tidwell-brief

. The Ute Indian Tribe
The Tribe charged that “the BLM failed to consult adequately with the Tribe before implementing the
Decision, and. . .failed to review the Decision for consistency with tribal and local land management
plans.” (Page 15 of Slip Opinion, attached to the Brief for convenience.)
Even though the Tribe has vast authority to require consultation on a constitutional level as a sovereign
nation under United States Supreme Court interpretations, the Court decided the case in favor of the
Tribe and County just on the “coordination” provisions of FLPMA. Because it decided for the Tribe on
the “coordination” ground, it did not have to reach the constitutional “consultation” ground.
3. The Response and Assertions of the BLM.
a. The BLM first tried to evade the issue by denying that either the Tribe or the County had
“standing” to sue.
The BLM attempted to dodge being forced to respond to the charges by relying on a procedural claim
that neither the County nor the Tribe had “standing” sufficient to file their complaints.
The Court disagreed. As to the County, the Court said that the County had a legitimate interest “in the
implementation of its own land management plan.” The Court buttressed its decision on a prior Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals decision in American Motorcyclist Association v. Watt, 714 F.2d 962 (9 th Cir.
1983}.
Judge Jenkins pointed out that in that case “the court [Ninth Circuit] recognized that the county had
standing to bring an action against the BLM based on its allegations of injury concerning inconsistencies
between the resource management plan and the Inyo [California] County Plan.”
The Court also pointed out that the County had “raised valid health, safety, and environmental
concerns: the Decision is not only inconsistent with the County plan, it adds a threat of EIA infection to
26 | P a g e