There have been rumblings that the FS is considering removing the Travel Management Rule. In my view, it’s a bit like Roadless, or the NWFP, or the Planning Rule.. it has been in place for awhile and each could be improved, based on peoples’ experiences. In some management circles, there’s the idea of “continuous improvement” in which performance is monitored and changes made. That’s also adaptive management. Conceptually, it’s not hard to do. Once every, say ten years, convene people and have a public involvement process to suggest improvements, consider them, do an EIS (whoops), get litigated and continue. Maybe it’s the EIS and get litigated part that defeats the concept of continuous improvement. Anyway, once again, as with Roadless, some interest groups want to seek improvement rather than throwing out the whole thing. Don’t we all want to see improvements? And if the problem is trusting an R Admin to do it (which I understand), wouldn’t a solution be to do these reviews under a D Admin? Otherwise we have a Very Intermittent Improvement process, or a Nonexistent Improvement Process. In a way, that’s what the Wildfire Commission was. Anyway, here One Voice TMR outline for USFSis a link to the letter to the Chief from some recreation groups that points out improvements that could be made to the TMR.
NAFSR, the Forest Service Retirees, wrote a letter to the Chief, below are excerpts:
We understand that you are considering repeal of this 2005 rule. NAFSR would not oppose a review of, and possible revision of the rule. An important rule like this would likely benefit from a comprehensive examination and revision to assure its currency and address what might not be working well. We believe it should be easier to amend local travel management plans and maps that currently exist. Perhaps there is a way to better utilize categorical exclusions in the process? For instance, if an individual road currently closed should be opened, it should be easy to do so.
*******
We support the advice you recently received from the Motorcycle Industry Council, Recreational OHV Association, and Specialty Vehicle Institute of America urging improvements in, but not a total repeal of the rule. We believe most organizations and users across the spectrum of motorized to non-motorized users would favor revision and oppose a repeal.
*********
Here are some excerpts from what NAFSR received in reply:from the Forest Service
The Forest Service acknowledges resource management concerns related to the TMR and the need for regulations and maps for public motor vehicle access. We are working to rescind or revise the TMR to provide more flexibility for local decision making, streamline planning requirements and map updates, and increase access while protecting resources. President Trump’s Administration recently announced this action as part of the Spring 2025 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
Off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation has grown tremendously, and technological improvements have made more vehicles available to the public. While some OHVs are bigger and more powerful, others are smaller and use low-power electric motors. The Forest Service and other land managers are facing new challenges with enforcement, user conflicts, and resource impacts as demand for OHV recreation access is increasing rapidly. Additionally, technological improvements have spurred promising new devices for individuals with mobility challenges. Regulations must be updated to allow new technology to benefit the public while conserving and protecting natural and cultural resources
Then there’s the question of considering one kind of recreation (motorized) separate from other kinds, bikes, horses and hikers, fisherfolk and hunters, campers, scenic drive folks, wildlife watchers and so on. We are talking the recreation infrastructure of each forest, which conceivably could or should be handled as pieces of a whole. It is truly a policy challenge to find the best spatial/temporal corral for negotiating and resolving policy issues.
But given we are talking about the TMR, the next post will get to some more ground-level concerns.
Nah, I say kill it; that Rule was conceived with good intent but too many zealous wanna-be’s took it to heart to close down as much motorized travel as they could, no matter the reason! I’ve seen Forest Sups stand up and lie like a dog, to both their employees and worse, the public on what the Rules impacts would be!
Whatever perceived good the Rule might have has been destroyed in mistrust and conniving by unelected civil servants.
Send it to the dumpster!
The problem as One Voice points out is that those conniving bureaucrats will still be there. With no TMR they will be free to do whatever they want, closing roads without even the formality of a prescribed travel management process. Forests still closed plenty of roads before the TMR. So what we need is to invert the TMR to promote motorized recreation instead of demonize it. Make it force local forests to actually prioritize motorized recreation with mandatory standards they have to meet. At the very least make it difficult to justify closing roads and easy to keep existing ones open and reopen closed ones. Invert the current incentives and make the TMR work for us.
As a “conniving bureaucrat” (I guess demonizing and name calling is OK here?) I would point out that in my experience most of the road closures that do occur are not a result of wildlife or other resource concerns, but a result of landowners, utility companies, and permittees. It is more about managing conflict than about resource protection in most cases. It’s already quite difficult to close designated roads. Making it more so would make it quite difficult to manage conflict and protect permitted infrastructure from damage.
Mike D: Conniving Bureaucrats are those who work to upend legate uses, where appropriate, of public lands. I wish my experience in travel planning would have been as low key as you say yours were. I had a front row seat in three Regions.
As a Forest Sup, I was responsible for signing those documents. As a Ranger, I saw many instances where staff misused their expertise to carry out a vengeance because they just did not like the noise. You bet I learned from the best and upheld the Pinchot Principles that hung on my wall! I never mistook my charge of managing public lands for the good of the American public.
It is a tough row to hoe in even approaching the concept of how the TMR was to be managed. It would have made more sense to have had top down direction instead of rolling your/our own. Concepts such as black and white only maps, showing only open roads, the promise of “adding” routes 🤣 and yearly updating, or at least date stamping Forest maps…..
I’m sorry, but the idea never saw the fruits of good intention!
From the other Mike…. We’ve had several road closures (or sections of roads) due to wildlife concerns on the Rio Grande NF, almost all of which were initiated by concerns voiced by CO Parks and Wildlife. In some cases they are just seasonal closures starting when hunting season begins.
If the TMR goes away, I don’t think that could affect any of the existing travel plans, which were adopted through a public/NEPA process subject to the APA. Not without a lot of site-specific effects analysis and public involvement anyway. Maybe forests would have to do a lot of travel unplanning?
On a so called “closed Forest”, I think you are correct Jon; the “open Forests”, whose Forest Plan does not have a closed Forest floor could be interesting. And, I’m not throwing all FS employees under the bus; many are the best folks I’ve ever worked with. However, in “open forest” Forests, the intent to overdo closures were very evident.
Probably my biggest complaint with the Rule is the lack of commitment by the FS to follow suite. Lots of slippage from the original Rule and its interpretation. We were really sold a new Cadillac, but ended up with a broken down Chevy farm truck! I was told by one District “no, we don’t have any TMR maps, it cost too much to print them”…….. I have maps from one Forest that were never been reprinted until 2025, even their date stamps were six years old! Anyone see many “new” routes added? I’ve not seen one! Map errors? Not corrected in ten years, “ah, just go ahead and use that closed route anyway”, I was told!
Regions 2 and 3 done a pretty good job; some were spot on every year, some just so-so. Some of Region 8 is/was a train wreck! The TMR was about the same complexity and impact on the public as the removal and management of livestock in the 1930’s! The only difference is I’ve never heard of anyone getting killed over a TMR closure…..