One of the many reasons I go fishing and camping is to get away from the city landscape, from things like traffic jams, brown air and gas stations.
Unfortunately, those things are becoming more common in even the most remote of locations. Anglers, hikers, hunters, birders and everybody else who seeks to escape the city like I do are coming across big trucks on dusty roads traveling to and from oil and gas development pads.
The walls of the Nine Mile Canyon area and a vast collection of prehistoric rock art are covered in layer after layer of thick dust from the constant rolling of big truck tires. Big game animals like pronghorn and mule deer and upland game birds like sage grouse are watching as their winter habitats and breeding grounds are turned into mazes of dirt roads and noisy drilling pads.
So much for getting away from it all.
Utah-based hunting conservation groups have done little or nothing to address the obvious impacts of the exploration for potential sights or the drilling when companies find worthwhile locations.
Anglers and hunters are about to realize how close to home the development is coming when drilling pads show up in the Uinta National Forest near Strawberry Reservoir and in the Diamond Fork Canyon area. Before you start that whole argument about how I'm a hypocrite because "you used gas to get there, you bozo" I'll just say that I realize that oil and gas exploration and drilling is necessary at this point in time and is perfectly legal.
Or is it?
Trout Unlimited and the Utah Rivers Council are on the verge of filing a lawsuit against the Uinta National Forest for ignoring requirements set forth in a 2003 Forest Plan. Instead, when 66 leases covering nearly 140,000 acres were awarded for the areas, the Forest Service went back to requirements set in 1997 Environmental Impact Statement.
The two non-profit conservation groups are not seeking to block drilling on the forest, only asking that precautions in the 2003 EIS and the Forest Plan for protecting wildlife be followed.
The difference in the 2003 and 1997 plans is important. The 2003 plan protects riparian corridors along streams. There is no such clause in the 1997 version. The conservation groups say that when the leases were awarded, the Forest Service also failed to include mandatory management directions for recreation, wildlife habitat and watershed health.
TU officials have made repeated efforts to find a resolution to their concerns with the Forest Service but have had no luck. They have also reached out to the lease holders and, encouragingly, have meetings scheduled this week.
But if the permit holders and the Forest Service are not willing to comply to the 2003 plan they can expect to end up in court.
"We're not against drilling on the Uinta National Forest, but the immense trout, wildlife, and fishing and hunting values found here necessitate that -- at a bare minimum -- the Forest Plan be followed," said Corey Fisher, energy field coordinator for Trout Unlimited. "Given that the Forest Service ignored direction from the Forest Plan for the Uinta National Forest, leasing was clearly improper. Some of the lease holders have shown an interest in working with TU and we're hopeful that there can be a collaborative solution. However there are several different companies with leases and if we are not able to find common grounds with all of them, then litigation in some form is likely to be an unfortunate necessity in order to ensure consistency for trout and wildlife. In the future, leasing and oil and gas development could still be allowed on the Uinta National Forest, but it will have to be consistent with the most current management direction on the forest and in concert with the hunting, angling and recreation resources."
Nice to see that somebody is paying attention to the details and keeping an eye out for the wildlife and natural resources we all value.
