FAQ - FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Updated 07/15/09
QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE THE CLEARWATER NF PROCESS |
|
| Will the travel planning process and environmental analysis cover the entire Clearwater NF? | |
| Are snowmobiles affected? | |
| How do I propose a route for consideration? | |
| How does travel planning and the NEPA analysis relate to the Clearwater NF Forest Plan which is currently being revised? | |
| How does the 2005 Upper Palouse OHV decision fit into the Clearwater NF Travel Plan? Will anything in the Upper Palouse OHV Decision be changed? | |
| Is this travel planning process the last chance to get a route designated for motorized travel or a motorized route built? | |
| How does the Clearwater NF Travel Plan relate to the proposed roadless rule for Idaho as described in the Draft EIS for Roadless Area Conservation on National Forest System Lands in Idaho.? | |
| What is Forest Plan Recommended Wilderness and why would motorized and mechanized travel be prohibited in these areas under the proposed action? | |
GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NATIONAL TRAVEL RULE |
|
| Need For The Rule | |
| OHVs are an increasingly popular way to enjoy outdoor recreation on National Forest System (NFS) lands. Will the rule limit access to the national forests and grasslands? Why is there a change in Forest Service policy? | |
| Some OHV use damages the environment and affects the experiences of other visitors. Why does the agency allow OHV use on national forests and grasslands at all? | |
| How does the rule define an OHV? What classes of vehicles are subject to the rule? | |
| The Designation Process | |
| When will the rule become effective? How will roads, trails, and areas be designated? | |
| How does travel management relate to land management planning? How will the agency comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in designating routes and areas for motor vehicle use? | |
| Where cross-country motor vehicle use has been allowed in the past, repeated use has often created unplanned, user-created trails. How will these user-created routes be managed under the final rule? | |
| Some national forests have long restricted motor vehicles to designated routes. Others have recently completed travel planning decisions designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. Will the rule require these units to reconsider past decisions? | |
| How will the public be involved in travel management decisions? | |
| Are designations of roads, trails and areas for motor vehicle use permanent? | |
| Special Cases | |
| Are certain uses of motor vehicles exempted from the general prohibition on motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails and outside designated areas? | |
| How does the rule affect the use of snowmobiles and other over-snow vehicles on national forests and grasslands? | |
| Does the rule affect use of state highways or county roads crossing NFS lands? | |
| Does the rule take away valid existing rights held by federally recognized tribal governments, counties, or private individuals, including treaty rights, other statutory rights, or private rights-of-way? | |
| How does the rule address use of motor vehicles for timber harvesting, grazing, mining, ski areas, utility line maintenance, firewood collection, and other permitted uses of national forests and grasslands? | |
| The proposed rule included language on R.S. 2477 which is missing in the final rule. Why? How does the rule affect R.S. 2477 rights-of-way? | |
| How does the rule affect access to national forests and grasslands for people with disabilities? | |
| Implementation | |
| How will the Forest Service pay for travel planning? Will other Forest Service programs be cut? | |
| Many respondents suggested including an enforceable deadline in the final rule for route and area designation. Why didn’t the Forest Service adopt this suggestion? How will the agency assure that designation gets done? | |
| The final rule does not require a complete inventory of existing user-created routes. How will the Forest Service give fair consideration to user-created routes without a complete inventory? | |
| Will the agency authorize mixing ATVs and other non-highway-legal vehicles on roads open to full-sized vehicles? How will the Forest Service address state laws allowing or restricting mixed use? | |
| On many national forests, designation may not be complete for a few years. What are the rules for OHVs while designation decisions are pending? | |
| With limited law enforcement resources, how does the Forest Service expect to be able to implement a new regulation and manage OHV use? | |
| Process Questions | |
| What are the major changes between the proposed and final rules? | |
| Does the Forest Service plan to issue directives and provide guidance on implementing the final regulation? Will directives be subject to public comment? | |
| Noise is one of the most frequently cited impacts of OHV use on other visitors. Does the Forest Service plan on regulating vehicle noise levels? | |
| Many comments addressed the relationship between the proposed rule and Executive Order (E.O.) 11644. Is the final rule consistent with the E.O.? Does it weaken mandatory language in the E.O.? |
C1. Will the travel planning and environmental analysis cover the entire Clearwater NF?
