United States Department of the Interior Office of Hearings and Appeals

Interior Board of Land Appeals 801 N. Quincy St., Suite 300

Arlington, VA 22203

703-235-3750

August

2017-201

BALANCE RESOURCES

703-235-8349 (fax)

17, 2017

Travel Management

Motion to Dismiss Appeal Granted; Appeal Dismissed

ORDER

Balance Resources (Balance) has appealed a decision record (DR) issued by the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Monticello Field Office in Utah.1 The DR documents BLM's decision to construct and maintain 13.6 miles of trails designated for mixed use, including non-motorized recreation and off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel, on Federal lands in Recapture Canyon in lieu of granting San Juan County a right-of-way grant for an OHV trail system in the Canyon. BLM's decision is supported by an environmental assessment (EA) the bureau prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations.3

Balance filed a notice of appeal of BLM's decision in which i t stated that it is a party to, and would be adversely affected by, BLM's In response, BLM filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause in which i t stated that i t is not apparent whether Balance has standing to appeal the DR to this Board.5 BLM accordingly requests that we order Balance to show cause why its appeal should not be

Decision Record for the Recapture Canyon ATV Trails System, San Juan County, Utah (Apr. 10, 2017). Environmental Assessment, Recapture Canyon ATV Trails System, San Juan

County, Utah (DOI-BLM-UT-Y020-2016-0031-EA) (March 2017). 42 §§ 4321-4370h (2012); 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508; 43 C.F.R. Part 46. Notice of Appeal (May 10, 2017) at 1. Motion for Order to Show Cause (May 16, 2017).

2017-201

dismissed for lack of standing. We construe BLM's motion as a motion to dismiss Balance's appeal. Balance has filed a response to BLM's motion.6

To have standing to appeal a BLM decision, an appellant must be a party to the case and must be able to show that the decision has or is likely to adversely affect its legally cognizable interest.7 An appellant must show both elements of standing in order to proceed.8

BLM asserts that Balance has neither indicated that i t is a party to the case by participating in the process leading to BLM's decision nor shown how i t wi l l be adversely affected by the decision.9 In response, Balance admits that i t did not participate in the process leading to the decision. But Balance asserts i t is a party to the case because its president participated in a related criminal matter concerning unauthorized OHV use on Federal lands in Recapture Canyon.10

Balance argues that this participation by its president in a related lawsuit that occurred "contemporaneously with, albeit separately from," the process leading to BLM's decision should suffice to demonstrate that it is a party to the case and thus has standing to appeal the decision.11

We do not agree. The Department's regulations and our precedent require that to be a party to a case, an appellant must participate in the administrative process leading to the particular decision that appellant seeks to challenge.12

Balance, because i t did not participate in the administrative process for the decision i t seeks to appeal, therefore is not a party to the case. Balance may have participated in a Federal lawsuit concerning illegal OHV operations in Recapture Canyon but that fact is irrelevant because the lawsuit did not involve the decision at issue. And while Balance may have an interest in OHV use, even specifically OHV use in Recapture Canyon, that interest does not give it party status for all decisions that may affect OHV use in Recapture Canyon. In the absence of any evidence of Balance's involvement in the process leading to the decision at issue, we cannot conclude that i t is a party to the case.

Response to Motion for Order to Show Cause (June 6, 2017). 43 C.F.R. § 4.410. See, e.g., Board of County Commissioners of Mesa County, Colorado, 190 IBLA

280, 281-82 (2017). Motion 2. Response at 3 ("Balance Resources itself did not participate formally in the BLM

administrative proceedings"), citing United States v. Wells, Case No. 2'14-cr-00470-DN, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144391 (D. Utah Oct. 22, 2015).

Id. at 4. 43 C.F.R. § Wildlands Defense, 189 IBLA 203, 206 (2017).

2

IBLA 2017-201

In conclusion, based on Balance's representations, we find that it is not a party to the case and therefore lacks standing to appeal BLM's decision.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to the Board of Land Appeals by the Secretary of the Interior,13 we grant BLM's motion to dismiss this appeal and remove the matter from our docket.

I concur:

43 C.F.R. § 4.1.

3