A recent federal court decision has resulted in the closure of more than 2,200 miles of designated off-highway vehicle (OHV) routes across the Mojave Desert. These closures are not the result of new legislation, new science, or a change in land management policy by Congress. Instead, they stem from how a federal court interpreted and enforced so-called “minimization criteria” during litigation over BLM’s West Mojave travel management plan.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act directs the Bureau of Land Management to manage public lands for multiple use while preventing unnecessary or undue degradation. The statute does not mandate impact minimization as a controlling objective, nor does it authorize the agency to subordinate congressionally recognized recreational uses to a preservation-first standard. Recent litigation and internal policy guidance have transformed the 2001 minimization criteria from an implementation tool into a substantive mandate that effectively requires elimination of motorized access wherever impacts are measurable. In light of Loper Bright v. Raimondo and the Court’s directive that agencies may not rely on implied deference to expand statutory authority, the continued application of 43 CFR 8342.1 in its current form raises serious questions regarding its consistency with FLPMA.
As a result of this ruling, routes that had already gone through years of review and public input, through NEPA have effectively lost their legal authorization forcing BLM to close them during a court-ordered remand.
What FLPMA Actually Requires
FLPMA does not require BLM to eliminate access or close routes by default. The statute directs land managers to minimize adverse impacts, while still managing public lands for multiple use.
Specifically, FLPMA instructs agencies to:
- (A) prevent unnecessary degradation on the natural, environmental, scientific, cultural, and other resources and values (including fish and wildlife habitat) of the public lands involved; and
- (B) minimize the period and method of such use and the interference with or restrictions on other uses of the public lands involved.
In other words, FLPMA requires balance. It recognizes that public lands are meant to be used for multiple purposes, for recreation, access, and traditional activities and that impacts should be managed, not assumed to be unacceptable simply because use occurs.
How Minimization Criteria Have Gone Too Far
The WEMO outcome demonstrates that the minimization criteria, as currently interpreted, function not as a guardrail against undue degradation but as a mechanism for eliminating lawful multiple-use access without clear statutory authorization.
Under this expanded interpretation:
- Minimization is treated as something that must be proven route-by-route, often to an undefined or moving standard
- Post-designation mitigation and management tools are discounted or dismissed
- Route closures are favored over adaptive management
- Access is reduced even where impacts are speculative, indirect, or already addressed through existing measures
This approach renders most of FLPMA meaningless. Instead of minimizing impacts while allowing use, minimization becomes a justification for eliminating use altogether.
The problem with the current application of minimization criteria is that it lacks clear limits, consistency, or grounding in the statute itself. FLPMA does not require BLM to choose the least-use option possible, nor does it require that access be sacrificed whenever impacts are alleged.
Yet under this framework, courts can second-guess agency decisions years later and invalidate entire route networks simply because a sole judge determines that "minimization" was not sufficiently documented to their own satisfaction.
This creates a system where public access can be erased through litigation, land managers are incentivized to close routes rather than defend balanced use and the multiple-use mandate is replaced with closures by default.
Why This Matters Beyond the Mojave
If minimization criteria continue to be interpreted this way, similar outcomes can occur anywhere BLM manages land. BlueRibbon Coalition has long flagged this overreach, which is why we've advocated for its rescission or revision.
BlueRibbon Coalition is calling on the Department of the Interior to intervene by rescinding or revising the current minimization framework, and restore a land-use approach that reflects what FLPMA actually requires: preventing unnecessary degradation while promoting responsible public access. Urge the DOI and your representatives to support balanced management via the form below.