A. The Palouse Ranger District completed an environmental analysis (the Upper Palouse OHV EA) in 2005 that meets the intent of the OHV rule and is not going to be reconsidered in this process. That decision prohibited cross-country travel district-wide and designated routes for motorized travel everywhere but in the Elk Creek drainage. The Clearwater NF Travel Plan analysis will review routes for designation in the Elk Creek area of the Palouse RD and across all of the other districts - Powell, Lochsa, and North Fork. See question C5 for more information on the 2005 Palouse OHV Decision relates to the Clearwater NF Travel Plan analysis. (11/6/07)
A.The Travel Rule's prohibition of cross-country travel and restriction of vehicles to designated routes generally does not apply to snowmobiles and other vehicles designed specifically for oversnow travel. The Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) will not address them. The final rule does retain current authorities for the Forest Service to manage use of oversnow vehicles and they may be allowed, restricted, or prohibited in certain areas or on certain routes at times. The Clearwater NF travel planning effort and subsequent NEPA analysis does consider snowmobiles. The analysis of oversnow travel is focused on cleaning up some currently inconsistent, unncessary, or missing snowmobile restrictions, and defining areas where snowmobiles are permitted or prohibited. Any restrictions retained or adopted for snowmobiles will be displayed on a Winter Use Map. (06/05/09)
C3. Are public suggestions for new routes being considered?
A. Public suggestions for routes were considered during the analysis. The Forest announced the start of the Travel Planning phase of the project in the summer of 2006 and requested public suggestions for additional (not already shown in the 2005 Clearwater NF Travel Guide) routes to consider by mid-summer 2007. That schedule was established so that the Forest Service could evaluate the routes during the Travel Planning phase. Very few suggestions were received and most arrived too late to be considered in the proposed action. Other suggestions were received as comments on the proposed action. Those that met basic screening criteria were included in alternatives in the DEIS. (06/05/09)
C4.How does travel planning and the NEPA analysis relate to the Clearwater NF Forest Plan which is currently being revised?
A. Forest Plans are strategic documents that primarily identify desired future conditions (DFC's) for a variety of Forest resources across broad areas. Generally a forest plan would not be expected to do things as specific as designate individual roads or trails for motorized or non-motorized travel. Designation of routes and any changes from the existing restriction situation will be evaluated as part of Travel Planning and subsequent NEPA analysis.
The Clearwater NF Forest Plan was in the process of being revised when the Travel Plan project began. Such revisions are required by the National Forest Management Act to keep forest plans current and able to address changing forest conditions. That revision process is currently on hold along with all other forest plans nationwide that were being revised under the terms of the 2005 Planning Rule which was enjoined by a California District Court decision on March 30, 2007. The Forest Service is currently re-doing the planning rule to correct the deficiencies identified by the court. The existing 1987 Clearwater NF Forest Plan remains in effect until it can be revised under a new version of the planning rule. But, travel management approaches in the existing plan are now 20 years old and were crafted when there were far fewer motorized vehicles and with much less capability. The existing forest plan also includes some inconsistent direction regarding motorized use and resource standards. For these reasons the existing forest plan will need to be amended as part of the Clearwater NF Travel Plan analysis and decision to provide for a travel management approach that works today and for the future. (11/6/07)
C5. How does the 2005 Upper Palouse OHV decision fit into the Clearwater NF Travel Plan? Will anything in the Upper Palouse OHV Decision be changed?
A. The 2005 Upper Palouse OHV analysis and decision meets the intent of the OHV rule for all the areas it covered. The decision designated routes for motorized travel district-wide with the exception of in the Elk Creek drainage and prohibited travel off designated routes district-wide. It also designated about 119 miles of motorized trail in the Palouse River drainage, provided for construction of 4 trailheads and restricted about 25 miles of road to full-size vehicles for use in the OHV trail system. That decision is not being reconsidered and is, in fact, currently being implemented. Designation of routes for motorized travel in the Elk Creek drainage will be accomplished as part of the Clearwater NF Travel Plan effort. See question C1 for more.
