The Historic Roadways Protection Act restricts the use of federal funds for new travel management plans in specific Utah areas until ongoing R. S. 2477 lawsuits are settled. It also temporarily restricts the implementation of certain travel management plans within Utah.
Mike Kennedy
Representative
UT-3
The Historic Roadways Protection Act restricts the Secretary of the Interior from using federal funds to finalize or implement new travel management plans in specific areas of Utah until certain lawsuits are resolved. These lawsuits involve Utah counties versus the United States regarding R. S. 2477. The affected travel management areas include: Henry Mountains and Fremont Gorge, Dinosaur (North), Book Cliffs, Nine Mile Canyon, San Rafael Swell, Dolores River, Trail Canyon, and Paunsaugunt. It also restricts the implementation of specific travel management plans within Utah during the same period.
Federal Road Management in Utah Frozen Until Land Rights Lawsuits Settle: Historic Roadways Protection Act
The "Historic Roadways Protection Act" blocks the Department of the Interior from finalizing or implementing several travel management plans across Utah. This freeze is directly tied to the resolution of ongoing lawsuits, known as R.S. 2477 cases, between several Utah counties and the federal government concerning historical road rights-of-way.
Roadblocks and Red Tape
This law means that no federal funds can be used to finalize or implement new travel management plans in areas like the Henry Mountains, Book Cliffs, Nine Mile Canyon, and San Rafael Swell, among others (Sec. 2). It also specifically halts the implementation of existing plans like the Indian Creek and Labyrinth Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plans. Essentially, until these county-versus-federal lawsuits are settled, many travel planning projects are stuck in park.
Real-World Rollout
Imagine a local outfitter wanting to expand their guided tour routes in the San Rafael Swell, or a county wanting to improve access for locals to. Under this Act, any changes to travel plans that require federal action are off the table. The Department of the Interior—the folks in charge of managing these lands—can't move forward, regardless of potential benefits to recreation or local economies, until the legal battles over these old road claims are resolved.
For example, if Emery County wanted to improve a popular trail, they would be unable to do so.
The Bigger Picture: Local vs. Federal
This Act highlights a classic tug-of-war: local control versus federal oversight. While proponents of local control might see this as a win for county governments and potentially for businesses that rely on access to these lands, it also raises concerns. By tying the hands of federal land managers, the Act could delay or prevent updates to travel plans that are designed to balance recreation, resource extraction, and environmental protection. The long-term effects could involve protracted legal fights, stalled conservation efforts, and uncertainty for both businesses and recreational users in these areas.