## Facts

- The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) managed Utah public lands under Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) resource management plans (RMPs) for Box Elder County and Grand County that designated certain lands as open to off-road vehicle (ORV) use.
- In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the BLM issued orders closing or restricting ORV use in portions of those areas to protect wildlife, habitat, and other resources.
- The BLM issued Box Elder County closure/restriction orders in 1999 and 2000, later revoked them, and issued a new order in 2003 changing the ORV management approach.
- Utah Shared Access Alliance (USA-ALL), an organization whose members use motorized vehicles for recreation and access, sued BLM officials challenging the closures under FLPMA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
- The district court dismissed USA-ALL’s claims and entered judgment for the BLM; USA-ALL appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the BLM’s ORV closure and restriction orders were unlawful de facto amendments to the RMPs requiring FLPMA plan-amendment procedures.
2. Whether NEPA required an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for the ORV closure and restriction orders.
3. Whether USA-ALL had standing to assert its NDAA claim under the zone-of-interests test.
4. Whether challenges to the 1999 and 2000 Box Elder orders were moot after revocation and replacement by the 2003 order.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the BLM on the FLPMA and NEPA claims, holding the closures were valid land-management measures rather than de facto RMP amendments.
- The court held USA-ALL lacked standing to pursue the NDAA claim because its recreational access interests were outside the NDAA provision’s zone of interests.
- The court held challenges directed at the revoked 1999 and 2000 Box Elder orders were moot due to the superseding 2003 order.
- The court otherwise affirmed dismissal of the remaining claims.

## Legal Principles

- Under FLPMA, BLM may impose localized or interim restrictions on ORV use to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation without necessarily amending an RMP, so long as the action fits within the plan’s management framework.
- NEPA requires an EA or EIS only for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment; protective closures intended to reduce impacts may fall below that threshold based on context and intensity.
- For statutory claims challenging federal action, a plaintiff must show its interests fall within the zone of interests protected by the statute invoked; recreational access interests may not satisfy that test for defense-readiness statutes.
- Claims challenging rescinded agency orders are moot when a superseding order eliminates the challenged action and effective relief is unavailable.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld BLM ORV closures as permissible FLPMA implementation measures, rejected the argument that the closures triggered NEPA’s EA/EIS requirements, dismissed the NDAA claim for lack of standing under the zone-of-interests test, and treated challenges to superseded closure orders as moot.


Utah Shared Access All. v. Carpenter, 463 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 2006)