The Travel Planning effort will also propose a number of changes to restriction dates across the Forest including areas and routes covered by the Upper Palouse OHV Decision. This is being done to reduce the number of different restriction periods and make the Motor Vehicle Use Map easier to understand. The Travel Plan will also propose changes to snowmobile restrictions in many areas of the Forest including the Palouse RD. This is being done to streamline winter restrictions to make a more legible Winter Use Map. (11/6/07)
C6. Is this travel planning process the last chance to get a route designated for motorized travel or built?
A. The Clearwater NF has been constructing and improving motorized trail systems for some time to provide quality riding experiences while reducing resource impacts. The Upper Palouse OHV, Deception, Musselshell, Clarke Mtn., Camp 60 / Sheep Mtn. and other OHV systems and routes all were developed from individual project analyses and many of their routes were identified as a result of OHV user suggestions. The Clearwater NF Travel Plan won't analyze trail construction or reconstruction but future projects similar to those mentioned above can and will do that. A number of projects currently in analysis including Orogrande OHV, and Preacher Dewey are looking at additional OHV designations and/or route construction. (06/05/09)
C7. How does the Clearwater NF Travel Plan relate to the Idaho Roadless Rule?
A. The Roadless Rule for Idaho was developed in response to the Idaho State Petition presented by Idaho Governor James Risch in November of 2006. The purpose of the proposed rule is to provide state-specific direction for the conservation and management of of inventoried roadless areas within the state of Idaho. The rule designated a system of lands called Idaho Roadless Areas and established five management themes for these areas. The themes span a continuum that includes at one end a restrictive approach emphasizing passive management and natural restoration approaches and at the other end, active management designed to sustain forests, rangelands, and grasslands.
The Idaho Roadless Rule directly affects only allowances for road construction and reconstruction; timber cutting, removal, and sale, and discretionary mineral activities. It does not regulate travel management. However the management themes in the proposed rule are considered in the travel planning process. More information about roadless issues nationwide and details of the Idaho proposal are available on the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation website.(06/05/09)
C8. What is Forest Plan Recommended Wilderness and why would motorized and mechanized travel be prohibited in these areas under the proposed action?
The 1976 National Forest Management Act required that land and resource management plans or "forest plans" be developed for each of the National Forests. As part of the planning process, forest plans were required to evaluate roadless areas and consider them for recommendation as additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Sixteen roadless areas on the Clearwater NF were evaluated against a specified set of wilderness characteristics. Areas that best met these characteristics were recommended for designation as Wilderness in the 1987 Clearwater National Forest Plan. These areas included parts of the Mallard Larkins, Hoodoo (Great Burn) roadless areas and parts of several other roadless areas adjacent to the existing Selway Bitterroot Wilderness.
Congress holds the authority to actually designate areas as Wilderness. It is the Forest Service's responsibility to both recommend areas to Congress and to retain the characteristics that led to those recommendations until Congress considers them and makes a decision. Established and widespread non-conforming uses like motorized and / or mechanized travel are commonly raised by Wilderness opponents as reasons why certain areas should not be considered for Wilderness designation. Since motorized / mechanized travel is growing in these areas, the Forest is now proposing to prohibit these uses (except on certain travel corridors that include the Fish Lake trail and the Elk Summit road that would be defined through an amendment to the Forest Plan). The intent of this proposal is to avoid compromising the potential for Wilderness designation in these, the areas with the best wilderness characteristics on the Clearwater NF. (1/15/08)
N1. OHVs are an increasingly popular way to enjoy outdoor recreation on NFS lands. Will the rule limit access to the national forests and grasslands? Why is there a change in Forest Service policy?
A. In the right places and under careful management, OHVs are a legitimate use of NFS lands. The final rule maintains public access to national forests and grasslands. By designating a system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use, the rule enhances opportunities for outdoor recreation and ensures that it remains sustainable over the long term. Previous Forest Service regulations were developed before the recent increases in OHV use and advances in OHV technology and are no longer adequate to respond to growing demand.
N2. Some OHV use damages the environment and affects the experiences of other visitors. Why does the agency allow OHV use on national forests and grasslands at all?
