UPLA is proud to announce our sponsorship of Katelyn Boren in the WEROCK Pro Series for 2023. Katelyn has been competing in rock crawling competitions for 3 years-since she was 13! In 2022, she tied for 1^st place in the Grand nationals held in Farmington, NM

For 2023 the Hurricane resident is moving up from the Sportsman class to the Pro Mod Series.

Katelyn not only has a passion for the sport, but also for taking care of the land. She has been actively engaged in many trail maintenance projects, and will be speaking about UPLA’s mission during the coming year.

We wish Katelyn much luck and success in her competition during 2023. Click here to see our Announcement on YouTube

.wpedon-container .wpedon-select, .wpedon-container .wpedon-input { width: 380px; min-width: 380px; max-width: 380px; }

What is R.S, 2477? RS 2477 is a federal law that authorized construction of roads across federal public lands that was passed in 1866. It helped settle the West for 110 years. Residents of Utah, visitors, pioneers, and settlers created and used thousands of roads across public lands for farming, ranching, hunting, recreating, mining, and connecting communities. We continue to use many of these routes daily and some occasionally or seasonally.

Although Congress repealed R.S, 2477 in 1976 when they enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Section 701 preserved all R.S. 2477 rights of ways that existed at the time FLPMA was passed and preserved them for public use.

There is no formal administrative or judicial process under FLPMA, but in 2012 the Utah Attorney General filed lawsuits relating to R.S. 2477 rights of wa

y. In 2015, the Utah Federal District Court entered an order that established a process for processing 12,500 right of way claims throughout the state. One of the requirements was that Utah had to submit proof of county maintenance or public use of claimed right of way for a period of at least 10 years prior to October 21, 1976.

It is important to note that R.S. 2477 routes can be across both private and public land, which is especially important to protect access to public land that crosses over privately owned land. This is becoming even more important as development increases throughout Utah.

PLPCO’s Role The Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office (PLPCO) is a state agency that provides research and litigation support for R.S. 2477 claims. One of their first tasks was to document each of the 12,500 Utah roads, which is available publicly on their Access Map 360° , which shows not only the route, but also video tours of the routes to show the condition of their existence.

How to get Help If a route is threatened near you, and you want to see if R.S. 2477 may help in keeping it open, follow these steps.

• Check the Access Map 360° to see if the route is catalogued
• If it is catalogued, build a statement giving all relevant facts such as the Road #, who and why is threatening closure, and documentation that the road is still in public use. Send an email with all your documentation to PLPCO, and please also copy UPLA
• PLPCO will contact you about your claim.

PLPCO has Attorney Generals in their office that will assist in working the claim, often working with your local County Attorney General to resolve the matter.

Utah Code 72-5-104 also provides protection for Prescriptive Easements for public roads in use for more than 10 years. Iron County recentlly passed an Ordinance that makes it illegal to close “public” roads, notifying land owners to reopen the road or face administrative action from the County. I recently testified at a Washington County Planning Commission hearing where they adopted an Ordinance that requires owners include any R.S. 2477 roads be disclosed in their applications to ensure they remain open. UPLA will be pursuing the Washington County Commissioners adopt a similar Ordinance as that of Iron County.

Be sure to let UPLA know of R.S. 2477 issues or pending legislation in your area.

.wpedon-container .wpedon-select, .wpedon-container .wpedon-input { width: 380px; min-width: 380px; max-width: 380px; }

Learn How UPLA is working to protect your rights!

How to Protect OHV in Bears Ears National Monument

The Bears Ears National Monument (BENM) was restored in size by President Joe Biden to 1,360,000 acres, making it one of the largest in the country. As a result, a new management plan is being developed that will decide how the land will be managed (used). The Scoping Document BLM prepared will be one of the largest eliminations of OHV use I’ve ever seen. Some of the most popular OHV routes would be Arch Canyon, Hotel Rock, Lockhart Basin, Beef Basin, Bridger Jack Mesa, Lavender Canyon, and Davis Canyon, with many, many more subject to the axe.

And it won’t just affect OHV use, if you are a hiker, dispersed camper, miner, drone pilot, or equestrian user that depends on access roads to get to your favorite sites, you will also be extremely limited on your use of the BENM under the current proposals.

BENM is a huge area with very diverse uses and landscapes,and is surrounded by other currently protected areas including National Parks, Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, and even another National Monument already contained in its massive boundaries. BLM’s scoping document should make the alternatives easier to understand, but this one makes it even more complex. NEPA requires that BLM and USFS consider a reasonable range of alternatives in their plans. OHV use is already limited in the entire BENM, meaning that you may only operate on designated routes. In addition, OHV use is already prohibited in Designated Wilderness (DW), Wilderness Study Areas (WSA), and Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA),

Alternative A is the No Change required alternative. It is generally provided as a requirement to the “full range of options” legal requirement. It is always included as an obligatory placeholder,and is almost never selected in the final draft. Target shooting and drone operation would be permitted with some restrictions under this Alternative.

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative B adds Lands with Wilderness Characteristics to closure by OHV, as evidenced by the following chart which indicates how much of BENM will be closed to OHV. The BLM website states that for an area to qualify as lands with wilderness characteristics, it must possess sufficient size, naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for either solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. It may also possess supplemental values.

