public land access

[baltz526]

is there a way to access rudio mountain http://terraserver.microsoft.com/ima...X=23&Y=386&W=3

[sliverpicker]

On foot, bicycle, or horse!

[baltz526]

so there is no legal road access, unless you are coming accross private ranch roads, with written permission. this is my question

[sliverpicker]

I just PM'd ya

[baltz526]

here is how we lost a big chunk of it
OREGON LAND EXCHANGE ACT OF 2000 -- (House of Representatives - July 25, 2000)
This is a large exchange; and all I can do in part is rely upon the governor, the advocates, like Oregon Trout and Native Fish Society, the environmental groups that are the most knowledgeable of the area about the benefits, and try to weigh those benefits against what I am told are some [Page: H6866] GPO's PDFdetrimental exchanges on isolated parcels.

Unfortunately, I believe that at this point we cannot fix what minor problems might result, and we are threatened with harvest along the north fork of the John Day this summer or next fall if this exchange does not go forward. The owners there have withheld harvest for 3 or 4 years, and now this year went in and actually marked trees along the north fork, and I do know of the benefits and I am very familiar with that area.
The ranking member has recently revealed a report from the GAO which goes to the issue of land exchanges and problems with land exchanges; and I am hopeful that my efforts and the efforts of other members of the Oregon delegation, the resource agencies involved, and the interest groups that have scrutinized this have prevented any of those problems from recurring in this particular legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I would again, although unfortunately it comes very late in the process, I would enter the letter from the Friends of Rudio Mountain, Inc., into the RECORD at this point in time raising their concerns about that particular aspect of the exchange:
FRIENDS OF RUDIO MOUNTAIN, INC.
Forest Grove, OR, July 20, 2000.
Representative PETER DEFAZIO,
RHOB, Washington, DC.
DEAR PETER DEFAZIO: We are writing today with new and extremely important information that you should be informed of regarding the Oregon Land Exchange Act of 2000 (HR2950). The following new information gives the public moral grounds to ask you to stop all legislation regarding The Oregon Land Exchange Act Of 2000 (HR2950).
Our first concern is that misleading information has kept the public in the dark. We want to make it clear that Prineville District BLM officials have told us from the start that the Congressional Trade (HR2950) followed PHASE 1 of the NOALE Land Exchange. We were told that the maps in the FEIS for the NOALE were the same as the maps that you are using for The Oregon Land Exchange Act. This is not the truth.
Two weeks ago we received a set of the maps that outline the lands involved in (HR2950). Our group and many other special interest groups were not aware that entirely different maps were involved or that certain public lands of such high value in critical areas were being disposed of in (HR2950) until we reviewed maps 1 through 6. Had we known that the Congressional Trade was based on a different set of maps and that it intended to dispose of parcels of public land not set for disposal in PHASE 1 of NOALE we would have offered stormy opposition and this Bill would most likely have died at the onset. We are certain that if the true clear picture would have been laid out the Bill would not have had any supporters.
Please note that on July 19th Jessica Hamilton from Congressman David Wu's office spoke with one of the public officials that has been involved from the start with the NOALE exchange and (HR2950). During her conversation with him he told her the same misleading information that we had been led to believe. He firmly told her that he was not aware of any Rudio Mountain land at all that was involved in the Congressional Bill and that he was certain that no public land defined as Phase 2 Disposal Parcels in the FEIS were involved in (H.R. 2950). On this same date he told us that he was not aware that the Congressional Bill maps were different from those of the PHASE 1 maps of the FEIS, furthermore, he told us once again the same information that he had told to Jessica Hamilton. He kept insisting it was true until we told him that we had documents in our possession to prove him wrong. He firmly denied sending us anything at which point we reminded him that we had a map that he had outlined for us and other correspondence from him and that we were going to the State Director regarding certain matters. At this point he admitted that several thousand acres of PHASE 2 Rudio Mountain public land had been put into the Congressional trade because it contained Old-Growth Timber. He told us not to worry about it because the BLM was opposed to disposing of any Rudio Mountain land and even if Congress passed the Bill the BLM definitely would not allow those parcels to be traded away and that the NEPA process had not been completed on those parcels so BLM could not get rid of them even if Congress passed the Bill. Talk about being led down the garden path! Shortly after this conversation this public official put in a call to Jessica Hamilton to clarify certain matters. I have not had the opportunity to discuss the matter with Jessica to see exactly what he clarified.
