Help Us Rescind the Minimization Criteria

At the heart of every land use decision affecting closure of our public lands to OHV, both with administrative agencies of BLM and Forest Service, and court decisions is the Minimization Criteria. This regulation became the backbone for nearly every modern Travel Management Plan (TMP), route designation decision, OHV closure decision, and litigation involving motorized access. The minimization criteria requires that BLM must locate OHV routes to minimize impacts to

1) Resource damage (including soils, watersheds, vegetation, air quality, and other public land resources-and to prevent impairment of wilderness suitability.

2) Wildlife impacts including wildlife harassment and habitat disruption, with special attention to endangered or threatened speciies.

3) User Conflicts between motorized users, nonmotorized recreation, and nearby populated areas, including noise considerations.

4) Protection of Special areas such as wilderness and primitive areas.

The rule was not established under FLPMA by Congress and was not even alluded to when it discussed the principal of the multiple use mandate and sustained yield. It was created by Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 under Presidents Nixon and Carter, and resulted in the adoption of CFR 8342.1.

In the final days of the last administration, Nada Culver, BLM’s Former Director, published a blistering BLM Policy Memorandum on the application of the Minimization Criteria directing BLM employees to strictly enforce a requirement that they minimize OHV impacts (use) in every land use decision. Culver included a precursor ruling on the WEMO case that is the subject of the current closure. UPLA and BlueRibbon Coalition have been working to get this rule rescinded ever since Culver published her Memo, along with the underlying 1970s era Executive Orders. (See our joint petition urging recission of the minimization criteria.)

The great news is that we’re getting very close to a positive result. Next month we have a meeting with a key policy analyst in Washington DC that is receptive to our request. What they have asked for us to bring to the meeting is evidence of public support for this action.