Click to Visit

The challenge we’ve always faced with Travel Management is that we’re always playing catch up with only 30 days for most comment periods, by the time we get the word out and ask people to go out and write comments, we’re playing catch up and don’t have time to run trails or provide great comments to persuade BLM or Forest Service to Keep them Open.

UPLA launched Trail Saver, a new tool for you to prepare notes after each ride you go on, anywhere in Utah. There’s nothing more effective than putting your thoughts in writing right after your ride when everything is fresh in your mind, and your photos and gpx tracks are easily available. If you spend just 5-10 minutes writing a brief report, it will really help us collect better data. Once you submit the form, it will email you a formatted copy of your comments for that trail along with some helpful hints that will make it easy to submit your comments when they are needed. We all think of something else right after we hit submit, Trail Saver allows you to edit or add to your comments, and will immediately send you a revised report. UPLA, BlueRibbon, and local clubs working that area may also be copied on the comments so that they can also assist.

You don’t have to worry about confusing dates either, once the comment period opens for that Travel Management Plan, Trail Saver will email you a reminder with all of your comments, photos, tracks, ratings, etc, along with more tips and instructions on how to submit them to BLM and or Forest Service. For the system to work effectively, you will need the BLM or Forest Service Route numbers, so I recommend you take a pic of those signs as you go by them and include those when submitting your form.

TrailSaver reports should be thought of as your notes about what makes keeping the route open important, views, dispersed campsites, challenging or easy, significant vistas, connections to other important routes can all be important. Make an effort to write short notes on every trail you go on, and let Trail Saver keep track of them. When it’s time to submit comments to BLM, TrailSaver will email you your report along with all your photos and other attachments to make it easy to submit great comments. Unfortunately, 90% of all comments submitted to BLM are not considered because they don’t meet BLM “substantive comment” standards. To learn what makes your comments make a stronger impact, watch our series of short videos on Youtube, or click on this helpful BLM link

Order and display TrailSaver stickers on your rigs so you can explain the program to others you run into. You can order stickers for yourself, group, or club at www.TrailSaver.com

Comments are now open for Henry Mountains and Fremont Gorge, which you should submit to BLM. Other areas coming soon will be Trail Canyon and Pausaugant in Kanab and Dino North in Vernal, so we especially need reports on these, but please submit reports everywhere you go in

Click to visit

UPLA is focused on three strategies to keep and recapture our loss of access to our public lands, especially for motorized OHV. One powerful option for us is working through the court system. In order to understand this, it’s helpful to have a good understanding of how our judiciary is setup.

Article III of the US Constitution established the Judicial Power of the United States in one Supreme Court, and Inferior courts as Congress may ordain and establish. Thus cases will begin in a Federal District Court, where the facts of the case are presented and a decision is rendered by applying the Facts of the Case with the Law. In cases of high importance and dispute, appeals can be filed with the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals where a panel of judges will hear and decide the matter.

There are 13 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal, and sometimes different Circuits consider similar facts yet result in different decisions. This is often the path that causes a case to be eligible for submission to the US Supreme Court. Getting a case through District and Appeals Courts is a lengthy, complex and expensive process, which cause us to make important decisions on choosing the cases that will have the greatest impact and also with the highest potential for success through the entire process.

Having the Supreme Court hear a case is immensely tougher, the Supreme Court receives around 7000 requests for review each year, and typically only hears about 70, but it is the only way disputes determine what the “law of the land” is in all 50 states.

Here’s the ways disputes get to the Supreme Court:

• Death Penalty cases– All death penalty decisions are automatically reviewed by the US Supreme Court
• Petition for Writ of Certiorari-When a party is dissatisfied with the decision of a U.S. Court of Appeals or the highest court in a given state, they can apply to the Supreme Court. These cases typically involve conflicts in law, very Important and unusual cases, cases where different circuits have rendered conflicting decisions, or cases where a lower court disregards past precedents or involve questions of Constitutionality. The Supreme Court has complete discretion in choosing which cases they will hear. Once a petition (application) is received by the Court, the Court will review it and vote on whether to hear it. Certification of the writ (agreeing to hear the case) requires 4 of the 9 Justices to vote in favor of hearing the case.
• Disputes of Original Jurisdiction-The Supreme Court can hear a case as the original court in a few limited exceptions, generally involving disputes between the states, disputes between a state and foreign powers, or cases where a state is the Petitioner.

Parties interested in expressing their legal opinions on a pending action before the Supreme Court are allowed to file “amicus briefs” on behalf of their organizations/clients. These briefs can be filed both during the application (certification) process and during the preparation for oral arguments phase.