Our second major concern is that the public lands involved do not meet the requirements of the Congressional Bill. (H.R. 2950) is defeating the purpose for land trades in Oregon. The agencies are not disposing of isolated parcels of public land as they would like the public to believe. (H.R. 2950) will dispose of large parcels of public land that are adjacent to other public land, for example, (SEE MAP 4), T12S R28E, Parcels 117B--139A--139B, (consisting of about 1500 acres), T12S R29E, Parcel 145, T12S R30E, Parcel 150A, (about 600 acres surrounded by public land and adjoining a major highway), to name just a few examples. Parcels like this have been targeted because they contain Old-Growth Timber. These public lands are currently being utilized by the public at large. To call them isolated or hard to manage is extremely misleading. In this same locale many parcels that are in fact isolated with no public access have been skipped over as they contain no Old-Growth Timber. In some areas small portions of large blocks of public land have been marked for disposal. Why would the agencies want to break apart large parcels when they could offer parcels that are truly small, isolated and separated from larger tracts. The answer is crystal clear, they contain no Valuable Old-Growth Timber.
Our third concern is that we have been involved in public meetings with the agencies regarding the NOALE exchange from the very beginning. The original EIS and FEIS for the NOALE exchange concerned only public lands that were marked for PHASE 1 of the process but it also listed lands that were being considered for a PHASE 2 exchange. PHASE 2 public land consisted mainly of high value Old-Growth habitat and critical wildlife habitat in the vicinity of Rudio Mountain. We have corresponded with the BLM regarding Rudio Mountain Lands for a number of years. BLM officials have always assured us both verbally and in writing that they would never trade any land in the vicinity of Rudio Mountain unless they could gain private land on Rudio Mountain that would block up to other public land that would benefit the public.
Some time ago former Congresswoman Elizabeth Furse and former Senator Mark Hatfield forwarded over 100 statements from individual people to the BLM addressing this very issue. The BLM had a firm agreement with us that no Rudio Mountain public land would ever be traded for land anywhere else except for on Rudio Mountain. In (H.R. 2950) over 8000 acres of the very best public land on Rudio Mountain will be forfeited in exchange for logged over land hundreds of miles from Rudio Mountain.
Attached hereto as EXHIBIT A is a letter that we sent to Jessica Hamilton to assist her in researching our concerns. EXHIBIT A outlines some of the parcels of public land that we are concerned with.
Will you stand by while hundreds of people are deceived through this Congressional Land Exchange. Will you stand by and let some of the most beautiful, untouched land in the State of Oregon be put into the control of a third party facilitator whose only interest is to reap outlandish profits by placing the public land into the hands of private parties and the Old-Growth Timber into the hands of private industries. Rudio Mountain public lands contain some of the best critical wildlife habitat and outstanding Old-Growth left in the State of Oregon. This valuable habitat in harmony with other things is responsible for producing and maintaining some of the best quality and wholesome wildlife in the Western States.
We can not afford to lose these treasures. We have walked these lands and forests for decades and our love for this land, for the forests and the wildlife is overflowing. To take such simple yet important pleasures from us would be heartbreaking.
Once again we ask you to stand with us and stop this land exchange. In closing this letter we have two requests. First, please consider the facts that we have set forth, second, please take one minute to look deep into our hearts before you make any decisions for our future and those that will come after us, who shall one day yearn to walk through the special places where we walk today. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Kathleen R. Kidwell,
For Friends of Rudio Mountain, Inc., & Others In Opposition To The Land Exchanges.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. WALDEN), who has done a remarkable job on this piece of legislation and actually has a companion bill with this Senate bill we are considering, H.R. 2950.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me and his hard work on this legislation. I thank him for his time and help on it.
I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DEFAZIO) as well, with whom I have worked on this and several other pieces of legislation in this session in a partnership that I think benefits all of our constituents in Oregon. We need to continue to work to move all those bills through the process and down to the President's desk.
I also want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. YOUNG), and others who have worked in a bipartisan effort on this compromise legislation, including our Oregon Senators, Senator WYDEN and Senator SMITH.
The reason this bill passed unanimously out of the Senate and the [Page: H6867] GPO's PDFHouse Committee on Resources is because people know it is good for the environment and good for the people. It will add 54 1/2 miles of threatened and endangered species habitat for Bull Trout, Chinook Salmon, Mid-Columbia Steelhead, and Westslope Cutthroat Trout. It will add over 71 1/2 miles of riparian zones under Federal management. It will increase public land holdings within the Wild and Scenic River System corridors by over 1,300 acres. It will increase commercial forest land under management by Federal agencies by more than 5,218 acres.

