How do I submit a public comment on Bicycle Use in Park Areas?

The public comment window for this decision closed on November 2, 2026. The record of what was at stake stays on this page.

When is the public comment deadline for Bicycle Use in Park Areas?

The comment window closed on November 2, 2026.

Do public comments actually change federal decisions?

Yes, when they are substantive. Agencies are legally required to read and respond to substantive comments before finalizing a rule, and specific personal comments about real places and real uses carry far more weight than identical form letters. Courts have overturned rules when agencies ignored substantive comments.

Stop NPS from gutting environmental review for park bicycle trails

← All fights

Record closed November 2, 2026

Mountain bikers on the White Rim Road, Canyonlands National Park, Utah (NPS photo) — Comments closed November 2
Stop NPS from gutting environmental review for park bicycle trails
National Park Service

What: The rule eliminates mandatory environmental review, wildlife-protection determinations, and guaranteed public comment for bicycle and e-bike trail designations across more than 400 national park units.
Where: The notice names no place; see the agency’s own words under Case.
How much: more than 400 areas and sites park areas and sites covered by the rule; at least 30 days, now discretionary current mandatory EA comment period being removed; a 20-foot paved connector path example used to justify removing planning doc for all trails
Decided: Comments closed November 2, 2026. No decision document is on file yet.Date from Federal Register ↗, read November 1, 2026.

Where these four lines come from

WhatOur plain-English read of the Federal Register 2026-17902 ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words under Case.
WhereThe places and states the notice names, as PLAN read them.
more than 400 areas and sites“responsible for administering the National Park System of more than 400 areas and sites that preserve America's natural and cultural heritage” Bicycle Use in Park Areas Open the document ↗
at least 30 days, now discretionary“require the NPS to provide the public with at least 30 days to review and comment on an EA, if prepared” Policy and Regulatory Framework Open the document ↗
a 20-foot paved connector path“such as a 20-foot paved path connecting a parking lot with a visitor center” Policy and Regulatory Framework Open the document ↗
DecidedNovember 2, 2026, from Federal Register, the notice's DATES field (federalregister.gov API) ↗: “Comments on the proposed rule must be received by 11:59 pm ET on November 2, 2026.”. Read November 1, 2026. The decision document is the one on file in PLAN’s record.
Read from PLAN’s record November 9, 2026.

Who signed this

Kevin Lilly

Principal Deputy, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks

A person signed this, not an agency. The window has closed and the signature stands, which is exactly when accountability matters.

What to say

Short is better. You are asking Assistant Secretary Lilly to answer for a decision their office made.

My name is [your name] and I'm calling from [your city and state]. Kevin Lilly, Principal Deputy, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, signed the decision on Stop NPS from gutting environmental review for park bicycle trails. I'm asking that office to answer for it publicly. Please record that I called and tell me what the office intends to do.

Official channels only, about this decision. No personal phone numbers, no home addresses, no personal social accounts, and nothing abusive. The point is to make the office answer, and an abusive call is the one thing that lets it off the hook.

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.

Affects public lands

PLAN’s own label for this notice, read from the official notice ↗.

The rule eliminates mandatory environmental review, wildlife-protection determinations, and guaranteed public comment for bicycle and e-bike trail designations across more than 400 national park units.

What’s at risk

The rule removes the written determination requiring that bicycle use 'will not disturb wildlife or park resources' and drops the requirement that new trails follow sustainable design principles meant to prevent soil erosion. It also eliminates the guaranteed 30-day public comment period on environmental assessments, leaving public involvement to individual superintendent discretion.

If this goes through

Bicycles and e-bikes become allowed on every park road and parking area already open to motor vehicles immediately, without superintendent review, across the entire National Park System of more than 400 areas and sites. Superintendents can designate new trails and administrative roads for bicycle use with no mandatory EA, EIS, planning document, or written wildlife determination, and no fixed public comment period, unless the designation triggers one of two narrow rulemaking exceptions.

Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.