Prior to hearing oral arguments, the Justices get fully prepared in the history of the case. They obtain all the court documents and exhibits, and then each Justice, along with their law clerks review that material along with all the briefs before oral arguments are made. Oral arguments give the attorneys the opportunity to briefly summarize their case, but more importantly it gives them the opportunity to ask questions. After oral arguments are done, the Justices will meet in private conference just a few days later to discuss and vote on the case. The majority vote from that conference becomes the decision, and they begin preparation of their written decision, as well as any dissenting opinions. Although the decisions are made within days of oral arguments, most of the decisions are not released until May or June.  Once that decision is released, it sets precedent for all other courts in the country.

The Supreme Court is currently made up of 6 justices that were appointed by Republican presidents and considered to be conservative leaning. 3 of the justices appointed by Democrat presidents and considered to be liberal leaning. With the Court’s current majority of conservative justices, the chances for land use disputes and stricter interpretation of the Federal government’s authority is more favorable for not only BlueRibbon and UPLA, but also the State of Utah.

Here are some important cases that have recently been decided or pending before the Supreme Court

• West Virginia v EPA 2022- Introduced the Major Questions Doctrine that bars agencies from resolving questions of economic and political significance without clear statutory authorization. This decision specifically limited the EPAs authority unless they could prove the underlying statutory authority from Congress. This will place a limit on all administrative agencies.
• Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo 2024-Eliminated Chevron Deference Doctrine. The Chevon Deference came from a 1984 Supreme Court decision which required that lower courts give deference to administrative agencies as being the experts when a statutes were silent or ambiguous. It will require that Congress specifically define the authority an agency has, without that authority, they will be denied. Many suits never were actually heard by the Court due to application of Chevon. As a footnote, lead counsel for this case was Paul Clement, the same attorney in the below Utah v. United States case.
• Corner Post v, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 2024-Most claims for lawsuits often are limited by a statute of limitations, or time period that the suit must be filed. Prior to this case, the time period began when the law or rule was published. In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Statute period begins when the plaintiff is injured. This clear definition will enable matters previously barred by the statute of limitations to be heard in the courts.
• Seven County v Eagle County -To be heard during 2024-2025 session- Uinta County desired to construct a railroad line to connect the isolated Uinta basin with the national rail network. The proposal went through NEPA analysis and was approved in 2021. Eagle County, Colorado, and the Center for Biological Diversity challenged the Board’s decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, claiming the Board’s required NEPA analysis was deficient. The challengers insisted that the Board should have considered the new rail line’s potential effects on increased oil drilling in Utah and Colorado, as well as oil refining activities more than 1,000 miles away along the Gulf Coast.construction. The Supreme Court now has a chance to clarify the scope of NEPA review. The decision may have significant implications for a host of important agencies and the many industries that work with them.
• Utah v. United States– This case is pending Certification before the Court. It would answer the question whether BLM has the authority to hold unappropriated public lands indefinitely. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically limits the powers of Congress, and holding land indefinitely falls outside these authorities. Utah is especially impacted because 70% (37.4 million acres) of Utah land is owned by the Federal government. Lands that have been appropriated such as for National Parks, Wilderness Areas, or National Monuments, or National Forests will not be affected. The suit will require the United States to transfer ownership of approximately 18.5 million acres. Lead Counsel for Utah is Paul Clement, one of the most respected and winningest attorneys practicing before the Supreme Court. Amicus Briefs are currently being accepted for this case.

Blueribbon Coalition is currently litigating important cases throughout the country, and UPLA believes that BlueRibbon is positioned the best to litigate these cases and others. Even though some of these cases may not directly affect Utah, wins elsewhere can be cited, so wins anywhere are important to our cause.

What is UPLA doing to support litigation?

• UPLA has principally aligned itself with BlueRibbon Coalition to litigate cases that will protect our rights for all users to access public lands. BlueRibbon has a paid professional staff to oversee and manage these efforts and also has retained the very best legal counsel
• UPLA will raise funds that will support litigation efforts, and make donations to the best efforts at protecting these rights.
• UPLA created a matching campaign in 2023 that resulted in a total donation of $112,000 to BlueRibbon Coalition for their legal defense fund.
• Because we are a volunteer driven organization without paid staff, UPLA has elected to support selected organizations in their litigation rather than acting on our own, but we may engage in other ways such as submitting Amicus Briefs.
• UPLA is available to speak at your organization or club’s meetings either in person or via Zoom. Contact us to schedule an update

How UPLA needs your help to support litigation efforts

• Join both UPLA and BlueRibbon Coalition-With every comment, call, or letter, mention your membership; this provides us with the ability to represent you in future legal actions
• Subscribe and read our newsletters and social media posts to stay informed
• Contribute as generously as you can when we ask for donations.
• Spread the word about pending cases and our fundraising efforts.

