Norton: No New Wilderness Areas

The Bush administration recently revealed plans to suspend reviews of potential wilderness areas and to withdraw protected status from nearly three million acres in Utah.

In an April 11 letter to Congress, Interior Secretary Gale Norton announced her intent to withdraw a Clinton-era guidance document -- known as the Wilderness Handbook -- that allows federal officials to reconsider land initially passed over in wilderness protection inventories conducted in the 1970s and 1980s. "The Wilderness Inventory Handbook is a valuable tool that corrects past BLM [Bureau of Land Management] errors, and ensures that both the agency and the public know what irreplaceable jewels are at stake as we face unprecedented pressure to pave and drill our most cherished landscapes," according to Heidi McIntosh of Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

By revoking the handbook, the administration is limiting wilderness protection to 23 million acres and leaving millions of unspoiled acres vulnerable to development. DOI has also decided to disregard a 1996 reinventory conducted by the previous administration that found 3 million acres of land in Utah (some of which is pictured above) -- initially overlooked -- eligible for wilderness protection.

The policy changes announced by Norton come as part of a legal settlement with the state of Utah, which sued DOI to overturn the 1996 reinventory. This settlement is “consistent with this administration's history of settling environmental disputes behind closed doors, without the benefit of public oversight or involvement,” according to Earthjustice.