And as we have heard already, it is supported by Oregon's Democrat Governor John Ktizhaber, Oregon Trout, Oregon Trout Unlimited, Native Fish Society, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs, and the Umatilla Reservations, to name just a few.
Mr. Speaker, this stack of documents I have in this box next to me, which I will not dump out on the table, but certainly could, weighs more than 13 pounds. It is some 5 years' worth of National Environmental Protection Act processes and failed time lines in an attempt to execute this exchange administratively. We have seen two U.S. Forest Service environmental impact assessments, a draft EIS for the Triangle Exchange, draft EIS and final EIS for the Northeast Assembled Land Exchange; we have had official consultation with all four impacted native American tribes, each of which supports the exchanges; and had formal consultation with and concurrence by the National Marine Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
This bill goes so far as to take the BLM and the Forest Service's preferred alternatives from these 5 years of NEPA processes and includes the preferred alternatives in this act.
Mr. Speaker, this is a sound environmental bill, providing sought-after Federal management of these vital salmon and steelhead streams. We cannot afford to allow these exchanges to fall apart due to bureaucratic failings and an increased hypersensitivity to land exchanges both good and bad.
Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concerns about land exchanges and will continue to vigorously review them as they come before this body to make sure the public gets its due in any exchanges that may be proposed.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) that the House suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S.1629.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TONext Hit Forward Next Document New CR SearchPrev Hit Back Prev Document HomePageHit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help Contents Display

[Rank Amateur]

I thought there was a law suit a number of years ago, to open up a public road that a private land owner had blocked. What happened with that?

[baltz526]