The addition of “lands with wilderness characteristics” is an enormous tract of land depicted in the green hashed marks that will affect much of the 1800 miles of OHV routes, as well as many connecting routes between areas that will be cutoff from motorized vehicles. In addition, other special use restrictions such as limits on group sizes and permits will be required.  In addition, target shooting and drone would be prohibited throughout the entire BENM.

Alternative C will probably be considered as the “balanced” approach, but it is definitely not for OHV and many other forms of recreation. It would divide the BENM into many different Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) zones, which all will have different limits and regulations  on use. The language regarding this is not only vague, but contradictory in nature. It also includes “lands with wilderness characteristics” as being Closed to OHV. The language regarding road density and sitage is extremely vague, but their intent seems clear.This Alternative would allow  some limited drone use and target shooting could be done in the “front country” or in designated ROS zones.

Alternative D is Orwellian in scope, adding to the “lands with wilderness characteristics” 3 additional restrictions with no formal definitions.

• 1) Areas where OHV use has damaged or is a current or foreseeable future risk to the protection, restoration, and resiliency of BENM objects and values. If the authors of this proposal are the unelected bureaucrats deciding this, we are in trouble.
• 2) Areas where OHV use affects traditional use and cultural setting
• 3)With the exception of existing designated routes, areas within 300 feet of riparian habitat, perennial springs, and other perennial aquatic ecosystems

Another statement in Alternative D is that “in OHV limited areas, road density would be minimized, and siting criteria would be identified, especially in important resource areas, to ensure the protection, restoration, and/or increased resiliency of BENM objects and values. Future implementation-level travel planning would not allow designation of additional routes but would focus on refining (as needed) the existing designated route network.” Target shooting and drone usage would be prohibited throughout the BENM. In Alternative D, your visit to Bears Ears may very well be limited to driving through in your passenger car with no dispersed camping opportunities, and complex rules that will almost ensure users will be in violation of one of them.

Current Trails Overlaid with Proposed Zones

This map shows the complex network of designated areas, along with trails and roads overlaid onto it,

clicking here will display the map in greater detail. . Virtually all of the color shaded areas on this map will be restricted from OHV use.

There is no good alternative from this range of choices, so the best approach at this point is just to tell them you protest the array of current Alternatives, to complain about the lack of clarity on their entire RMP, and to comment on how you have used the area in the past, or plan to use it in the future. Some of the things you might mention are:

• How long and how often you’ve been coming here
• Who you have brought to visit the area
• Activities you’ve engaged in, OHV, Dispersed camping, hiking, equestrian
• The nature of any conservation efforts you have engaged in, whether it is in BENM or other public lands
• Specific trails that you enjoy, or plan to enjoy. Specific trails identified now are Arch Canyon, Hotel Rock, Lavender and Davis Canyons, Chicken Corners, Lockhart and Beef Basin, and the Peavine Corridor.
• If you have mobility or disability issues that limit your visitation

Comments are only being accepted until October 31, so please Visit Blue Ribbon Coalition’s website and complete their comment writer.
if you want to send personal comments about trails you use, submit them on the BLM E-Planning website.

Please submit your final comments on your favorite Moab trails to keep them open. The extended Comment period ends Friday.

If you haven’t submitted comments, please do it today.

If you have submitted comments, thank you.

If you want to see more details about exactly which trails are threatened, including maps, guides, and photos, please look at our friend Patrick McKay’s comments here. His comments total 527  pages, and is chock full of information to let you share your personal experiences with trails that will be affected. Please don’t copy and paste his comments, but use it as a reference to help you write your own.

Please submit any final comments by going directly to the BLM website

                                                          Thank you very much!

We are pleased to announce that due largely by the efforts of Blue Ribbon Coalition and other user groups, the BLM has granted a rare extension of the open comment period by 14 days. The new deadline is Friday, October 21 at midnight. In addition, many spurs off popular routes throughout the area that go to scenic overlooks such as Monitor and Merrimack, the Tusher Tunnel, and many others will closed to motorized traffic forever. For a more complete list of trails to be closed, and the reasons can be found here

You can submit comments 3 ways:

• If you’d like to use the Blue Ribbon Coalition’s comment writer, click here. It will generate a templated letter, which you can edit and delete your personal details. Personalizing it with your personal experiences and details are what make this method effective. Pictures can tell the story of a thousand words.
• Click on this link to go directly to the BLM comments page. You can write a free form text on their form, or attach documents in most popular forms such as word, excel, pdf, and jpg photos. You can combine all your comments into one single post, or you can post as many as you want. I recommend you do a single post for each trail you want to report on.
• If you’d like to use the template by Colorado Trail Defenders, you can click here. Be sure to personalize it.

What should you include in your comments? Anything that is of importance to you in retaining access, but here are some thought starters:

• How long you’ve been using the trail?
• Do you bring your family?
• How often you come?
• How long do you stay in Moab when you visit?
• Is the trail on your bucket list to do in the future?
• How much do you spend on each visit?
• What do you love most about the trail? Challenge, Remoteness, Views
• Did you observe any educational signs on the trail about responsible use, conservation, etc?
• How well known is the trail? Is it in specific guidebooks or publications?
• Is it an important connector between 2 trail networks?
• Are there dispersed camping sites that you’ve enjoyed, or want to come back to?
• Do you have any mobility issues that would prevent you from visiting this trail if you could not use a motorized vehicle?
• Is the trail well marked? Is it in good or obscured condition?

We are not crying wolf, either make your voice heard on this critical issue, or remain silent about the loss of these trails. Write or submit additional comments today.