43 C.F.R. § 8342.1

Designation criteria

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The authorized officer shall designate all public lands as either open, limited, or closed to off-road vehicles. All designations shall be based on the protection of the resources of the public lands, the promotion of the safety of all the users of the public lands, and the minimization of conflicts among various uses of the public lands; and in accordance with the following criteria:

(a) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, air, or other resources of the public lands, and to prevent impairment of wilderness suitability.

(b) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats. Special attention will be given to protect endangered or threatened species and their habitats.

(c) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise and other factors.

(d) Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated wilderness areas or primitive areas. Areas and trails shall be located in natural areas only if the authorized officer determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, esthetic, scenic, or other values for which such areas are established.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 746 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 746 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (N.D. Cal. 2009). · cites it 39× “In 1978, the BLM promulgated 43 C.F.R. § 8342.1 , which governs the opening of OHV routes within public lands under the agency’s control.”
Am. Motorcyclist Ass'n v. Watt, 543 F. Supp. 789 (C.D. Cal. 1982). · cites it 18× “3 Plaintiffs seek a declaration that these route selection criteria for Class L areas are inconsistent with the provisions of 43 C.F.R. § 8342.1 , a BLM regulation promulgated pursuant to the authority of FLPMA and certain other statutes, 4 and with Exec.”
Utah Shared Access All. v. Carpenter, 463 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “Under 43 C.F.R. § 8342.1 , all public lands must be designated as open, limited, or closed to off-road vehicles.”
WildEarth Guardians v. Montana Snowmobile Ass'n, 790 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “Rather, the Forest Service must apply the data it has compiled to show how it designed the areas' open to snowmobile use “with the objective of minimizing” “damage to .”
Idaho Conservation League v. Guzman, 766 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (D. Idaho 2011). · cites it 2× “at 1080 , at *20 (quoting 43 C.F.R. § 8342.1 (a)(c)). Defendants attempt to distinguish the holding in CBD, arguing that this case has no bearing on the 2005 Travel Management Rule, because the BLM and Forest Service regulations are different.”
Wilderness Soc'y v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., 822 F. Supp. 2d 933 (D. Ariz. 2011). · cites it 8× “7 Plaintiffs next claim that BLM’s route designation process resulted in a violation of regulations governing OHV use pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 8342.1 . Plaintiffs’ critique centers on BLM’s use of a so-called Route Evaluation Tree (“RET”) in making its route designations.”
Gardner v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., 638 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2011). “43 C.F.R. §§ 8342.1 , 8342.2. The BLM also has regulatory authority to change off-road vehicle use designations outside the RMP process.”
Sierra Club v. Clark, 774 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1985). · cites it 3× “Executive Order 11644 and 43 C.F.R. § 8342.1 Designation of approved routes for ORV use under the Desert Plan must be made in accordance with the ORV route designation criteria set forth in Executive Order 11644 and 43 C.”
S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Burke, 981 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (D. Utah 2013). · cites it 4× “Specifically, Plaintiffs contend: (1) the BLM violated its own OHV minimization criteria by authorizing OHV routes without minimizing the impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife, air, water, and cultural resources, 43 C.F.R. § 8342.1 (a-c); (2) the BLM violated the National…”
Ctr. for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. United States Forest Serv., 832 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (E.D. Cal. 2011). “Finally, under Subpart B the Forest Service must consider the “[cjompatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors.”
S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Burke, 908 F.3d 630 (10th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “BLM will explain in the NEPA document for each TMP how each proposed alternative route network will "minimize damage" to "resources of the public lands," 43 C.F.R. § 8342.1 (a), including identified cultural resources and public lands with BLM-inventoried wilderness…”
Nat. Resources Def. v. McCarthy, 993 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2021). “” 43 C.F.R. § 8342.1 . When developing an RMP, an important step for the BLM is the completion of an environmental analysis under NEPA.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.