here is the law that gives us permanent right of access to the area

The "in’s and out’s" of RS2477 roads

In October, 2001, ICIE and the Idaho Department of Lands cosponsored workshops on RS 2477 roads in Idaho Falls and Boise. ICIE also organized similar workshops in Coeur d’Alene and Grangeville in December, 2001. The following material is extracted from the presentations of Lorna Jorgensen, Idaho Attorney General’s Office, Sheldon Kinsel, Executive Director of the Western Counties Alliance, and Murreleen Skeen, Boundary County Commissioner. Additional information comes from the web sites listed on page 4.
What is RS 2477 and what does it have to do with roads?
The Mining Law of 1866 included language that said "The right-of-way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public purposes, is hereby granted." Congress wanted to encourage settlement of the West and to make sure that people would be able to access state or private land across federally managed land.
In 1873, this section of the mining law was separated and reenacted as Revised Statute (RS) 2477. In 1938, this same section was re-codified into U.S. Code as 43 U.S.C. Section 932.
RS 2477 was repealed in 1976 with the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act but under 43 U.S.C. Section 1769, all 2477 rights of way that existed on October 21, 1976 were expressly preserved.
RS2477 law was a self executing law which consisted of a grant by Congress directly to the public, bypassing the executive branch. In fact, the Interior Department regulations in 1934 say, in essence, that on an RS2477 right of way grant there is no action required by a federal agency. The regulations recognize that it was a grant made directly by Congress to the people.
These rights of way were created by public use, by actual construction of roads by state or local governments, or by law which accepted rights of way for future construction. They can be trails, wagon roads or highways.
What does "reserved for public purposes" mean?
Public lands reserved for public purposes are those that were designated for other uses such as national forest lands, grazing districts, wildlife refuges, homesteads, lands
granted to the state, or exchanged with private lands. The rights of way that were constructed or used before the transfer would remain valid but no new RS2477 rights of way would be granted once the lands were reserved for other uses such as national forest systems or homesteads.
What types of roads can be included as RS 2477 rights of way?
Many RS 2477 rights of way started as trails used by Native Americans and then early miners and settlers. They might also have been built to access a mining claim in the early part of Idaho’s history. While they may have started as trails, today these rights of way may be well-traveled roads in our national forests or even some of Idaho’s state highways. Some still exist as trails.
Are all roads in Idaho’s national forests or on BLM land RS 2477 roads?
No. To qualify as a 2477 right of way in a national forest, the road would have had to exist before the land was reserved or placed in a national forest. For example, parts of the Boise National Forest were reserved or created from "public lands" in 1908 and 1910. To qualify as an RS 2477 right of way, a road would have to have been in existence before the land was transferred into the national forest system.
To qualify on BLM land that has not been designated or reserved for "public purposes", a RS 2477 right of way or road would have to have been in place before the passage of FLPMA in 1976.
To establish a valid RS2477 right of way, a person has to provide proof that the right of way existed before the land was used for other purposes. Proof can be in the form of historic maps, diaries, or county, Forest Service or BLM documents or other evidence.
Can RS 2477 rights of way exist on private land?
Yes, if the right of way existed on public land before it passed into private hands, it might still be a valid RS2477 right of way.
Why is the issue of RS2477 rights of way so controversial?
The controversy involves two main issues: private property rights and public access.
Most of the land in the West was originally managed by the Federal government to facilitate settlement. The Federal government transferred land into private hands in a variety of ways: sales, grants to the states, grants to the railroads, homestead grants, Desert Entry Act grants. A 2477 road that existed before the land was transferred into private or state hands can still exist after the transfer.
A problem can arise when a road that has been used by the public over the years is closed by a new property owner cutting off public access to the federal land that borders the property. One of the most high profile cases in recent years involved a well-known singer-song writer who chose to close a road on her property that some contended was a 2477 right of way. In this instance, the court found in favor of the property owner because there was evidence that some years before the county had abandoned that right of way.
Most of the land in the original colonies had been transferred into private hands long before the West was settled. That’s why there are such large tracts of land in the West that are managed by the Federal government. The land had not all been settled and transferred to private ownership before the Federal government created the national forest system. Once Congress created a national forest, for the most part, the land within those boundaries could not be sold or homesteaded or otherwise transferred into private hands. Of course there are exceptions even today, where the federal government trades land or even buys land within a forest’s boundaries for ease of management.
When the BLM was created by Congress in 1946, it took over management of the federal lands, mostly in the West, that had not been transferred to the states, into private hands, or designated as national forest lands, national parks, wildlife refuges or not otherwise "reserved for public purposes."
There have been a variety of court cases since passage of the original law in 1866, but the issue of RS2477 rights of way jumped into the limelight in 1992, when a proposed wilderness expansion in the state of Utah was blocked by proving the existence of these rights of way. The argument was that existence of RS2477 rights of way made the area invalid for wilderness since the Wilderness Act of 1964 states that there shall be no permanent roads in a wilderness which are "subject to existing private rights."
The battle over RS 2477 rights of way has continued. County commissioners and groups looking to maintain access in national forests and on BLM land have worked to identify these rights of way on federal land in order to prevent closure of existing roads and trails and maintain public access on these federally managed lands. Environmental activists have lobbied for
legislation or regulation that would severely limit RS2477 rights of way by giving authority to federal land management agencies to require permits or to place regulations and restrictions on these rights of way.
Who has jurisdiction over 2477 rights of way?
In creating these rights of way, Congress bypassed the executive branch and granted them directly to the people. In Idaho, the county commissioners have authority to recognize or assert these rights of way with the federal agencies. However, state law also applies.
A dispute over an RS2477 right of way on federally managed land would be argued in a federal court. If the right of way is on state lands, the dispute would go before a state court.
Does the county have to provide maintenance on 2477 roads on federal land?
No, a 2477 right of way can have been established either by use or actual construction. Many of these rights of way started as game trails. Even after the county has asserted that a road is a 2477 right of way, it does not have to take responsibility for maintaining that road.
What are other states doing about RS2477 rights of way?
About 4 years ago, New Mexico tapped into a $7 million surplus that had built up in the 911 emergency fund paid by telephone customers. The state made this money available on a grant basis to counties and cities to find the addresses and locate all of the telephone users in the counties and in the cities where emergency services might be needed.
For example, Sandoval County got $260,000 from the 911 fund to do address verification and identification of all the places in the county where emergency services might be needed. In addition to mapping locations of telephone users, the county set out to map roads that led to oil wells, campgrounds, trailheads–any road that might lead to people or someplace that provided an economic benefit. That process led to mapping RS2477 rights of way.
Utah has been involved in mapping RS2477 rights of way because of wilderness issues. RS 2477 roads are clearly a critical element of the wilderness debate because of the various criteria to qualify as wilderness, one of the primary ones is that an area be roadless. So if there are roads there, it tends to disqualify an area from wilderness designation.
In the early 1990's, it became clear that some Utah counties did not have the resources to protect their RS2477 rights of way. Some counties were abandoning their rights of way because they did not have the money to defend them. In 1994, the state adopted a law that said that if a county abandoned or could not otherwise defend a 2477 right of way, then the right of way grant reverts to the state.
Alaska has provided funding for its Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to identify potential 2477 rights of way. It has researched over 2000 routes and found 647 that qualify. In 1998, the state legislature passed a law declaring 600 routes as RS 2477 rights of way by public use. The DNR was mandated to record them in the appropriate jurisdictions. In Alaska, statute requires legislative approval to vacate a RS2477 right of way if there is no other reasonable, comparable means of access. If an alternate route exists, the state can then vacate the RS2477 right of way.

