Much of today’s regulatory approach to environmental review and off-road vehicle use is rooted in executive orders issued more than fifty years ago under President Richard Nixon. These policies were developed as early management guidance, yet they have been carried forward as if they were enduring mandates. It is reasonable to question whether directives from a different era should continue to dictate how public lands are managed today.
In 1969, at the height of growing national concern over environmental quality, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), marking the beginning of a new federal approach that emphasized environmental review and planning. Shortly after, in 1970, President Nixon issued Executive Order 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, to ensure that federal agencies implemented NEPA consistently. This order did not regulate specific activities such as motorized recreation, but instead reinforced procedural responsibilities for environmental planning.
In 1972, President Nixon issued Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands, the first directive to directly address off-road vehicle use on public lands. EO 11644 introduced a management approach based on designation and control, requiring agencies to determine where off-road vehicles could be used. In doing so, agencies were instructed to “minimize” damage to natural resources, disruption to wildlife, and conflicts with other users.
This directive—particularly the term “minimize”—would become the foundation of what is now known as the minimization criteria. At the time, however, it was presented as a balancing tool within a broader multiple-use framework, not as a mandate for restriction or a controlling standard.
As federal land policy evolved, Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976, establishing a comprehensive framework for public land retention, land use planning, and multiple-use management. It is important to note, that FLPMA didn't create minimization criteria or codify the Nixon Executive Orders to restrict OHV use. It included vague direction for agencies to avoid undue and unnecessary degradation to resources.
The following year, President Jimmy Carter amended Nixon’s order with Executive Order 11989, Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands. This amendment did not create a new framework, but it significantly strengthened the enforcement side of EO 11644 by requiring agencies to immediately close areas where off-road vehicle use was causing “considerable adverse effects.” In practice, this marked a shift toward a more precautionary approach, granting agencies broad discretionary authority to restrict access in response to perceived impacts.
Over time, the original “minimize” directive from EO 11644 was carried forward into federal regulations. Within the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management incorporated this language into 43 CFR 8342.1, requiring that areas and trails be designated to minimize impacts to resources, wildlife, and other users. Similarly, the Forest Service adopted the same directive in its travel management regulations, where it evolved into formal “minimization criteria” applied during route designation decisions.
What began as a flexible management principle—intended to guide balanced decision-making—has, over time, been elevated into a controlling regulatory standard. Through a combination of executive action and regulatory interpretation, the original intent of these policies has shifted significantly, reshaping how agencies evaluate and restrict motorized access on public lands. Even in an era of prolific passage of environmental statutes, none of these regulatory actions or executive orders were ever codified into law.
Over the decades, these directives have been translated into hard-coded playbook for shutting down access to our public lands within agencies like the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. What began as general guidance has evolved into a complex system of travel management, route designation, and environmental analysis. The concept of “minimization,” originally framed as one factor among many, has increasingly become the central standard by which access decisions are judged.
The vague and highly subjective nature of “minimization criteria” in particular has created an environment where lawsuits can thrive, turning public land management into a steady revenue stream for environmental litigation groups and their attorneys. Rather than focusing on measurable improvements on the ground, this framework incentivizes repeated legal challenges that generate significant legal fees while doing little to enhance actual resource conditions. The result is a system where attorneys and advocacy organizations profit from prolonged litigation, while the public bears the cost through mounting administrative expenses and shrinking access. This is not a model rooted in practical conservation—it is one that too often rewards litigation over results and financial gain over responsible, on-the-ground stewardship.
The continued reliance on Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 has allowed decades-old guidance to harden into restrictive regulatory practice. What began as a flexible framework for managing use has been transformed into a system that increasingly limits it. Rescinding these orders is a necessary step toward resetting federal land management policy—restoring balance, reaffirming multiple use, and ensuring that access to public lands is not governed by outdated directives from a different era.
Sign the petition below to call on the administration and Congress to rescind these executive orders and minimization criteria that have been weaponized to close access to our public lands.
