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Although Congress repealed R.S, 2477 in 1976 when they enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Section 701 preserved all R.S. 2477 rights of ways that existed at the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; }

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 only have until Friday at 5:00 to submit final comments regarding saving iconic Moab Trails. I attended the Grand County Commission Hearing last night to make comments protesting their support of Alternative B, which would remove 437 more miles of trails from the network. The Commission approved the recommendation letter (Vote 7:0) to BLM that will remove iconic FMCA Trails 7 Mile Rim, Gemini Bridges, Golden Spike, Gold Bar Rim, Hey Joe Canyon, Mashed Potatoes, and parts of 3D Hidden Canyon. For a more complete list of trails click here. 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 2 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.

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 your comments today!

On March 24, 2022, the Grand Canyon National Park Service (NPS) announced that they were beginning “civic engagement” to seek public comments for a proposed 3 year advance reservation system in a press release. The Press Release caught the attention of the St George News, which featured an article about the proposed plan that same day.

On March 30, Utah Public Lands Alliance published an article about the proposed Reservation System, asking our members and interested parties to learn more about the limits on usage, and to ask them to submit comments to the National Park Service. Our Facebook posts alone reached a new record of 38,803, by far surpassing the interest of our viewers on any other subject. Many of our members and guests submitted comments before the April 6 deadline.

The NPS received 333 comments during the short 13 days public comments were open. They classified the comments into six primary topic areas and published their comment responses here. It should be noted that in the first paragraph of their response document, they were still referring to the reservation system as “proposed.”

Mid July, UPLA learned that the National Park Service had implemented the reservation system without any changes as a result of the comments that were submitted, now requiring advance reservations to visit the Tuweep area, including Toroweep, Vulcan’s Throne, Kanab Plateau, and Tuweep.

Some of the highlights about the new reservation system are:

• Reservations can be made on https://www.recreation.gov/timed-entry/10089462
• Daily Limits are
  • 2 Slots are available for Commercial Tour Operators
  • 18 Slots are available for Private Vehicles
    • 6 are available from 3 to 120 days in advance of your visit date
    • 12 are available up to 2 days in advance
    • You can only reserve for one vehicle
  • 10 Slots are available for Backcountry permits for camping
• Cost to make a reservation is $2 per vehicle.
• The previous limits of only 4 vehicles/11 people remain in place

On further investigation, Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC) learned that the change was done through a Categorical Exclusion (CE) that was drafted on March 9, and signed by Edward T Keable, Park Superintendent, on March 15, 2022, 2 weeks prior to their announcement of accepting public comments. A Categorical Exclusion is a process that bypasses the need for the legal protections afforded by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Staff made the decision in a backroom, then attempted to sell the illusion they were open to comments from the public to influence the policy.

We determined that our best course of action for the time being will be to work with the NPS staff on the details of the 3 year study rather than to pursue a legal challenge at this time. At the conclusion of the study period, NPS has stated that any final changes will go through the NEPA process, when we will be fully engaged in the fight.

We will work with our NPS representative on influencing the study parameters, including asking that No Shows be tracked as a part of their stats (We are concerned that people will make reservations and then not show up, depriving someone else the opportunity to visit.)  In addition, we will work on getting periodic update reports, and perhaps work on  shortening the study from the current 3 years.

The NPS advised us that for the first year, people arriving without a reservation will be educated, but allowed to enter the area and not be cited. If you have any difficulties visiting the area, or if you have trouble getting a reservation, please email us at info@utahpla.com with the details.

Finally, even though we did not get the objective we wished on this plan, the importance of taking action by making public comments about topics that are of concern to you is extremely important. Blue Ribbon Coalition is a very important ally in our fight to retain access to our public lands. In the last year alone,  BRC has influenced 180 planning processes in 17 states, you are instrumental in that process with 7,500 comments from members to Land Managers.

Thank you for your support, let’s work together to Fight for Every Inch!

Waddy’s Corral is Ready for Parking

The tractor work is done and the fencing is going up. This huge project has been done on time for another busy summer on Sand Mountain. Desert Roads and Trails (DRATS) did an excellent job managing and fund raising for this project to eliminate the poor parking available near Sand Mountain OHV area. The area developed is over 5 acres and should handle at least 50 trucks and trailers for Side-by-Side unloading and will be the new air down spot for Jeepers.   Located next to the Water Tanks, this area was needed to replace the area between the two tanks for a third tank.

The following agencies and businesses donated funds to make the project a reality:

Hurricane City                    $150,000

State Parks OHV                $100,000

UPLA                                    $50,000

Washington County            $50,000

DRATS                                  $47,000

Utah 4Wheel Drive               $10,000

FMCA Jeep Club                    $5,000

Public Donations                    $4,000

Tri-State UTV                         $2,500

Dixie 4 Wheel Drive               $2,000

Mad Moose Rentals              $1,500

Tread Lightly                          $1,500

Thanks also goes to the many attendies to the Winter 4×4 Jamboree which was responsible for the much of the proceeds donated from returns from the event.. We should all be proud of the tremendous support from the local groups to undertake this large of a project and to the BLM for their continued support of our activities to improve the OHV site.