What is Idaho doing about RS2477 rights of way?
Some counties in Idaho are actively pursuing assertion of RS 2477 rights of way on national forest and BLM land in order to maintain access to these federally administered grounds. The level of activity differs from county to county.
Boundary County, for example, is suing the federal government over the attempt by the Forest Service to obliterate the Boundary Creek Road which is considered one of the most historic roads in the area. The road was established before the national forest was reserved in 1907. The road was constructed as a mine-to-market road in 1894 to access the Continental Mine property. This mine site is on private property surrounded by national forest land. The Forest Service says this is not a RS 2477 road. The county is presenting evidence in the form of maps, commission minutes, proof of mail delivery to prove that the road existed before the forest was reserved and is a valid 2477 right of way.
Currently, the only way to settle a dispute over a RS2477 road on either public or private ground in Idaho is to go to court–either federal or state.
Several pieces of legislation have been proposed over the last two years in an attempt to clarify some of the issues surrounding these rights of way. On March 8, the Idaho House Transportation Committee sent House Bill 730 to the floor of the House with a do pass recommendation. That piece of legislation tries to clarify some of the issues surrounding RS2477 rights of way by amending existing state law and establishing a procedure at the county level to attempt to resolve disputes over RS2477 roads.
To review H730, go the Idaho Legislature site at and click on legislation to pull up a copy of the bill.
If you want to know more about RS2477 rights of way, go the Web and plug RS2477 rights of way or the Mining Law of 1866 into your search engine. Or look at the following Web sites:
www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/trails/f2477.htm (State of Alaska site)
www.suwa.org/FAQ/RS2477.html (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance site)
www.rs2477.com(Utah Association of Counties site)


Articles and Publications

• Please contact ICIE for information on recreation issues in Idaho.

[baltz526]

i did not find any oregon court cases about a rs 2477 claim on the rudio mountain area, but i'll bet there is evidence to file one.