Stop NPS from gutting environmental review for park bicycle trails

The agency’s case, tested

What the agency argues, and whether its own record backs it

2

Hold up

6

No support given

1

Never analyzed

Each Ask below goes into your letter when you write it with PLAN on this page, matched to what you tell it about how this land reaches you.

• Purpose and need

  No support given

  The current rules deny the public recreation opportunities because the agency can't afford the required reviews for even trivial trail changes.

  The agency's example is a hypothetical 20-foot paved path from a parking lot to a visitor center. The document gives no count of trails or projects delayed or dropped under the current rules, and no examples of actual denied designations.

  AskProvide the number and examples of bike trail designations that were delayed or abandoned because of the current requirements.

  The agency’s words +Hide the words

  The agency says

  “The result is that the public is denied a new opportunity for recreation and access that would otherwise be allowed as an appropriate use of the park area.”

  Policy and Regulatory Framework

• Effects

  No support given

  The planning document requirements are redundant because NEPA review will cover the same items, such as maintenance costs, safety and user conflict.

  The agency cites Handbook sections covering costs, maintenance, safety, economic effects, natural and cultural effects and mitigation, and argues that where a project's scope warrants those items, such as a backcountry trail network, an environmental assessment or impact statement would likely be prepared. It openly states the items would be evaluated only when potential effects justify it. That makes the redundancy partial: the document itself says 'may include' and 'likely,' and in categorical exclusion cases the items wouldn't be evaluated through NEPA.

  AskExplain how trail safety, user conflict and resource protection will be evaluated when a categorical exclusion is used and no environmental assessment or planning document is prepared.

  The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words

  The agency says

  “These requirements are inconsistent with the NPS’s established framework for planning and are redundant with compliance actions required by NEPA.”

  Policy and Regulatory Framework

  Elsewhere in the same document

  “Appendix 1, Section 4 of the Handbook states that the description of alternatives in an EA or EIS may include a description of project maintenance, estimated costs, and modifications of existing facilities.”

  Policy and Regulatory Framework

• Effects

  No support given

  Dropping the sustainable trail design requirement won't matter because separate agency processes govern trail design and construction.

  The agency says it maintains design and construction processes for trails of all types, subject to their own policies, compliance requirements and technical standards, and points to its Park Planning, Facilities, and Lands Directorate. It notes erosion and compaction mostly aren't possible on paved developed-area trails, and new bike use on never-improved ground would still require rulemaking. But the document doesn't describe what those separate processes require or show they call for sustainable design on backcountry bike trails, where its 2012 discussion identified resource impacts.

  AskIdentify the specific design and construction standards that will apply to new backcountry bike trails and show they address erosion and compaction.

  The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words

  The agency says

  “Because these processes are managed under separate NPS authorities and procedures, decisions about physical design and construction are not part of this rule.”

  Policy and Regulatory Framework

  Elsewhere in the same document

  “This discussion identifies potential impacts to resources from backcountry trail use and offers recommendations for mitigating those impacts by ensuring that trails are sustainable.”

  Policy and Regulatory Framework

• Show 3 more claims +Show fewer

  • Economics

    No support given

    The rule will produce net economic benefits by cutting administrative costs.

    The agency says costs of planning documents, environmental reviews and written determinations would be eliminated where not warranted. The document gives no figures for staff time, contractor fees, number of reviews per year or savings, and doesn't weigh any costs of reduced review.

    AskEstimate how many trail reviews the current rules require each year, their cost, and the expected savings, alongside any costs from reduced review.

    The agency’s words +Hide the words

    The agency says

    “The NPS expects this rule would result in net economic benefits due to reduced administrative costs.”

    Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 14192)

  • Process

    No support given

    The new rulemaking triggers will ensure public involvement where bike use has more potential to affect park resources, visitors, or community interests.

    The agency's strongest support is that rulemaking would be required for any designation meeting the 36 CFR 1.5(b) criteria, which cover actions that would adversely affect the park's natural, aesthetic, scenic or cultural values or significantly alter public use patterns, and for all never-improved locations. It points to its micromobility rule treating never-improved surfaces as higher impact and asks for comment on the criteria. Still, the document gives no data showing that past surfacing, such as gravel or old rail beds, predicts lower impact, and designations on those surfaces outside the 1.5(b) criteria would need only notice.

    AskProvide evidence that surface history predicts impact, and require public comment for any new bike or e-bike designation on backcountry or natural-surface trails.

    The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words

    The agency says

    “The purpose of the rulemaking requirements in this rule is to ensure public involvement in decision-making that has more potential for impacts to park resources, values, and visitors, or when stakeholders such as gateway communities have strong viewpoints about potential designations.”

    Proposed Rule

    Elsewhere in the same document

    “Rulemaking would not be required for locations with surfaces composed of these materials at present, nor for locations that have a natural surface at present but in the past were altered or improved by artificial or processed materials, such as trails located on top of old rail lines.”

    Proposed Rule

    “The use of bicycles and electric bicycles is allowed in other locations designated by the superintendent after notice is provided using one or more of the methods described in § 1.7 of this chapter.”

    § 4.30 Bicycles

    The law

    “After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose.” Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(c) ↗

  • Process

    No support given

    The rule itself needs no environmental review because it fits categorical exclusions and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

    The agency relies on two exclusions: one for minor changes to visitor-activity regulations, covering e-bikes on public park roads, and one for procedural rules whose effects are too broad or speculative to analyze and will later be subject to NEPA collectively or case by case. It argues the significant-impact bar is replaced by the Organic Act non-impairment standard and the Management Policies bar on unacceptable impacts. Still, the document states its extraordinary-circumstances conclusion without showing that review and says it will document the exclusions later.

    AskPublish the categorical exclusion documentation and explain how extraordinary circumstances were reviewed for allowing e-bikes on all park roads.

    The agency’s words +Hide the words

    The agency says

    “This rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.”

    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

Read from the agency’s own decision document ↗, all 7 pages. Every quote is checked word for word against it, a claim marked contradicted stands on a quote from the same document, and a second reading argued the agency’s side of every verdict before it was published. The verdicts are our reading; the quotes are the agency’s. A court can set aside agency action it finds “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” (5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) ↗), which is why these gaps are worth putting in the record.