Quote:
Originally Posted by
LightRanger
Jono,
You have a cite handy to the existing CFRs for the lazy? I'd like to look at them. Given the change in law (call it a clarification if you will), the agencies should need to promulgate guidelines explaining the criteria for evaluation of various wilderness areas for the different devices. Otherwise the management units would have no way of consistently applying the new statutory definitions across the country and open themselves up to easy APA/NEPA suits.
Plus, even if the existing CFRs still work, both versions of the bill language would require management unit level NEPA analysis for every single wilderness area in the country. Even if the agency's proposed action is, "Nope. Bikes not appropriate here" they'd still need to do a categorical exclusion and basic notice and comment which requires some analysis and opens the door to APA/NEPA suits. If STC is saying, "Well, no, we don't think this language would do that," I'm telling you as somebody who has a bit of experience with this stuff, they're wrong.
I'm not sure if this is everything on the subject but it might be:
Quote:
(a)Mechanical transport, as herein used, shall include any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, skids, or by floatation and is propelled by a nonliving power source contained or carried on or within the device.
(b)Motorized equipment, as herein used, shall include any machine activated by a nonliving power source, except that small battery-powered, hand-carried devices such as flashlights, shavers, and Geiger counters are not classed as motorized equipment.
Given the environment at the time and the comments from Church and Udall about how the agencies were misinterpreting the Act, I wonder if they didn't leave this on the books against this exact scenario--it just took 30 years longer than expected.