Anyone know of a map outlining whats legal or not?

[taylorj123]

Hey with all the talk on closed trails, and where we can and cannot go, I was wondering if anyone knows of a website that would have a map of the state outlining what is legal and what is not. This would help from people (i.e. myself) going off trail, and I also want to see a general pic. of how much land we actually have for our use. Thanks

 

[EZRhino]

I don't know of a state map that would show that....if there was one, it would be as big as my house. Usually you can get BLM or FS travel plan maps for each individual forest or district. You'll need to check your local BLM/FS office for them. In many cases they won't have the maps, or they will be so badly out of date they are worthless, or (my big gripe) not detailed enough to really show things (too much gray area.)

E
Z

 

[Capt. Picky]

If one maintains travel to the trail surface, one shouldn't have a problem.

I would suspect that a trail is open unless it is marked closed. If closed, it should be signed as such somewhere. If the sign indicates something to the effect of "Travel limited to existing roads and trails", we're going to have problems in the not too distant future as people 'surreptitiously and no-body is looking/ can see me' make 'new trails' which some hapless follower - such as yourself - subsequently gets caught traveling on. (born under a bad sign).

When an administering agency finds need to start with the "Existing Trails" program, trouble is on the horizon. What happens then (or very soon to follow) is the area becomes one of those "Travel limited to designated trails" places. That's almost always the pits because all too often such designated trails are determined by someone else who may or may not have the actual field knowledge to arrive at the 'correct' conclusion. With any luck, input based upon historical use, observed time of trail creation, and real-world out-there-in-the-field experience will have some bearing on that. But don't count on it; things seldom go as they *should*.

How many miles or how much land is open for use? I don't have exact figures available at my immediate disposal but, IIRC the amount of mapped trails we've uncovered in Grand County Utah is somewhere on the order of 5,000 miles. That's a heck of a lot of trail miles, and Grand Country is far from the largest county in the state. But the real question might be how much land is actually open to access. More than you could possibly see in a lifetime. But actually, the answer to that would be dependent upon how many miles of trails remain open to make access feasible. Chances are mighty slim that one is going to walk from mainstreet/anytown straight out into the hills. This means that if you desire the most land available for potential exploration by any practical means, then you'd do well to take care of the means (trails) which are presently at your disposal to use in a reasonable and proper manner right now.

So, the bottom line is to maintain travel on the trail surface. Not to ride the edge of a trail. Not to make 'shorcuts'. Not to say "where th' heck is the trail?... Oh, I see it; it's over there", and then bee-line it to the trail. If you made a mistake, back-up while still on the trail (please look at where you are backing-up) and then reconnect at the trail junction /last place the trail was actually visible to you. Not to park or pull over to the roadside indiscriminantly. Not to arrange vehicles off the trail to take group shot photographs.
How many other possibilities are there which I didn't cover? Imagine myriad excuses by myriad number of users. I must have missed at least one possible case.

So, in short, how many ways can it be stated? It's fence post simple:
Stay on the trail. Stay on the trail. Stay on the trail. Stay on the trail..... STAY ON THE TRAIL.

Another FYI: Many years ago BLM placed a traffic counter at the cattleguard up on the dugway which one uses to access Little Canyon; Gold Bar Rim; Golden Spike (reverse travel direction); Metal Masher; Gemini Bridges; Bull Canyon - yada-yada-yada. Why did they do that and why at that *exact* location? Well it should be obvious:
1) No-one knew exactly how much traffic was actually using that road and a count was desirable to know.
2) The count would be pretty accurate since - as many might know - there was only one place to actually safely leave the trail prior to the cattle guard. e.g. - if one were to leave the roadway at any point before said locations(s), one would rough and tumble clean off the roadway and end-up 60 - 600 feet below as a ruined heap of rig and bones.
3) The most obvious reason. IF ONE STAYS ON A TRAIL, IT'S NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY USE IT.

So remember this above all else:
Stay on the trail. Stay on the trail. Stay on the trail. Stay on the trail..... STAY ON THE TRAIL.
How difficult is that to remember?