A. National forests are established for use by the American public for multiple purposes. When properly managed, OHV use is a legitimate use of NFS lands. The final rule provides for careful management of OHV use so that environmental impacts can be limited and the use sustained over the long term.
N3. How does the rule define an OHV? What classes of vehicles are subject to the rule?
A. The final rule defines an OHV as “any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain.” Technological advances have enabled many classes of motor vehicle to travel off highways. The designation requirements in the final rule apply to all classes of motor vehicles (not just OHVs) except aircraft, watercraft, and over-snow vehicles.
N4. When will the rule become effective? How will roads, trails, and areas be designated?
A. The rule became effective 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register in November 2005. However, the rule itself does not open or close any road, trail, or area. The final rule establishes national guidance for making designation decisions at the local level. Each national forest or grassland will assess its current travel management direction, involve the public, and determine whether changes are needed. The rule does not require reconsideration of past decisions. Designations will be made with public involvement, coordination with federal, state, county and other local governmental entities and tribal governments, and appropriate environmental analysis and documentation. Once an administrative unit or a ranger district completes the designation process and publishes a motor vehicle use map, the rule prohibits motor vehicle use inconsistent with those designations.
N5. How does travel management relate to land management planning? How will the agency comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in designating routes and areas for motor vehicle use?
A. Forest Land and Resource Management Plans contain suitability determinations and guidelines that inform decisions related to motor vehicle use. However, land management plans do not designate roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. Designation of roads, trails, and areas is a local, project-level decision separate from the applicable plan decision, which must be based on appropriate site-specific environmental analysis and documentation under NEPA. Nothing in the final rule requires reconsideration of past travel management decisions authorizing motor vehicle use of specific roads, trails, and areas. The agency expects that the level and scope of NEPA analysis associated with route and area designation will depend on the local situation, including each unit’s history of travel planning and the particular issues involved.
N6. Where cross-country motor vehicle use has been allowed in the past, repeated use has often created unplanned, user-created trails. How will these user-created routes be managed under the final rule?
A. Some user-created routes are well-sited, provide excellent opportunities for outdoor recreation, and would enhance the system of designated routes and areas. Other user-created routes are poorly located and are causing unacceptable environmental impacts. User-created routes are best evaluated at the local level, by officials with first-hand knowledge of the particular circumstances, uses, and environmental impacts involved, working closely with local governments, users, and other members of the public. The agency anticipates that some user-created routes will be designated for motor vehicle use and become part of the managed system of NFS roads and NFS trails, after site-specific evaluation and public involvement. Those not designated will be closed to motor vehicle use.
N7. Some national forests have long restricted motor vehicles to designated routes. Others have recently completed travel planning decisions designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. Will the rule require these units to reconsider past decisions?
A. No. Each national forest will evaluate its current travel management policy with public input. Where the responsible official proposes changes to travel management decisions, the Forest Service will evaluate these proposals with appropriate public involvement and environmental analysis. If the current policy is working and achieving the goals of the final rule, there is no need for new decision-making.
N8. How will the public be involved in travel management decisions?
A. The final rule requires the Forest Service to provide for public participation in the process of designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. Designation decisions will be made by forest supervisors or district rangers working closely with local communities, motorized and non-motorized recreation groups, and other interested parties. Local units will notify the public of opportunities to participate in travel planning. The Forest Service supports collaborative travel planning involving all interested parties and a wide range of interests.
N9. Are designations of roads, trails and areas for motor vehicle use permanent?
A. No. The final rule includes a process for revising designations (36 CFR 212.54). The agency expects that over time new roads and trails will be constructed and added to the designated system. Other existing roads and trails may be closed and removed from the designated system in response to environmental impacts or changing travel management needs. Revision of designations will include public involvement and appropriate environmental analysis.
N10. Are certain uses of motor vehicles exempted from the general prohibition on motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails and outside designated areas?
A. Yes. In the final rule, the following vehicles and uses are exempted from the prohibition:
- Aircraft;
- Watercraft;
- Over-snow vehicles;
- Limited administrative use by the Forest Service;
- Use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes;
- Authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes;
- Law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit;
- Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under federal law or regulations; and
- Use of a road or trail that is authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by a state, county, or other local public road authority.
