Bill · S. 90· Senate(119-S-90)
Historic Roadways Protection Act
- Introduced
- 1/14/2025
- Last activity
- 2/4/2026 — Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
- Sponsored by
- Mike Lee
- Cosponsors
- - 1 - 0
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Historic Roadways Protection Act. It stops the Secretary of the Interior from using federal funds to finalize or implement new travel management plans for specific travel management areas in Utah. It also stops the use of funds to implement certain existing travel management plans in Utah. This prohibition lasts until the Secretary certifies to Congress that specific R.S. 2477 court cases are fully adjudicated. Holding our officials accountable means tracking how these funds and restrictions impact public lands.
Yes
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?+3
Local Utah residents and recreational access advocates may benefit from halting restrictive federal travel management plans.
Does this leave more decisions to the states?+3
The legislation restricts federal agency actions in Utah pending the resolution of state-involved R.S. 2477 court cases.
The opposite
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?-3
The bill halts federal travel management plans in Utah until extensive litigation is resolved, delaying coordinated land management.
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?-2
Halting travel management plans could delay conservation efforts and environmental protections on public lands.
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?-2
Delaying implementation of travel management plans limits structured environmental safeguards in specified Utah areas.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Halt on Specific Plans: Under Section 2(b), the Secretary of the Interior is prohibited from spending federal funds to finalize or implement new travel management plans for ten specific areas, including the Henry Mountains and Fremont Gorge Travel Management Area and the San Rafael Swell Travel Management Area, as well as implementing four other named plans like the San Rafael Desert Travel Management Plan. This might be seen as positive for individuals or groups who want to prevent these specific federal travel management plans from moving forward until ongoing court cases are resolved.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Indefinite Hold on Management Plans: Under Section 2(a)(1) and Section 2(b), the restriction on using funds lasts until every single one of the twenty-two listed R.S. 2477 court cases is fully adjudicated and certified to Congress. This could be considered a negative burden if individuals or groups rely on these travel management plans for organized land use, environmental protection, or recreation, as the bill delays the finalization and implementation of these plans for an unspecified and potentially very long time.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Improves Public Land Management-3Improves Environmental Protections-2Reduces Carbon Emissions-2
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Rural Residents+3
- Governance And Ideology
- Increase States Rights+3
- 2/4/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
- 12/2/2025
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-237.
- 1/14/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
John CurtisRepublican · Utah