... I have wheeled that trail for over 25 years.... the last person I talked to down there affirmed the BLM shows it as open but the Park Service as closed
Unfortunately the BLM cannot show it as 'open', nor can the county, its neither of their property currently. While San Juan County is asserting their RS2477 rights to the route, until that has been granted by the federal government (such as the recent Skutumpah title to Kane County) its still within the sole jurisdiction and management of the GCNRA. It would be equivalent to the BLM saying American Fork Canyon is open
The bulk of the Rincon Trail is and has belong to the Glen Canyon National Recreation area since the park was formed in the 1960's. When they issued their last motorized travel plan (1978) the route was officially closed. They have made sporadic attempts to mark the route as closed but as I mentioned the signs disappear pretty fast. As I mentioned I spoke at length with both the park recreation rep (Brian Sweatland at the time) and the County commissioner working on the road claims (I would have to pull my notes to find his name), Brian knew it was being run and mentioned they have/will issue citations, the county commissioner said it had no positive impact on their claim if it was being run and they wouldn't be a party in any legal action against the ticket and or the closure as they were trying to work proactively with this and other routes within the GCNRA.
To the original poster, I'm thrilled your enjoying our (ExpUt) maps... but at least give us a plug if your going to re-post them elsewhere
I'd like to think all of you submitted comments on GCNRA's travel management plan when they were accepting through November of 2010, especially those of you still running rogue on it
Here is mine (on behalf of ExpeditionUtah.com):
"To whom it may concern;
ExpeditionUtah and its members have great interest in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and thus we have drafted a comment on behalf of our 1000+ members, the majority of which have recreated in the GCNRA at some and likely will again in the near future.
First and foremost we feel it is fundamental that the NPS recognize several historic and important routes within the Recreation Area boundary. First and foremost is the Rincon Trail which spurs off of the Hole in the Rock Trail (Road# 450). This trail has been used my motorized vehicles for over 50 years, we feel this is a very scenic and valuable addition to the HITR Trail. This route allows optional camping, picnicking and sight-seeing opportunities away from the often crowded Road# 650.
The second route is the road that connects Red Canyon Road (Road# 650) and Blue Notch Canyon (Road# 651). The area is flush with roads from the heavy mining activity that marked its past. One particular route connects the Red Canyon Road and Blue Notch Canyon and is accessible at times the level of Lake Powell is below approximately 3650. Given the loop opportunity of this route as well as its historic access, we feel it is crucial that this route be added to the inventory of motorized routes within the Recreation Area.
Lastly, the NPS current motorized travel maps are missing routes in the Imperial Valley Area. We feel that these spur routes and loops are very important to the recreation opportunities in the area. The Imperial Valley Area is a remote and seldom visited area compared to many other routes within the Recreation Area, user impacts on these routes are minimal at best and historic access should be recognized and invited.
Outdoor recreation, particularly motorized vehicle based recreation, has grown in popularity over the last several decades and we feel it is neither responsible nor practical to funnel a growing segment of users into a shrinking population of trail opportunities. As citizens, valid existing rights of way granted via R.S. 2477 are extremely important to our member. We ask that the NPS continue to work with local counties to resolve these R.S. 2477 contested routes and honor the historic access rights of the citizens. The agency must not ignore State and local government authority over roads existing in the NRA. Furthermore we ask that the NPS realize that this area is a National Recreation Area and that recreation should be kept in mind while in the decision process.
Of the preliminary alternatives presented, we feel that Alternative “D” best meets the purpose and need and is the most consistent with enabling legislation and existing management plans. However we do feel that the agency should develop an alternative that allows unlicensed ORVs to access some or all of the back country roads within the Recreation Area."
If you did comment and still have a copy, I would love to see it.
