Minimization Criteria Organization Petition
We need your support. BRC is building a formal record of industry and community support to rescind the federal regulation that has been used to close motorized routes on public lands across the West. Add your organization, business, or club below. It takes less than a minute.
Petition to Rescind Minimization Criteria
With the latest WEMO ruling which has resulted in one of the largest closures of public access in American history, it's clear that the minimization criteria need to go. Following recent conversations with the Administration officials and elected leaders, BRC is building a formal record to show its rescission would be supported by the industry and community. Jump to form »
For years, the little-known regulatory standard known as the "minimization criteria" (43 C.F.R. § 8342.1), rooted in two executive orders from the 1970s, has been used to justify the closure of motorized routes on federal public lands. Not because of documented harm. Not because of site-specific necessity. Because litigation has turned it into a presumption against access, and land managers are closing routes to avoid getting sued.
The consequences are real. Thousands of miles of routes have been eliminated across BLM lands, including in Moab, the West Mojave planning area, and many others. BRC is calling on the Administration to rescind Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 and the minimization criteria framework entirely, and replace it with a standard that is balanced, workable, and consistent with federal law.
The OHV community needs your voice & position. Your name on this letter tells decision-makers that the motorized recreation community is organized, unified, and paying attention. Please fill out the form below.
Formal Petition (Click to Expand)
Dear [recipient],
On behalf of the undersigned organizations, associations, businesses, and recreation stakeholders, we respectfully submit this letter to urge the rescission of Executive Orders 11644 and 11989, as well as the associated regulatory framework codified at 43 C.F.R. § 8342.1 (“minimization criteria”).
These authorities have evolved through agency interpretation and judicial application into mechanisms that systematically restrict access, close roads, undermine multiple-use principles, and impose unworkable administrative burdens on federal land managers.
The minimization criteria has become a de facto mandate for route closure, driven not by site-specific necessity, but by litigation risk and increasingly rigid evidentiary expectations.
Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 form the foundation of this framework. While originally intended to ensure that ORV use is managed to protect resources, they established the “minimization” standard without clear statutory grounding or workable limits. Over time, this standard has been interpreted in a manner that:
- Converts discretionary land management into a presumption in favor of restriction and closure;
- Requires agencies to prove a negative—that no further minimization is possible—an inherently unachievable standard;
- Encourages defensive decision-making driven by litigation exposure rather than practical land stewardship;
- Disproportionately impacts motorized recreation users, small businesses, and rural economies dependent on access to public lands.
Recent litigation outcomes, including decisions in the Western Mojave (WEMO) planning area, Moab travel areas and many others demonstrate the real-world consequences of this framework. Thousands of miles of routes have been closed not because of demonstrated, unavoidable harm, but because the minimization criteria demand an ever-escalating level of analytical justification. This is not sustainable land management, it is regulatory paralysis.
Furthermore, 43 C.F.R. § 8342.1, as currently written and applied, is inconsistent with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which requires that public lands be managed under principles of multiple use and sustained yield. A regulatory regime that consistently narrows access, elevates process over outcomes, and incentivizes closure cannot be reconciled with Congressional intent.
A revised standard should prioritize compatibility of uses, resource protection, and user safety while ensuring that public lands remain accessible for responsible recreation.
The current system is not achieving these goals. Instead, it is fostering inefficiency, limiting access, and eroding public trust.
We urge the Administration to take decisive action to restore balance, clarity, and functionality to public land management policy by rescinding these Executive Orders and 43 C.F.R. § 8342.1.
Finally, public lands belong to all Americans. Regulatory frameworks governing their use must be workable, balanced, and faithful to Congressional intent. The current application of the minimization criteria fails on all three fronts.
Add Your Support to Rescind Minimization Criteria
Please read first: this form is intended for leadership at organizations. If you are a member or individual, please fill out the form here.