Capt. Picky

 

[utahmike]

Wait a minute....CUPO, Ah yes CUPO. Closed Unless Posted Open. DO NOT assume anything is open unless it is either posted open by signage and or on a map. This is a law we have problems with. There are some legit reasons for its existance, but it is often misunderstood. NOTHING is open unless it is posted (again posted meaning by sign or on a map.) Sorry dude it's the law. And it's one alot of people dont know about or dont understand. Call your local Forest Service rager district if you want confirmation. On BLM land it is also true except in area defined as "open". And those will all be a thing of the past in the next few years. We are making a push for managed open areas but it's a hellova battle. Thats one of the reasons we need everyones financial support. To help us keep some resonable and responsible open areas.

 

[Capt. Picky]

utahmike -

If that is the current case in Grand county I've fallen behind the times, and stand corrected. :-/ Of course by that token, I'm even more annoyed than I could possibly even have imagined. It makes me wonder (not really... I knew why, and have been thusly saying so for more than 14 years.) how this could have come to pass?
Today will be a "check-out" the current status at my local BLM office. Same for San Juan County.

Meanwhile, though older news (Of which you would be more than aware):
http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=284&
http://www.usa-all.com/docs/Litigation1.1.htm

By this my ire has now been raised to a whole new level. IF ever I see some foolish-selfish-yeahoo "Not much concerned with vehicle durability nor personal safety, nor anyone else's ability to simply and peacefully four-wheel" while out on the trail, I will now be the *absolute* first to report that individual to the appropiate entity ASAP. I've had enough of this BS.

No... bad and misguided as they might be, SUWA per se is not my absolute opponent; they are reactionary and after the fact. These so-called Four-Wheelers (and bicyclists/ hikers/ whatever mode of conveyance) with *zero* respect and possessing a completely self-serving singular, "If you cant beat it, what good is it?" have drawn the line for me, and have brought this entire issue to the forefront by *BEING THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM* themselves. If only I knew where they were, I'd drive brodies all over their lawn ornaments and mailbox and then say I'm exercising my freedom to Wreckreate (sic). If you don't like the way I drive, keep your lawn ornament off the sidewalk. If you can't ride with the big dogs, then off to the dog pound with you - take your equipment and lawn ornaments while you're at it - and stick them..... on your porch. All that, while wearing the obligatory "No Fear... NO BRAIN" T-shirt.

As you can see, now I'm really P*****-***!

Again, I knew what would be the downfall of 4-wheeling all along, and have written so in completely unveiled terms. I guess I just had the foolish hope that the worst could be averted.... TOO LATE NOW!?!

4-Wheeling doesn't change the GNP of this country nor will it serve to alter the direction of endless restrictions on *reasonable behavior* one iota. Anyone who would believe that the big picture hinges on whether we can wheel or not is living a pipe-dream. One can then lawsuit up the yin-yang... make attorneys rich... Tie up some thing in a court of law for decades...won't make a bit of difference. Just like the Salt Creek Canyon deal; overturned, and to what avail?

Just like the "firearm waiting period". More limitations which affect the reasonable person, and not the "Gotta pull a bank-heist this afternoon" type. Par for the course. This CUPO had better not be true. Gonna make some really.... better not even say. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Regards,
Capt. Picky

 

[Capt. Picky]

update

I Have just concluded a one-hour + discussion with the Recreation Planner of the Local Grand Resource Area BLM Field office.

Things here in Grand County are just as I had first described and recollected, so there have yet to be any changes that indicate the CUPO that Utahmike spoke of. This requires some clarification and does contain some fine points, so please read carefully >>>

1) It has been established here in the immediate Moab region for some time that certain areas are limited to designated trails. Those areas would include Fins and Things, the general SandFlats management area, SteelBender,The general Mill Creek area, The River Corridor area, Ken's Lake and so forth.

There may be others, but it was difficult to take notes on a continual basis at the rate I was obtaining the information. Regarding any other areas which are similarly designated, it's my humble opinion that such restrictions are in fact useful and necessary as they were done to minimize the ever increasing impact created by the ever increasing visitation in areas of limited size and ability to handle such a large influx and use.

2) There would be other areas which in time will more than likely also fall under those specific guidelines, but haven't as yet been implemented. They *will* be "coming to a neighborhood theatre near you soon".

