Comments closed September 23
Forest Service rewrites travel rules to open all National Forest roads
Forest Service · National Forest System lands
- What
- A new rule would presume every National Forest road and trail is open to motorized use unless proven otherwise.
- Where
- National Forest System lands
- How much
- Wildlife habitat, sensitive ecosystems, and existing conservation protections across all National Forest System lands are at risk.
- Decided
- Comments closed September 23, 2026. No decision document is on file yet.Date from Federal Register ↗, read August 25, 2026.
Where these four lines come from
- WhatOur plain-English read of the Federal Register 2026-17211 ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words under Case.
- WhereThe places and states the notice names, as PLAN read them.
- How muchThe first sentence of our What’s at risk read of the notice; the whole read is under Case.
- DecidedSeptember 23, 2026, from Federal Register, the document’s comment close date (federalregister.gov) ↗. Read August 25, 2026. The decision document is the one on file in PLAN’s record.
- Read from PLAN’s record November 9, 2026.
What the proposal said, and what the decision did
No figure from the proposal has been checked against the decision on this fight yet. What the record does hold is the issues ledger below.
No decision document is on PLAN’s record for this fight yet. When the agency’s decision lands, what it answered goes here.
PLAN's read: high threat
A new rule would presume every National Forest road and trail is open to motorized use unless proven otherwise.
What’s at risk
If this goes through
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
The agency’s own analysis
What the notice says, and what it leaves out
The window has closed; the record of what was missing stays.
Cooperating and Participating Agencies ↗
The agency says
“The Forest Service does not anticipate designating any Federal, State, Tribal, or local agencies as cooperating or participating agencies.”
The agency explicitly states that no cooperating or participating agencies will be designated, even though the proposed rule affects resources governed by the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Wilderness Act, which are administered by EPA, FWS, SHPO offices, and other agencies.
The agency says
“USDA will solicit public feedback through the 30-day written-comment period described above. No separate public scoping process or scoping meetings are planned.”
The agency provides only a 30-day written-comment period for a nationwide, programmatic rulemaking that will revise the regulatory framework governing motor vehicle use on all 154 national forest units and 20 national grassland units, and explicitly states that no public scoping meetings are planned.
Preliminary List of Substantive Issues and Summary of Expected Impacts ↗
The agency says
“estimating site-specific effects of local changes would be highly speculative”
The notice acknowledges that threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, soil, water, air, scenic integrity, and cultural resources are all expected to be affected, but then immediately defers all meaningful analysis to future site-specific decisions, saying that estimating site-specific effects "would be highly speculative." This is circular: the agency uses the programmatic nature of the rule to avoid analyzing the very resource impacts that a programmatic EIS is designed to evaluate at the appropriate scale.
The agency says
“the Department proposes to remove the national minimization criteria and establish a nationally applicable access policy under which local officials would make designation and closure decisions”
The proposed rule removes the minimization criteria from subparts B and C, criteria that were the primary substantive tool for limiting resource damage from motorized use.
The agency says
“Commonly available public data sets, including aerial imagery, may be used as evidence that a physical route or airfield exists or existed at a time relevant under the definition adopted in the proposed rule”
The proposed rule establishes a presumption that all existing roads, trails, airfields, and access routes are open to appropriate public use, and states that "commonly available public data sets, including aerial imagery, may be used as evidence that a physical route or airfield exists." However, the document simultaneously acknowledges that aerial imagery alone would not establish Forest Service jurisdiction, legal access, or that a feature is part of the forest transportation system.
Implementation of the Travel Management Rule Since 2005 ↗
The agency says
“Over-snow vehicle use maps (OSVUMs) have been established on 25 of the estimated 101 units that receive adequate snowfall to warrant over-snow travel management.”
The document states that over-snow vehicle use maps have been established on only 25 of the estimated 101 units that receive adequate snowfall to warrant over-snow travel management, meaning 76 units lack completed OSVUMs.
The agency says
“The Forest Service will offer government-to-government consultation to federally recognized Tribes and will engage Alaska Native Corporations consistent with applicable consultation requirements during rulemaking and EIS development.”
The document states that Tribal governments and Alaska Native Corporations will be offered government-to-government consultation "during rulemaking and EIS development," but also states that no cooperating or participating agencies will be designated and that the only current public input mechanism is a 30-day comment period.
The agency says
“The Department is exercising its independent statutory discretion to determine the most appropriate process for balancing competing values and uses, while ensuring public access to NFS lands within the existing multiple-uses framework.”
The document says the purpose of the proposed action is deregulatory and cites E.O.
Preliminary List of Substantive Issues and Summary of Expected Impacts ↗
The agency says
“Any self-executing vehicle or use exemption could directly affect these resources; other effects would depend on the location, timing, intensity, and conditions of later local decisions.”
The document proposes to exempt class 1 electric bicycles from motor vehicle use designation requirements on trails where bicycle use is allowed, but acknowledges the EIS will analyze alternatives retaining e-bikes as motor vehicles.
Implementation of the Travel Management Rule Since 2005 ↗
The agency says
“Since 2005, all but 6 of the 154 national forest units and 20 national grassland units have established motor vehicle use maps (MVUMs) designating roads, trails, and areas open to public motor vehicle use.”
The document acknowledges that 6 of 154 national forest units and all 20 national grassland units without completed MVUMs still lack motor vehicle use designations after more than 20 years of implementation.
In the agency’s own words
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is initiating an environmental impact statement and rulemaking to revise the Forest Service's travel management regulations, 36 CFR part 212. The proposed action would establish a uniform national policy favoring increased access while simplifying regulatory requirements and preserving local decision-making. The proposed access rule would establish a national policy with a presumption that existing roads, trails, airfields, trailheads, and other access routes and points on National Forest System lands are open to appropriate public use unless closure or restriction is req…
Who signs it
The notice names no signer PLAN could read. PLAN names a decision-maker only when the document names one.
The ground
The window has closed, so there’s no watch to set on it here.
The photograph on this page: An unpaved national forest road climbing through autumn aspens. More Than Just Parks.
In court on this ground
This fight isn’t bound to a land unit in PLAN’s record yet, so there are no court cases to show for its ground.
Who holds the vote
PLAN’s record doesn’t tie a member of Congress to this fight yet. The scorecard grades the votes and bills that decide public lands; nothing joins a vote or a bill to this decision, so there’s no member to name here without guessing.
See how your members vote ↗On the record for this fight
8 people told us they filed on this fight through PLAN, and 7 have been found on the agency’s own posted comments.
- Roz, Georgia12 seals
- Rachael, Oregon19 seals
- and 6 more stewards
Ranked on letters found on the agency’s record, then letters filed. Readers appear as first name and last initial, or as a steward in their state; switch yours off in your record. All boards
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .
More fights that need you
Go deeper, free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.