If Panamint City and Suprise Canyon are Public Roads under RS2477, doesn't the follwing link apply?

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/reg3a.html#Anchor-Appendix-52467

I remember taking my Uncle, who had lost his leg in an accident, to his favorite fishing hole. If it hadn't been for my 4x4, he would have had to sit on the dock and fish instead of enjoying sitting by himself and enjoying Nature!

I wish RS2477 and also disability issues were as cut and dried as they ought to be. Unfortunately both these issues have to take into account numerous factors and variables, in other words each case is different. I'll give you a long explanation on this later, trying to explain the ins and outs of these issues when they apply to land use is not the thing to do under the influence of narcotic pain killers.:D Yeah, I had surgery Monday. I'll get back with you later on this one, unless of course someone else can step in and give a good explanation.:cool2:

Acts of Congress set precedence, with older Acts having more weight than newer Acts. The only way to alter the precedence is to ammend the Act by a 2/3 majority vote of Congress.

RS2477 is part of the Mining Act of 1872. It's very old. It has been followed and "revised" by the Federal Land Policy Management Act of (I believe) 1976. The good thing is FLPMA preserves assertions of the Mining Act of 1872, including RS2477 rights-of-way. This is how Congress got around the 2/3 majority vote requirement for an ammendment, with the intent that FLPMA only effects policy where determinations have not been made before 1976.

The American Disibility Act of 1990 is fairly new. It has provisions that exclude segments of government from the provisions of the Act, including access in designated Wilderness (reserved under the Wilderness Act of 1964) and the Antiquities Act of 1906 (the Act giving a President the power to reserve land for a National Monunment.) National Parks and Forests are also exempt from many provisions of the ADA, although court rulings have stated that the NPS must provide ADA access where it is consistant with the management guidelines (in developed areas with public buildings).

If the area included a recognized road before 1976 (FLPMA), and the road was recognized before the area was reserved for management as a National Park, Forest, or Monument (AA), it is recognized as a road under the grandfathered provisions of the Mining Act of 1872.

The upper part of Surprise Canyon Road was recognized, before Death Valley National Monument was established in 1933 or the Death Valley National Park additions of 1994, demanding it's current "open access". The same open access assertion was determined (or "recommended but not determined" in the green thinking) by Congress in the Desert Protection Act of 1994 for the lower portion of Surprise Canyon Road when the Surprise Canyon Wilderness boundries and cherrystems were proposed. The issue of "RS2477 access determination" or "ESA habitat protection" as the guiding management policy is the unasked question that the greens are pushing in the process.

The problem with all of this Congressional Act debate is someone may have to litigate the Land Management agency to correct and mediate violations of any of these Acts of Congress, if they choose to ignore the Act (the law). We have to recognize the violation, and ask for it to be corrected.

This means we may eventually be required to sue the BLM to honor the RS2477 right-of-way inherent and recognized by Congress in Surprise Canyon. This is the same "litigate to get what you want" process that the greens use regarding the Endangered Species Act (the process that stipulated the temporary closure).

The greens litigated that the BLM failed to honor the provisions of the ESA, and the BLM must address the lawsuit (the process we are in now). The resolution may not address a subsequent violation of other Acts of Congress (unless someone makes the BLM aware of the conflict, during the process, requesting them to honor the other Act). Even with knowledge of "potential" Congressional Act violation, an Agency manager can still ignore the conflict and decide whatever they believe is right (potentially risking their public workforce career). Then the public has the right to litigate to correct the subsequent violation.

I think you can see how the Legal System is well supported financially in this process (and why revising the ESA, by ammendment for all decisions or subsequent Act of Congress for future decisions, is so important).

(clear as mud?)

Happy Trails!

Where do you people find this information? I thought I was up to date until this!! I am completely in the dark again.

I've read it again and still have a couple of questions.

1. Is Suprise Canyon a designated RS2477 and where is that documented? I looked on the link I gave and didn't find it.

2. Who owns this "Road" and where is that documented? I have heard private Land Owner, the Federal Gov and the County of Inyo.

3. Where can I get copies of the Environmental Studies that have been done on Suprise Canyon that dispute that this "Lizard" does not live there? David(hope that's the right name) brought up some good points at the meeting and the BLM rep was talking to him after the meeting about the definition of Riparian Vegitation?

Last, looking at the hand out from the BLM, page 3, para 1, what is the designation "Route P71"(a dirt road) mean? I read it as Suprise Canyon, what does the desig "P71" stand for?

I'm sorry all I'm completely lost on all of this Political BS! Please enlighten me!

Yes, it was more than a couple of questions.

Originally posted by primergray
I've read it again and still have a couple of questions.

1. Is Suprise Canyon a designated RS2477 and where is that documented? I looked on the link I gave and didn't find it.

yes as long as it was a recognized road prior to 1976. It was congressionally designated a road in 1932 I believe, but ED could help us out more on that one

2. Who owns this "Road" and where is that documented? I have heard private Land Owner, the Federal Gov and the County of Inyo.