3) The general scope of the issue is one which is gradually being adopted by all of the Western states as a whole, and each state is pursuing this in a manner consistent with its individual need, yet are to comply with certain mandates handed down by the head BLM office in Washington D.C.

4) Each separate BLM field office is also addressing this issue and are at varying degrees of implementation and area management. e.g. - The Price Resource Area Field Office is ahead of the Grand Resource Area Field Office in the degree of having applied the regulations. In a similar way, the San Juan Resource Area is pursuing this by their own means and pace.

The upshot is that in due time - with limited exceptions - the results will generally be one of "travel limited to designated routes". There will be some areas which will still remain open to use in a less restricted fashion, but they will doubtless be few in number. In the interim, the general rule for areas other than those cited is one of "Travel restricted to existing routes". That is a dicey area as I've already written of in a number of my posts. The routes in question which will be reviewed as valid candidates must have existed prior to a given date. Therefore, going out and creating new routes under the hope that they will ultimately be permitted is a false one, and an avenue which will surely increase the limitations we are now faced with. That aside from the fact that they are needless, uncalled for and ultimately quite ugly and destructive.

The upshot of the upshot is that more likely than not, most of this could have been avoided by conscientious and discreet use of one's 4-wheeler / motorcycle / bicycle etc. But, Noooooooooooooo.... That would have been like trying to get blood from a turnip.

It is to be remembered (or noted by those who've just woken up yesterday) that initially, organizations such as SUWA, UWC, UWA were focused on Wilderness Study Areas. Due to the increased visitation and the resulting poor behavioral aspects of humanity (which can be referred to as the "Xbox/Playstation" mentality) the focus of such groups expanded to take into account the resuting damage and ugliness created by that unbridled bunch who treat the area as if it were *somebody else's home* and not their own home.

It should also be noted that the initial *open to travel* (i.e. - open cross country travel) which while still permitted (wrongly IMHO) up to a point by the defacto failure to fully implement it was in fact a mandate issued during the Nixon Administration. (Which means ~ late 1960's - early 1970's.)

The RMP [Resource Management Plan], - of which several;more than several in fact - had to be constantly revised and updated to deal with the ever increasing visitation and subsequent impact on the areas in question.

The responsibility of the inconvenient incumberances which will affect *everyone* fall squarely upon the shoulders of those who would abuse anything and everything, and nowhere else.

Thank you very much.

Capt. Picky

 

[Capt. Picky]

Taylorj123 -

Further research I've done has not borne too much fruit as for some reason, most (all) BLM sites I've tried to access are "down". I've been trying to access the relative RMP sites such as Monticellormp.com; moabrmp.com; and Pricermp.com, where much information would be found.

Thus far I've only been able to pull up a *Google Cached Page* of the Pricermp site. Some info detailing the amount of land along with maps (presented as alternative plans) will be found there. Again, the sub-links will probably be 'dead' as the server or whatever is presently a non-functioning piece of Hardware.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...mp.com/faqs.asp+Utah+BLM+resource+areas&hl=en

Nonetheless, this should provide you with a clue as to how to go about finding the information you seek. I would assume that the main HTML pages will once again be back on-line when whatever software/hardware issues are resolved.
Remember, Google is your friend:
http://www.dinside.no/km_bilde/5/134465.jpg
(hope you will appreciate the humor/joke)

Capt. Picky

Hey with all the talk on closed trails, and where we can and cannot go, I was wondering if anyone knows of a website that would have a map of the state outlining what is legal and what is not. This would help from people (i.e. myself) going off trail, and I also want to see a general pic. of how much land we actually have for our use. Thanks

 

[taylorj123]

Ya good point, I dont know if its the complete lack of time that I have in my day or a little bit of lazyiness, but I do appreciate the effort you obviously put into all that you do on these forums. Thanks. Taylor

 

[Capt. Picky]

You are most welcome

YW Taylorj123

 

[utahmike]

Capt. Pinky,

Are you suggesting that CUPO is not the rule on BLM land? It most certainly is on USFS land. And it seems it is on BLM ground as well. After these RMP's are finalized, you will stay on existing and designated routes. You can’t be on the route with a motorized vehicle unless it is either signed, or on a travel map, correct? Hence, CUPO. If there is a beautiful route you would like to go on and there is no sign and it isn’t on a travel map, it's closed. This is a point of confusion for users. We need to have BLM list ALL routes on travel plans and then clearly show what is open and what is closed. It's just common sense. They may not claim travel routes are, “Closed Unless Posted Open”, but isn’t that what it is? I am not asking this in a rhetorical sense, I really am curious what you think and what you found out. Who did you talk to?