Litigation is one aspect of our strategy to protect your rights to access your public lands in the manner you choose, as long as you do so responsibly. Stay tuned to learn more about other strategies we are employing.

Judge Clark Waddoups, Senior Judge with the Utah Federal District Court, has been presiding over the consolidated Bellwether RS2477 case filed by Kane County and the State of Utah against the United States and SUWA for many years. In August, Judge Waddoups made a couple of very important rulings that show he has a clear predisposition to substantiate the rights of Utah and Kane County in preserving rights for access on RS2477 claims, of which there are almost 12,000 roads. To illustrate the importance of this it should be remembered that 120 miles of the routes closed in Moab are on existing RS2477 claims.

The first ruling was really aimed straight at SUWA, who is acting as a Intervenor Defendant with the United States. Judge Waddoups expressed that he believed the United States was interesting in settling the long running, complex, and expensive case and that SUWA was dragging it on and unwilling to settle. He was openly frustrated with SUWA’s endless motions taking up the court’s time, and he repeated and clarified his prior ruling that barred SUWA from further motions unless they are approved in advance by the court.

The second Decision in the same case was in response to a motion from BLM that would have dismissed all 12,000 RS2477 claims.

Judge Waddoups approved the dismissal of a single road claim, but denied the request for dismissal of the remaining claims. Further, his 80 page Order was a memorandum of his reasoning for his decision, and went into great detail about his thinking on RS2477 Claims, and why they should be honored without the adjudication of each claim as was contained in prior orders. The decision is very interesting reading, and it seems clear that Judge Waddoups is going to flip the tables on RS2477 road claims, putting BLM on the defense to refute claims rather than requiring the State to gain approval on each claim.

Judge Waddoups made a couple other important distinctions in his ruling:

• Cited the recent Corner Post Supreme Court case to refute many of the statute of limitations motions to dismiss, another win for public land users
• Introduced many theories about why the 2017 BLM SUWA Settlement Agreement may be on shaky ground. This is the reason we are in the process of revisiting 17 Utah Travel Management Plans.

The case is still ongoing, but it appears Judge Waddoups wants to see it close soon, but he’s shown us a peek behind the curtain. This ruling is so monumental that the information I’ve been hearing is that BLM is reconsidering their current TMP/RMP processes in Utah. Once the case is is closed and the decision published, it can be cited in many other land use claims.

Here’s the ruling in its entirety with highlighting of some of the key findings.

This interactive map shows the open and closed routes in each of the San Rafael Swell Travel Management Alternatives. To display different results, click on the button in the upper right corner of the map. Thank you to AZ Backroads for this great tool.JTNDaWZyYW1lJTIwc3R5bGUlM0QlMjJ3aWR0aCUzQTEwMCUyNSUzQmhlaWdodCUzQTUwMHB4JTNCYm9yZGVyJTNBbm9uZSUzQiUyMiUyMHNyYyUzRCUyMmh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGbWFwcy5hemJhY2tyb2Fkcy5jb20lMkZtYXBzJTJGc2FuLXJhZmFlbC1zd2VsbCUyRmluZGV4Lmh0bWwlMjMxMSUyRjM4Ljg2NDMlMkYtMTEwLjgzOTAlMjIlM0UlM0MlMkZpZnJhbWUlM0U=

The Preliminary Alternatives for the San Rafael Swell were released today, and both Alternatives B and C have a huge number of routes proposed for closure. I have been in contact with the Price Field Manager and will report when we get further details and develop a plan of action. These Preliminary Alternatives are an extra step in the process before they issue the Draft EA. This gives us extra time to be able to analyze these routes and be ready to comment before the Draft EA is released. You can view the alternatives here by clicking here

Tammy Pike opened the workshop with a question… How many of you that watched the Superbowl know why the 49ers lost?

The answer was not about the skill, motivation, or talent of the players, it was because they did not understand the overtime rules.

She told us that until we take the time to read and understood the rules that BLM and Forest Service must follow when considering a Travel Management Plan, we will continue to lose.

For the next 3 hours, she told us about some of the rules contained in Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The workshop was attended by 40 leaders from all around Utah and some surrounding states, and the questions were fast paced and the answers came back quickly. The people in the room are some of the best educated people in OHV, and we all felt like we were drinking out of a firehose. The bottom line is that we need to change how we’re playing the game if we really want to win.

At Your Leisure recorded the entire session, and is in the process of editing it into 10-15 minute segments organized by subject, but we will begin developing the new game strategy and relating it to you over the coming weeks. We ask that you stay tuned for the steps ahead, and share them with all your friends to help us keep our public lands open to all responsible users.

Our first article with steps to begin taking for protecting the San Rafael Swell and Bears Ears National Monument can be found here