The final rule also allows the responsible official to include in the designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes, and if appropriate within specified time periods, solely for the purposes of dispersed camping and retrieval of a big game animal by an individual who has legally taken that animal.
N11. How does the rule affect the use of snowmobiles and other over-snow vehicles on national forests and grasslands?
A. The rule does not require units to designate roads, trails, and areas for over-snow travel. The final rule retains current authorities to manage use of NFS lands by over-snow vehicles, which may be allowed, restricted or prohibited at the local level. Over-snow vehicles result in different impacts to natural resources than motor vehicles traveling over the ground. It may therefore be appropriate for snowmobiles and other over-snow vehicles to travel cross-country in some places where other vehicles are restricted to designated roads, trails, and areas. The final rule expands this exemption to include other over-snow vehicles in addition to snowmobiles.
N12. Does the rule affect use of state highways or county roads crossing NFS lands?
A. No. Public roads authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by a state, county, or other local public road authority are not subject to designation under this rule.
N13. Does the rule take away valid existing rights held by federally recognized tribal governments, counties, or private individuals, including treaty rights, other statutory rights, or private rights-of-way?
A. No. Responsible officials will recognize valid existing rights in making designations at the local level.
N14. How does the rule address use of motor vehicles for timber harvesting, grazing, mining, ski areas, utility line maintenance, firewood collection, and other permitted uses of national forests and grasslands?
A. The final rule provides an exemption from the prohibition on motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails and outside designated areas for use specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under federal law or regulation. Motor vehicles may be used off the designated system for the above purposes when specifically authorized under a contract, permit, operating plan, or other written instrument issued under federal law or regulation.
N15. The proposed rule included language on R.S. 2477 which is missing in the final rule. Why? How does the rule affect R.S. 2477 rights-of-way?
A. Public roads authorized by legally documented rights-of-way are not subject to designation under the final rule. The proposed rule also specifically exempted from designation a road or trail “which an authorized officer has ascertained, for administrative purposes and based on available evidence, is within a public right-of-way for a highway, such as a right-of-way for a highway pursuant to R.S. 2477.” This language has not been retained in the final rule. The definitions of “National Forest System road” and National Forest System trail” in the final rule exclude rights-of-way under R.S. 2477 that have been adjudicated or otherwise formally established. The Forest Service does not want to give the appearance of establishing the validity of unresolved R.S. 2477 right-of-way claims through this final rule.
N16. How does the rule affect access to national forests and grasslands for people with disabilities?
A. Under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, no person with a disability can be denied participation in a federal program that is available to all other people solely because of his or her disability. In conformance with section 504, wheelchairs are welcome on all NFS lands that are open to foot travel and are specifically exempted from the definition of motor vehicle in §212.1 of the final rule, even if they are battery-powered. However, there is no legal requirement to allow people with disabilities to use OHVs or other motor vehicles on roads, trails, and areas closed to motor vehicle use because such an exemption could fundamentally alter the nature of the Forest Service’s travel management program (7 CFR 15e.103).
N17. How will the Forest Service pay for travel planning? Will other Forest Service programs be cut?
A. The Forest Service expects to complete route and area designation on all national forests by 2009, using available funds. A designated system of motor vehicle routes will benefit multiple agency programs, and funding sources will depend on the specific local circumstances. Travel planning is ongoing today on many national forests. The new rule provides a consistent national framework for these efforts. Addressing urgent needs in unmanaged recreation will sometimes delay other agency work, but this will be a local situation. Failure to complete travel planning would be even more costly, both in agency expenditures and in terms of impacts to recreational visitors and the environment.
N18. Many respondents suggested including an enforceable deadline in the final rule for route and area designation. Why didn’t the Forest Service adopt this suggestion? How will the agency assure that designation gets done?
A. An enforceable regulatory deadline would subject the Forest Service to legal challenge if, despite its best efforts (perhaps due to the controversy involved in the process), the agency is unable to meet the deadline. Cooperative work by responsible officials with state, tribal, county, and municipal governments, user groups, and other interested parties offers the best hope for long-term resolution of issues involving recreational use, including use of motor vehicles. An inflexible deadline can make collaborative solutions more difficult. However, the Forest Service shares a strong interest in completing route and area designation quickly. The Chief expects route and area designation to be completed on all national forests and grasslands by 2009.