 

[Capt. Picky]

Greetings utahmike.

Capt. Pinky,

Not to be "Picky", but that's *Capt. Picky*(quite).

Are you suggesting that CUPO is not the rule on BLM land? It most certainly is on USFS land. And it seems it is on BLM ground as well.

I'm more than suggesting; I'm specifically stating such. USFS handles things differently. While still having input from the public, not unlike the USNPS, they can effect things administratively (and have done so).
Next thing is that although all three fall under the Dept. of the Interior, the BLM operates in a different manner than does USFS and NPS; they have and allow greater public input.

I'll further add this for the sake of clarification:
That while not specifically stated as such, the question by the OP did not allude to any particular tract of land by any specific managing agency. I've already stated the differences between the various administrating entities and how they go about "their business" of managing the resources for which they are responsible.

It should be understood that in the Moab area - and Jeep Safari in general - that the vast bulk of the trails used are on BLM and State of Utah administered lands, and not on FS land. This doesn't mean I don't include them or am not concerned with FS roads and trails, but that not unlike the National Park Service, the Forest Service manages these roads in a vastly different manner than does the BLM. I would say that the biggest issue is concerned with the lands within the public domain as managed by the BLM and not the FS or NPS. Additionally, the info I sought was solely therein.

Therefore, I respectfully disagree with your assertion regarding the BLM administered lands; they are not fully managed and implemented as you would suggest insofar as this so-called CUPO acronym would apply. While that is what is in store for the future, such is not the case as of the present moment.
For the NPS and FS, that's an altogether different story.

After these RMP's are finalized, you will stay on existing and designated routes.

Right; but only in part. It will be *designated* trails only. Whether designated 'wholesale" or whether each and every route will be signed and posted, I don't know. But the *existing* trails term is becoming a thing of the past. Again, this is because a group (groups of) of uncaring individuals are continually and incessantly 'creating new trails'. Then these 'new trails' become more and more used; then it's hard to confine/define as to what is (was) an *existing trail*. This is where RS2477 and other legal issues come into play. Those who *screw around* are not in any way helping our activity/cause. They are, in fact, a full liability and detriment.

Now, returning to your quoted statement above:
*After*, and not before. This has not been fully implemented in all of the regional BLM field offices. I stated that the info I had gotten from the "horse's mouth" was that the Price Field office had completely - or more accurately, was far ahead of the other two Resource areas I cited; namely, Grand Resource area, and San Juan (Monticello Field Office) area in implemeting that *mandated* (Nixon Administration - ca. early 1970's) process.

Regardless, this would be the case in those areas where the implementation has already taken place, but would not yet apply in those areas where it has not been implememted as yet.

You can’t be on the route with a motorized vehicle unless it is either signed, or on a travel map, correct? Hence, CUPO.

No... not so. This has not been fully implemented yet as I stated earlier. It *is* the plan; but that plan - the draft EIS - will not be completed until ~ spring 2006. Then a 90-day period of review and public input on the draft; then the BLM submits that info to the State BLM office with all the input which is then reviewed by the State Office and afterwards resubmitted to the regional offices with the Head Offices summary. Then the final RMP will be effected.

Additional revisions (additions OR retractions) could be/ would be implemented *after* the final RMP had been effected when the court decision is handed down insofar as the RS2477 issue is concerned. RS2477 issues are not being addressed by this current in-the-works EIS, and thus, are not to be considered as included in the upcoming RMP. (Unless a court decision is handed down before such time.)

Furthermore, if it were restricted to Travel Maps - or even the USGS 7 1/2 minute Topographic maps - there is a paucity of accurate and detailed info. I would hope that if such were the case, then the GPS info gathered by Ber Knight, myself and other RR4W members, Grand County Road Dept., San Juan County Road dept., and any other competent persons/bureaus would be taken into account. This would provide a surfeit of info on existing and valid roads/trails. IF the travel maps and Topos had that info, then that would be another story altogether.

