He said that instead, "a land use plan is a fluid, process-oriented document" — and how well its goals are met are "contingent on available resources and competing priorities." He said courts should not impose their agenda and priorities instead of those of the administration.

Agreeing is a friend-of-the-court brief by the Pacific Legal Foundation. It said the lower court decision, if it stands, would "turn our courts into day-to-day managers of our public resources."

It also said the case amounts to "an attempt by environmental groups to take full command of the Bureau of Land Management's administration of its programs because they are unhappy about the way the BLM implements these programs."

The Utah Shared Access Alliance, one of the parties appealing the lower court decision, also filed a brief arguing that the lower court decision presents a "clear risk that a single district court judge might slide unconsciously from the narrow confines of the law into the more spacious domain of policy."

---

E-mail: lee@desnews.com