N19. The final rule does not require a complete inventory of existing user-created routes. How will the Forest Service give fair consideration to user-created routes without a complete inventory?
A. User-created routes developed without planning, design, authorization, or study by the agency. Some are well-located. Others are not. Still others involve multiple braided routes in a single corridor. A complete inventory of all these routes would be very time-consuming and expensive and could delay completion of route and area designation. Local Forest Service managers will use public involvement to help identify appropriate user-created routes for consideration and evaluation in the designation process.
N20. Will the agency authorize mixing ATVs and other non-highway-legal vehicles on roads open to full-sized vehicles? How will the Forest Service address state laws allowing or restricting mixed use?
A. NFS roads can provide connections between OHV trails and offer important opportunities for OHV recreation. Some NFS roads receive only limited traffic by highway-legal vehicles. The Forest Service anticipates designating some roads or sections of roads as open to both highway-legal vehicles and non-highway-legal OHVs. Designating roads for this mixed use involves safety considerations such as traffic composition, traffic volume, and road standards. Decisions affecting safety must be informed by engineering judgment. Traffic on roads is subject to state traffic laws except when in conflict with designations established under this final rule.
N21. On many national forests, designation may not be complete for a few years. What are the rules for OHVs while designation decisions are pending?
A. Until an administrative unit or a ranger district completes the designation process, current travel management policies, restrictions, and orders remain in effect. Forest supervisors may continue to issue travel management orders pursuant to part 261, subpart B, and impose temporary, emergency closures based on a determination of considerable adverse effects pursuant to §212.52(b)(2) of the final rule.
N22. With limited law enforcement resources, how does the Forest Service expect to be able to implement a new regulation and manage OHV use?
A. Forest Service law enforcement personnel play a critical role in ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, protecting public safety, and protecting National Forest System resources. The Forest Service also maintains cooperative relationships with many state and local law enforcement agencies that provide mutual support across jurisdictional boundaries. The new rule provides a consistent framework for enforcing travel management regulations, including provision for a motor vehicle use map. Most OHV users want to do the right thing, and the agency believes that proper education and engineering (e.g., road and trail design, signing) can focus law enforcement resources on those few users who intend to violate the law.
N23. What are the major changes between the proposed and final rules?
A. In general, the final rule is very similar to the proposed rule published on July 15, 2004, although many technical edits were incorporated in response to public comment. The three most important substantive changes include:
- Broadening the exemption for snowmobiles to include all over-snow vehicles when operating over snow;
- Providing discretion to consider limited cross-country use for big game retrieval and dispersed camping, in response to local situations; and
- Clarifying the definitions with respect to NFS roads and NFS trails to avoid the appearance that this rule might be used to establish the validity of unresolved R.S. 2477 claims.
N24. Does the Forest Service plan to issue directives and provide guidance on implementing the final regulation? Will directives be subject to public comment?
A. Yes. The Forest Service has issued proposed changes to the Forest Service Manual and Forest Service Handbooks.These agency directives will provide guidance to field units in implementing the final rule. The directives are published in the Federal Register for public notice and comment.
N25. Noise is one of the most frequently cited impacts of OHV use on other visitors. Does the Forest Service plan on regulating vehicle noise levels?
A. Respondents representing a wide range of interests, including OHV user groups and manufacturers, have asked the Forest Service to consider establishing a maximum noise level for OHVs operating on NFS lands. Some states already regulate noise, and standards differ from state to state. No noise regulation is included in this final rule, but the agency anticipates addressing this issue in future rulemaking.
N26. Many comments addressed the relationship between the proposed rule and Executive Order (E.O.) 11644. Is the final rule consistent with the E.O.? Does it weaken mandatory language in the E.O.?
A. The final rule implements and is fully consistent with E.O. 11644 (“Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands” February 8, 1972), as amended by E.O. 11989 (“Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands” May 24, 1977). The final rule is designed to assist agency field units in achieving the purposes of the E.O.s. With respect to temporary, emergency closures and criteria for designation, the preamble to the final rule provides additional discussion of how the final rule ensures that the intent of the E.O.s is achieved.
 |