In short, I wouldn't rely upon any "travel maps" that I am presently aware of to be a valid source or bible of the road/trail system.

If there is a beautiful route you would like to go on and there is no sign and it isn’t on a travel map, it's closed.

That's not what I heard. ;-) Although you allude to that in this post:
http://www.rockymountainextreme.com/showpost.php?p=216790&postcount=4

I'd like to see that information myself, and would like to speak with the party who asserts this. So, I will ask you, who and where might that/they be?

This is a point of confusion for users.

So it would appear.

We need to have BLM list ALL routes on travel plans and then clearly show what is open and what is closed. It's just common sense.

Agreed 100%.

They may not claim travel routes are, “Closed Unless Posted Open”, but isn’t that what it is?

According to that which you assert, it would *appear* so. The information I obtained seems to differ from that however.

I am not asking this in a rhetorical sense, I really am curious what you think and what you found out. Who did you talk to?

As stated above; re: mapping trails via accurate GPS info. Printed matter/maps/ travel maps-brochures with all the actual facts and routes in detail. This has to be done.

I don't want trails closed, but will accept some sensible concessions in that regard. Namely. if there is a duplicity/triplicity/multiplicity of trails. e.g. - A historic original trail; a seismic trail; a secondary scenic trail; and then the 'created yesterday by the unconscientious' - I say they have my blessings to close *most* seismic trails (but not all; Example being, if it is the *only* trail to a given area). To close parallel unnecessary routes or *recently created* routes. Otherwise, I would say that I wouldn't want any trails - no matter how faint and "un-used" - closed.

You asked: With whom did I speak.
I spoke with both the Grand Resource area Recreation Planner - whose name is Russ Von Koch - as well as the Monticello Field Office Assistant Recreation Planner; Todd Berkenfield.
Total time spent via telephone communication was ~ 3 hours.

N.B. - Despite the customary masculine sounding name, Todd Berkenfield is female.

I hope this will clarify matters.

Kind regards,
Capt. Picky

 

[utahmike]

Not to be "Picky", but that's *Capt. Picky*(quite).

Sorry.

I'm more than suggesting; I'm specifically stating such. USFS handles things differently. While still having input from the public, not unlike the USNPS, they can effect things administratively (and have done so).
Next thing is that although all three fall under the Dept. of the Interior, the BLM operates in a different manner than does USFS and NPS; they have and allow greater public input.

USFS falls under the USDA, BLM and NPS are under DOI.

I would say that the biggest issue is concerned with the lands within the public domain as managed by the BLM and not the FS or NPS.

I generally agree.

Therefore, I respectfully disagree with your assertion regarding the BLM administered lands; they are not fully managed and implemented as you would suggest insofar as this so-called CUPO acronym would apply. While that is what is in store for the future, such is not the case as of the present moment.
For the NPS and FS, that's an altogether different story.

Yes you are right it is not the case on ALL BLM managed land, but it is in popular places, such as the San Rafael, and will likely be the case on most land managed by BLM, in the next 5-10 years.

Right; but only in part. It will be *designated* trails only. Whether designated 'wholesale" or whether each and every route will be signed and posted, I don't know. But the *existing* trails term is becoming a thing of the past.

Every route will likely be addressed in one form or another, whether on the ground or in the form of a travel map. It wont work very well if this isn’t done, for the exception of managed open areas, and those will be few and far in between.

This is where RS2477 and other legal issues come into play.

I think I know what you mean by this, RS 2477 is relatively straight forward, routes existing pre October of 1976 + use and "construction" + county wants to claim it = Legit ROW. I know it isn’t that simple but it should be.

Those who *screw around* are not in any way helping our activity/cause. They are, in fact, a full liability and detriment.

Sad, but true.

Additional revisions (additions OR retractions) could be/ would be implemented *after* the final RMP had been effected when the court decision is handed down insofar as the RS2477 issue is concerned. RS2477 issues are not being addressed by this current in-the-works EIS, and thus, are not to be considered as included in the upcoming RMP. (Unless a court decision is handed down before such time.)

