119-S-90 Journalist Public Summary

Public Summary: Historic Roadways Protection Act (S. 90, 119th Congress)

Headline Summary: Put simply, the bill would halt new or existing BLM travel management plans in parts of Utah until the courts finish deciding Utah’s R.S. 2477 historic road-rights cases. [1]Congress.gov — S.90 — Historic Roadways Protection Act (bill overview, CRS summ…[5]Congress.gov — S.90 bill text

What It Does: The bill bars the Interior Department from spending money to finalize or carry out BLM travel plans in ten named areas of Utah and from implementing four specific plans (including Indian Creek/Canyon Rims, San Rafael Desert, San Rafael Swell, and Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges) during a pause that lasts until the Secretary certifies all listed R.S. 2477 cases are adjudicated. In plain terms, it puts current and new BLM route decisions on hold until the court fights over which roads are legally “historic rights-of-way” are resolved. [5]Congress.gov — S.90 bill text[1]Congress.gov — S.90 — Historic Roadways Protection Act (bill overview, CRS summ…

Why It Matters: Travel management plans decide which routes stay open to motorized use and which close to protect resources, shaping access for residents, tourists, hunters, and off-road users as well as the protection of cultural sites, habitat, and quiet recreation. In the Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges area, for example, BLM’s plan designated roughly 700 miles open to OHVs, about 100 miles for limited OHV use, and about 300 miles closed—illustrating the tradeoffs at stake. [6]Bureau of Land Management — BLM reassesses routes in the Labyrinth/Gemini Bridg…

Who’s For It:

• Sponsors: Sen. Mike Lee (R‑UT) and Sen. John Curtis (R‑UT) say the bill protects historic access and ensures courts finish ruling on R.S. 2477 claims before further closures take effect. [1]Congress.gov — S.90 — Historic Roadways Protection Act (bill overview, CRS summ…[3]Office of Sen. Mike Lee — Lee, Curtis introduce Historic Roadways Protection Ac…
• Motorized-access and off‑road advocacy groups (e.g., BlueRibbon Coalition) praise it as a way to keep routes and backcountry camping access available while litigation plays out. [3]Office of Sen. Mike Lee — Lee, Curtis introduce Historic Roadways Protection Ac…
• Utah state officials have criticized BLM’s closures in the Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges plan as federal overreach, a stance aligned with pausing implementation until legal disputes are settled. [7]Utah Department of Natural Resources — Utah authorities challenge BLM travel ma…

Who’s Against It:

• Conservation groups such as the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance support BLM’s travel plans and have defended them in court, arguing closures are needed to protect cultural resources and natural quiet; they oppose efforts to delay or reverse the plans. [4]Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance — Court rejects effort to block BLM Labyrinth…[8]Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance — SUWA statement opposing BLM plan changes in…

What’s Next: The bill was introduced on January 14, 2025 and referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; a hearing in its Public Lands, Forests, and Mining Subcommittee was held on December 2, 2025. It has not received a committee vote or a floor vote as of today. [1]Congress.gov — S.90 — Historic Roadways Protection Act (bill overview, CRS summ…[2]U.S. Senate ENR Committee — Senate Energy and Natural Resources: Subcommittee h…