By the numbers, from the agency’s own document

Park areas and sites covered by the rule: more than 400 areas and sites
Bicycle Use in Park Areas
“responsible for administering the National Park System of more than 400 areas and sites that preserve America's natural and cultural heritage”
Open the document ↗
Current mandatory EA comment period being removed: at least 30 days, now discretionary
Policy and Regulatory Framework
“require the NPS to provide the public with at least 30 days to review and comment on an EA, if prepared”
Open the document ↗
Example used to justify removing planning doc for all trails: a 20-foot paved connector path
Policy and Regulatory Framework
“such as a 20-foot paved path connecting a parking lot with a visitor center”
Open the document ↗
Unsupported economic scale claim: no effect of $100 million or more claimed
Congressional Review Act
“Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more”
Open the document ↗

Source: the agency’s document ↗

The agency’s case, tested

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

2
Hold up: 6
Not fully backed: 1
Never analyzed

The National Park Service proposes to drop rules that require an environmental assessment or impact statement, a planning document, a written determination and public comment before bike trails are designated. It says those steps conflict with NEPA and Interior policy and unnecessarily restrict recreation, and it would require rulemaking only for significant or controversial designations and never-improved locations.

“The changes would align NPS regulations with applicable Federal law and policy, remove unnecessary requirements, and ensure public involvement when needed.”
Summary

Purpose and needNot fully backedThe 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.
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
EffectsNot fully backedThe 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.
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
EffectsNot fully backedDropping 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.
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
- EconomicsNot fully backedThe 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.
  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)
- ProcessNot fully backedThe 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.
  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) ↗
- ProcessNot fully backedThe 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.
  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.)

What the document never analyzes

Not analyzedEndangered species and critical habitat
The existing rule requires a finding that bike use won't disturb wildlife, and the proposal drops it, yet the document never discusses threatened or endangered species along trails.
Searched all 7 pages for ‘endangered’, ‘critical habitat’, ‘endangered species act’. None appear.

Where its own record backs the agency

AuthorityThe current bike rules force a full environmental review in every case, blocking categorical exclusions that NEPA would otherwise allow, such as the one adopted from the Federal Highway Administration.Why it holds +
The document describes the existing regulations as requiring an environmental assessment or impact statement for listed actions whether or not NEPA would require one. It also says the agency adopted a highway categorical exclusion covering bicycle paths. On the document's own description, the current rule does block that pathway.
The agency says
“The NPS cannot use this categorical exclusion, however, for the construction of new bicycle trails because of the regulatory requirement to prepare an EA or EIS.”
Policy and Regulatory Framework
Its own record backs it
“These regulations require the NPS to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) that evaluates the potential impacts of various actions, whether or not an EA or EIS would be required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).”
Policy and Regulatory Framework
ProcessThe required minimum 30-day comment period on an environmental assessment conflicts with Interior's NEPA Handbook and should be removed.Why it holds +
The agency's main point is that the Handbook says NEPA doesn't require public involvement on an environmental assessment and leaves whether, when and how to involve the public to the official's discretion. A rule that mandates a comment period in every case conflicts with that discretion on the document's own terms. The duration point is weaker: the Handbook says periods, if offered, should generally not be more than 30 days, and a 30-day period meets both. That doesn't undo the conflict on whether to offer comment at all.
The agency says
“The requirement to provide at least 30 days of public comment on an EA conflicts with Departmental policy set forth in 516 DM 1—U.S. Department of the Interior Handbook of NEPA Implementing Procedures (the Handbook).”
Policy and Regulatory Framework
Its own record backs it
“The Handbook states that public comment periods, if offered, should generally not be more than 30 days.”
Policy and Regulatory Framework

How this was read

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.

In the agency’s own words

The National Park Service (NPS) proposes to modify the procedural requirements in existing NPS regulations for the designation of roads and trails for bicycle use within park areas. The changes would align NPS regulations with applicable Federal law and policy, remove unnecessary requirements, and ensure public involvement when needed. The changes in this rule would allow the NPS to manage its resources and allocate taxpayer funds more efficiently and streamline the approval of new and expanded opportunities for use and enjoyment of park areas by the American public.

Federal Register 2026-17902 ↗