The failure of BLM to consider RS2477 in their planning process is costing the tax payers of Utah and particularly Counties (Gas tax that would otherwise go to counties is used to fund the State legal defense) and is unnecessary. It defies sound logic and reasoning. If BLM was not operating under the Babbit interpretation of RS 2477 we would be better off. The Bush administration needs to change this and address it as Hodell (Regan's Sec. of the Interior) outlined. The State could spend less money ascertaining their claims, and Counties would have the value of these Routes which are very important to rural communities for a variety of reasons, not to mention the gas taxes they can use for other things. The BLM ignoring RS2477 claims is like me closing the road in from of my house because I don’t like people driving by. If BLM feels a road is not a RS2477 claim then the burden of proof should be on them, NOT the State. That’s like me closing the road I don’t own and then saying, "Sure I’ll open it, sue me, prove it's yours and then, I'll open it." It's insane!

Furthermore, if it were restricted to Travel Maps - or even the USGS 7 1/2 minute Topographic maps - there is a paucity of accurate and detailed info. I would hope that if such were the case, then the GPS info gathered by Ber Knight, myself and other RR4W members, Grand County Road Dept., San Juan County Road dept., and any other competent persons/bureaus would be taken into account. This would provide a surfeit of info on existing and valid roads/trails. IF the travel maps and Topos had that info, then that would be another story altogether.

This info you mention MUST be taken into account. Most places have yet to enter into that phase of planning. After the RMP's watch for specific travel planning to occur, you will see maps similar to the San Rafael Route Designation map. I feel we really got taken on some of the routes in that plan and i fear for what may happen in other areas.

In short, I wouldn't rely upon any "travel maps" that I am presently aware of to be a valid source or bible of the road/trail system.

Nor would I. But once that level of planning occurs and a official map is released, as far as BLM is concerned it will be the Bible, possibly open to amendments, but nevertheless the travelers gospel for certain periods of time.

I'd like to see that information myself, and would like to speak with the party who asserts this. So, I will ask you, who and where might that/they be?

Uinta NF American Fork Canyon Map page 2, bottom right corner under "REMEBER"

This may be some of what you wanted to see. This from an appeal decision we got last summer. We were successful at getting some trails re-opened and compelling the Uinta NF to rethink all the undocumented closures on lands they managed. Some of the trails should be closed, many should not, the public was robbed of their access privileges and we hope more of them will be restored. This is a great example of why we need USA-ALL. Getting closed trails re-opened is no easy task. For your reading pleasure...see next post...

 

[utahmike]

Under 36 CFR 261.50 (c) and 36 CFR 261.51 (b), the Responsible Official can issue orders that state, “roads/trails are closed unless posted Appeal Decision for Uinta NF Revised LRMP 12 open” to describe the road/trail to which the order applies. Further, FSM 2355.03 (4) specifically states, “Use signing to identify either the areas that are open to off-road vehicle use or the areas that are closed to off-road vehicle use. Select the method that better informs the public and that is easier to administer.”

State of Utah Off-Highway Vehicle laws and Rules state “OHVs may be operated on public land posted by sign or designated by map or description as open by the controlling agency. The controlling agency may post signs designating areas open to OHV use” (State of Utah OHV Laws and Rules, 41-22-10.1 (1) & (2)). the Regional Forester and Forest Supervisor have the management discretion to adopt a “closed unless posted open” policy to provide for consistency with Utah State laws and other Forests in Utah. Authority for closure is given through 36 CFR 261.50. Implementation is guided by 36 CFR 261.51 (b) which requires that the order be posted, not that each individual route be posted as closed.

Under 36 CFR 261.50 (c) and 36 CFR 261.51 (b), the Responsible Official can issue orders that state, “roads/trails are closed unless posted open” to describe the road/trail to which the order applies. Further, Forest Service Policy (FSM 2355.03 (4)) allows signing to designate either open or closed areas depending on which better informs the public and may be easiest to administer.

Implementing a DRT/CUPO policy is supported by the State of Utah. Comments on the Draft LRMP and DEIS included a letter of support from the State of Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Resource Development Coordinating Committee, which expresses strong support for a “closed unless posted open” policy for OHV management (FEIS Appendix L, L-313 to L-319).