The county of Inyo "owns" the road, it has recieved federal funding (through the BLM and other agencies) and State funding (throught the private persons that were originally contracted to make the road after the first couple washouts, and through the BLM)

3. Where can I get copies of the Environmental Studies that have been done on Suprise Canyon that dispute that this "Lizard" does not live there? David(hope that's the right name) brought up some good points at the meeting and the BLM rep was talking to him after the meeting about the definition of Riparian Vegitation?

some are here
http://cluster4.biosci.utexas.edu/deathvalley/reports/surprise%20cyn.htm


Last, looking at the hand out from the BLM, page 3, para 1, what is the designation "Route P71"(a dirt road) mean? I read it as Suprise Canyon, what does the desig "P71" stand for?

can't help at all on this one





:usa:

-------------
1. Is Suprise Canyon a designated RS2477 and where is that documented? I looked on the link I gave and didn't find it.
-------------

RS2477 is a section in the Mining Act of 1872. It is the guideline that describes the public right to travel on land, and the recognition that travel qualifies the route to be considered as a highway (road).

www.rs2477roads.com

-------------
2. Who owns this "Road" and where is that documented? I have heard private Land Owner, the Federal Gov and the County of Inyo.
-------------

The public owns the road, but the agency having management juristiction, and type of legal travel, are important questions.

This is where RS2477 is important. Local government, Inyo County, has juristiction as the road was recognized by the county before 1976 (before FLPMA, as it was recorded before 1933 when the Monument was reserved).

The question is does the country desire to assert their juristiction rights (or do they even need to)? This is up to the county (they can choose to let others handle the maintenance, state or federal efforts), if they choose, or they can demand the road funds be provided to them to administer. Allowing someone else to grade your road (the government or private concern) does not relinquish juristiction rights, you simply get the road graded for free.

The private land holders at the top of the canyon have the same grandfathered access rights as the public, through the provisions of RS2477. The public and private land holders have the same right-of way. The public has the same easement and travel rights as the private land holders.

This is the original reason for the provision of RS2477 in the Mining Act of 1872: to prevent a subsequent down-canyon owner from blocking access to your up-canyon mining claim. This was a problem before 1872 when starving out an up-canyon claim holder, by preventing him to cross adjacent property, was a common claim jumping tactic. RS2477 was added so the route of travel, if established by prior passage, must be recognized as a legal right-of-way, even if a subsequent (private or public) land owner purchases the land.

The right-of-way can be legally removed or altered only by the Agency having juristiction (in this case, it should be Inyo County, not the BLM).

-------------
3. Where can I get copies of the Environmental Studies that have been done on Suprise Canyon that dispute that this "Lizard" does not live there? David(hope that's the right name) brought up some good points at the meeting and the BLM rep was talking to him after the meeting about the definition of Riparian Vegitation?
-------------

The defination of a Riparian Area is in a US Forest Service publication. The SFS and the BLM has reference libraries with the technical qualifications. A caution should be considered to research the references for anything revised or developed in the past ten years, as "best available science" rather than "sound peer reviewed science" may be the basis for the report.
http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/appendixes/AppendA.html
http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/techref.htm

-------------
Last, looking at the hand out from the BLM, page 3, para 1, what is the designation "Route P71"(a dirt road) mean? I read it as Suprise Canyon, what does the desig "P71" stand for?
-------------

Route P71 is the name description the BLM assigned to Surprise Canyon Road during the map drawing phase of the Desert Protection Act (DPA) of 1994. P71 is the descriptor used by the BLM for Surprise Canyon Road. Route P71 and Surprise Canyon Road are the same route.

This takes us back to the CBD lawsuit, where the CBD asserts that the BLM failed it's responsibility to honor the ESA and the DPA, because it has failed to assign a travel classification to the route P71 when the Wilderness maps were drawn.

The travel classification options are simple: Open (full access, street legal and OHV), limited (street legal only and/or administrative only), or closed (no motorized access). More classifications are possible.

A casual observer would believe Inyo County has already determined the travel classification, with the grandfathered road status? Travel classifications were revised under the Clinton Administration, with it being highly unlikely that the county has made a prior ruling. The question of the BLM having juristiction to choose the travel classification, over Inyo County, is unasked and unanswered. Inyo County can chose to let the BLM make the selection, and agree to it or assert it's RS2477 rights and overule the BLM decision.

The public can influence the decision, through the BLM and Inyo County, by requesting a preference for any of the Alternative travel classifications (the next phase of the BLM process, after the Alternates are published). This is why getting the Alternates recreation users want published in the selection is so important, as the past Administration (at times) appeared to overlook supporting recreation as a possible Alternate.

The "open access' alternate is important if you ever want to take an OHV "green sticker" rock buggy or ATV up the canyon (a non-street legal vehicle). The value of allowing a child to drive is also only supported by the "open access" alternative (a "limited" to street legal only classification applies to the vehicle and driver).

I personally would enjoy (and do value) the opportunity to have my children to be able to actively learn responsible wheeling by driving and winching an ATV up Surprise Canyon Road for a legal Backcountry Recreation experience. An ATV experience will provide both cultural and natural resource education, and self-confidance skills. I believe the resource respect and education learned through participation in backcountry driving is unparalled as a beneficial experience for our youth.

This activity was legal before the temporary closure, and will only be legal with an "open access" travel classification (and we have to tell the BLM to include it as an Alternative).

I highly recommend talking to a land rights Attorney for more information on the legal and juristiction aspects. I am not a land rights Attorney. Blue Ribbon, United, Cal 4 Wheel, and CORVA, all have resources that can provide some insight, including the roadblocks. If we could get all of these groups to share resources and knowledge with less trepidation, it would be much easier for the member public to learn how to better manage the process and achieve our goals.

Happy Trails!

my brain hurts now, but I think I can write another letter with more intellect content after reading this! :D

I somehow knew Ed would step in and give an understandable explanation. :D Thanks Ed!