• Jack-it Night: April 2024 RS Meeting Hey Guest: Wed. April 3rd is the next Rising Sun meeting, and you won't want to miss it. We're doing our annual offroad recovery equipment demonstration and trail skills training aka "Jack It Night." Meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. (early) Click here for all the details.

More Land Use Action needed in Utah

jps8460

Cruise Moab Committee
Cruise Moab Committee
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
2,911
Location
Broomfield
Hey gang check this out. I’m drumming up my donation to help out now. Read up and educate yourself, and donate.

 

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
12,948
Location
Grand Junction
The only way to stop any of this tying it up in Federal court. That will be temporary but hopefully enough for car campers/hikers to figure out they're in the cross hairs, too. The powers aligned against open access have deep pockets that I'm afraid requries a Jeep/Toyota/Honda/Yamaha level assistance, which they don't seem interested in.

And just to make a point about this needing to go to court, SUWA filed for a stay over the BLM implementing the San Rafael Desert TMP. You might remember that was done about a year ago. They considered the alternative which closed about 50% of the routes (the least stinky turd of the options we had) to OHVs not an acceptable compromise even after the review and public comment. They didn't get their way (closing 75% of the routes to OHV) and so complained to a judge. Even the BLM, who isn't exactly unsympathetic to their principles, considered the request for a stay frivolous.


In this case BRC is trying to do the same thing with Canyon Rims on the grounds it disproportionately harms everyone who dispersed camps and aren't even really disputing the OHV route closures as such.
 
Last edited:

AimCOTaco

Cruise Moab Committee
Staff member
Cruise Moab Committee
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Messages
2,248
Location
Longmont, CO
I hope BRC can help hold the line, it sure is frustrating to see these losses continue.
The second video in the link is particularly maddening where they address some of the politics and tactics in play.
 

On the RX

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
1,867
Location
Superior
Anyone want to drive out there, remove the barriers and leave some tracks so others know it's open? This tactic of blocking legal routes only works on the responsible people. Anyone want to infiltrate SUWA and effect change within so they can still achieve their mission statement without harming the recreational society? I'm all for conserving the public lands from misuse and abuse, but to close them to people that are trying to access beauty goes against their mission statement.
 

rover67

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
9,291
Location
Boulder, Co
Wow. that is just nuts.

So what data do they use to know what roads are open?

I can't find a map with that road on it but I see it in satellite view.

I see the road going to the turn around they I guess are standing in.

1625642062242.png
 

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
12,948
Location
Grand Junction
Wow. that is just nuts.

So what data do they use to know what roads are open?

I can't find a map with that road on it but I see it in satellite view.

I see the road going to the turn around they I guess are standing in.

View attachment 96603

Marco, I think this is the spot. I put a point in the turn-around for reference.

Google Satellite

BRC_example_googlesat.png

Same with the ESRI National Geographic map layer. This is not the Trails Illustrated but a nice map used sometimes for magazines and stuff because it's visually pleasing.

BRC_example_esrinatgeo.png

It shows what I think the TMP more or less leaves open. I switched to the Open Street Maps (sorry that the view jumped) to show this because it's got even fewer of the routes back there but is more clear.

BRC_example_OSM.png

Neither OSM nor ESRI NatGeo are authoritative. Especially OSM, which relies upon individuals mapping and entering data. It's like Wikipedia for GIS, anyone can enter or remove data. So you have to check the edit history sometimes (I have not done so personally).

But both of them disagree with at least one authoritative source: the USGS National Topo Map.


This clearly shows the road labeled as County Road 169.

BRC_example_usgsnattopo.png

The other authoritative data source is the BLM itself, who has an inventory of routes. They put them on what's called their Ground Transport Linear Features (GTLF) map. I put that layer on top of a couple of maps.


I need to mention that I download GTLF as well as use online live ArcGIS servers and sometimes the two aren't in agreement. In this case I used downloaded data that's probably a few months old. IOW these images are not necessarily authoritative without version control and references. So they're just informational at this point.

But either way it's pretty obvious that the USGS (which is from the official hosted source and therefore current at the map generation date) and GTLF agree. At this spot it looks like pretty much exactly since the GTLF doesn't add or remove any routes and just puts a number on some of them.

BRC_example_usgsnattopo_BLMGTLF.png

BRC_example_googlesat_BLMGTLF.png

When the BLM generates a TMP they have to evaluate all of these routes and any braiding or routes that are actually on the ground. So even though most of them are not mapped and probably not used a decision has to be made about what to do with them.
 
Last edited:

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
12,948
Location
Grand Junction
BTW, not sure if everyone knows but the BRC is saying R.S. 2477, which isn't a route or road designation but referring to a law called Revised Statute 2477.

This goes back to the Mining Law of 1866 and the "revised" part was that Congress said if you're cutting in roads to prospect or develop mines that the roads did not have to be designed and approved ahead of time. If it was needed, well then, the claim owner could put them in and that was that.

This was in effect until 1976 when Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) that changed how Federal public lands were managed. After that things had to be mapped, approved, subject to reviews, etc. That is where all the hoops we have to jump though now derive.

FLPMA revoked R.S. 2477 so new roads cannot be built using it but grandfathered all existing routes that were put in under it. It's been a contention point ever since.

In fact the State of Utah sued using the R.S. 2477 grandfathered clause to try to reclaim ownership and use of several thousand miles of mostly county roads that were summarily closed. That particular effort is still active today, being subject to the ebb-and-flow of who's in the White House and the directives given to the BLM, NPS and USFS. The issue was that historic routes that got closed when a roadless area was designated or Monument or National Park or Wilderness was put in never got a review.

In the BRC example, assuming the suggestion is it's got a designation of CR169 and especially if it existed prior to 1976 then the BRC will have a couple of things they can argue to contest the road's status. Being a county or state road alone requires a different set of reviews but if it's a R.S. 2477 road then it had an existing status and whomever blocked it by default blocked a legal (at the time) route without authorization.

Garfield County here in Colorado actually just had a Federal case heard when a local owner (a hunting and fishing lodge) put up a gate on a dual designated county and BLM road in an attempt to prevent non-clients access. The county won AFAIK and the lodge had to take the gate down.
 
Last edited:

rover67

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
9,291
Location
Boulder, Co
Ok this is super helpful I need to play with my layers a bit more. I think we’re in the same spot. Thanks Dave, super helpful
 
Top