Further, the State of Utah Off-Highway Vehicle laws and Rules state “OHVs may be operated on public land posted by sign or designated by map or description as open by the controlling agency. The controlling agency may post signs designating areas open to OHV use” (State of Utah OHV Laws and Rules, 41- 22-10.1(1) & (2)).

Similarly, school and institutional trust lands may be designated as open to OHVs under the Utah Administrative Code R850-110-200.

The 2003 revised LRMP roads and trails policy for the Uinta NF did not change from the 1984 LRMP, which involved the public. The 1984 LRMP travel management standards and guidelines state, “Unless administratively closed, all areas are open for travel upon designated Forest System roads and trails…” (p. 3-150). Both the 1988 Uinta NF Travel Map and 2000 Interagency Travel Map reflect the Uinta NF LRMP direction, and Utah law and other agency policy. The 1988 Uinta NF Travel Map implements Uinta and Utah State Wildlife Resources Travel Policy by stating, “Motorized vehicles are not allowed to travel off of the roads and trails…” (p. 1).

The Trailbike and OHV/ATV Riding section of the map also cites Utah Public Law 41-22-10-1. Similarly, the Travel Routes section of the 2000 Interagency Travel Map states, “Routes in Limited or Closed Areas which are not shown on this map are closed to motorized vehicle use unless signed open on the ground” and, under the ‘Note to Map Users, “in order to protect…vehicles may not be driven off the road…” (p. 1)."
(Appeal Decision for Uinta NF Revised LRMP)

Appeal Decision for Uinta NF Revised LRMP

Notice that SITLA (State land) May operate under CUPO ("OHVs may be operated on public land posted by sign or designated by map or description as open by the controlling agency." and "school and institutional trust lands may be designated as open to OHVs under the Utah Administrative Code R850-110-200"), and in-fact the USFS claims that their adoption of this policy was to be consistent with State Law.

There clearly needs to be greater consistency between State (local, County State) and Federal agencies on travel laws and plans. The public cannot be expected to understand and comply with conflicting and or confusing laws and plans. For now we could hope that Common Sense would be the rule, but, unfortunately, in many cases it seems to be the exception. These issues MUST be addressed more vigorously and uniformly.

Good thread. I think I have about beat it to death, if you want more info let me know, it may take me a while as I am pretty busy with many issues. I appreciate and respect the info you have shared, I wish more people were as concerned and involved as you seem to be.

 

[Capt. Picky]

Greetings once again utahmike.
QUOTE:utahmike

Sorry.

S'okay...no biggie.

USFS falls under the USDA, BLM and NPS are under DOI.

Right you are, and I stand corrected; can't blame that one on keyboard keys being placed too close together.

Yes you are right it is not the case on ALL BLM managed land, but it is in popular places, such as the San Rafael, and will likely be the case on most land managed by BLM, in the next 5-10 years.

We are in agreement here. The fact is that over the last 10 years or so, the amount of "open" land has been severely reduced; more so in heavily used areas. This speaks volumes on the 'cost of popularity and unrestricted use'.

I'd say that if things go according to the mandate and desires of the 'powers that be', it will be far sooner than 5 ~ 10 years. This doesn't take into account the 'Dates in calendar are closer than they appear' factor.

Every route will likely be addressed in one form or another, whether on the ground or in the form of a travel map. It wont work very well if this isn’t done, for the exception of managed open areas, and those will be few and far in between.

Yes; from what I've gathered, that is the proposed and mandated plan.

I think I know what you mean by this, RS 2477 is relatively straight forward, routes existing pre October of 1976 + use and "construction" + county wants to claim it = Legit ROW. I know it isn’t that simple but it should be.

Right; it *should* be that simple, but alas....
This is where SUWA and other such organizations have proven to be genuinely annoying and over-reaching their initial position/ raison-d'etre. The aforementioned statement is a highly tempered and extremely understated assessment of my actual feelings; cleaned up for the 'innocents' who will chance upon this post.
This is also where we as outdoor 'enthusiasts' have provided them and their supporters with enough rope to hang ourselves.

Confucius say: "He who clambers over different rock walls once, deserve being buried beneath rig in backyard".

The failure of BLM to consider RS2477 in their planning process is costing the tax payers of Utah and particularly Counties (Gas tax that would otherwise go to counties is used to fund the State legal defense) and is unnecessary. It defies sound logic and reasoning. If BLM was not operating under the Babbit interpretation of RS 2477 we would be better off. The Bush administration needs to change this and address it as Hodell (Regan's Sec. of the Interior) outlined. The State could spend less money ascertaining their claims, and Counties would have the value of these Routes which are very important to rural communities for a variety of reasons, not to mention the gas taxes they can use for other things.

Yes, the BLM should have included the RS2477 issue in the EIS for the final RMP (imho).
Economic issues notwithstanding and an area in which I am less knowledgeable than I should be, I would agree that if monies are allocated to attend to legal countermeasures on bogus claims, it is an obvious loss of funds which would be better suited for use elsewhere. (my uneducated opinion)

The BLM ignoring RS2477 claims is like me closing the road in from of my house because I don’t like people driving by. If BLM feels a road is not a RS2477 claim then the burden of proof should be on them, NOT the State. That’s like me closing the road I don’t own and then saying, "Sure I’ll open it, sue me, prove it's yours and then, I'll open it." It's insane!

I heartily agree with the above as well as the simile you have chosen to illustrate this most sorry situation.

This info you mention MUST be taken into account. Most places have yet to enter into that phase of planning. After the RMP's watch for specific travel planning to occur, you will see maps similar to the San Rafael Route Designation map. I feel we really got taken on some of the routes in that plan and i fear for what may happen in other areas.

Yes; we were 'taken' as far as the San Rafael area is concerned. While a great deal of agreement was arrived at by the various interested parties during the review, there were serious 'bones of contention' in which the BLM stepped in and took matters into their own hands.

The only thing I can say to the above is that which I've posted countless times already; and this is that basically we have no-one to 'blame' for this but ourselves. It was my observation that as soon as ready access was enabled by completion of the I-70 and its attendant on-ramp/off-ramp/ overpasses, there was an immediate incursion into the area by the 'lazy and irresponsible user'. I then observed that the very first and nearest hillocks were then over-run with ATV and Motorcycle tracks which heretofore were left undisturbed. The same for the "off-roaders" who for some uncanny reason, would ride parallel to a roadway for 100's of yards on end, and then arbitrarily decide to just ride 'cross country' and any point the urge struck them.

I spent a greater amount of time (greater than in the Moab area) in such 'unpopulated/unpopular/unknown/not easy to access' areas such as the SRS. Before I-70 was completed, that locale was a paradise and a journey back in time.... the Utah nobody knew about or wanted, and therefore in such areas, I had noticed little if any, thoughtless destruction. As soon as the easy access and 'fame' came into being, down the tubes it went. :-\

...But once that level of planning occurs and a official map is released, as far as BLM is concerned it will be the Bible, possibly open to amendments, but nevertheless the travelers gospel for certain periods of timeUinta NF American Fork Canyon Map page 2, bottom right corner under "REMEBER".

Thanks for the link and info.
Yep. Too bad it will not account for those who can neither read, read a map, observe a trail right in front of their face, nor care to do so.

This may be some of what you wanted to see. This from an appeal decision we got last summer. We were successful at getting some trails re-opened and compelling the Uinta NF to rethink all the undocumented closures on lands they managed. Some of the trails should be closed, many should not, the public was robbed of their access privileges and we hope more of them will be restored. This is a great example of why we need USA-ALL. Getting closed trails re-opened is no easy task. For your reading pleasure...see next post...

Yes. It is fairly typical of the NFS and the NPS to effect administrative closed-to-the-public ammendments to their travel plans and more.
Needless to say, the effort and accomplishments of USA-All are something I respect and we owe it to USA-All to express our feelings of gratitude and more importantly, our support.

Thanks for the literature and links you've provided in your follow-up post Mike. Above all, you have my thanks for the efforts - both personal and as an organization - which USA-All does in it's valiant fight to keep the public lands open and available to responsible outdoor enthusiasts.

Kind regards,
Capt. Picky