There is bound to be quite a bit of coverage of this NOI. So I thought I’d get the proposal itself before we get to others’ statements about it. The problem I’ve noticed over time with proposed rules is that reporting tends to focus on “the worst thing that could happen” not “what is likely to happen after the regulation filters its way down to the field level.” This makes for engaging headlines and quotes, but may leave readers in the dark about the likelihood of feared bad things transpiring. We may have talked about it some, but I don’t remember talking about the e-bike provision.
Here we go:
*****************
Preliminary Description of Proposed Action
The proposed action would establish a new national policy to guide local travel-management decisions, remove the minimization criteria in subparts B and C, revise other identified process requirements, and separately amend subpart A as described below.
Future changes to public access covered by the amended regulations would be governed by the proposed access rule, applicable laws, valid existing rights, other governing instruments, and public participation and governmental coordination requirements identified in the amended rule, Tribal consultation requirements, local access needs, and documented resource and safety considerations. Maps showing designated roads, trails, airfields, trailheads, and other access routes and points would continue to be published and periodically updated for each NFS administrative unit.
The proposed regulations would establish a new regulatory framework governing local decision-making. The Department invites public comment on the following components of that framework:
1. The amended regulations would establish a presumption that existing roads, trails, airfields, trailheads, and other access routes and points on NFS lands are open to appropriate public use unless closure or restriction is required by applicable law, valid existing rights, or another governing instrument, or is supported by specific, documented and justifiable reasons based on science-based resource conditions, public safety, conflicts among uses, or maintenance and administrative capacity. This presumption would include access along section lines in certain national grasslands in North Dakota. The presumption would not itself establish the existence, ownership, or scope of a public right-of-way or establish Forest Service jurisdiction or legal access. Seasonal restrictions could be applied. The amended regulations would require, subject to available appropriations, an annual unit-level process to identify closed or highly restricted trails, roads, airfields, trailheads, and other access routes and points that may warrant reconsideration. The responsible official would conduct the review and indicate which routes or access points may be reconsidered for a change in status. A route would be reopened only through the process prescribed by the proposed access rule and only if reopening would be consistent with applicable law, valid existing rights, other governing instruments, available appropriations, and the governing access and closure criteria.
2. The proposed access rule would establish a requirement to consider new roads, trails, airfields, trailheads, and other access routes and points where appropriate to increase access. The policy would not itself authorize construction or commit resources and would remain subject to applicable law, valid existing rights, governing instruments, site-specific review, and available appropriations.
3. The proposed regulations would address Forest Service management of NFS airfields and the use of NFS lands for aircraft landing and takeoff. It would identify the regulations and existing airfield or aircraft restrictions proposed for amendment and the criteria and process for opening, restricting, or closing an airfield.
4. The proposed access rule would establish processes and conditions for authorizing limited off-route motor vehicle and other motorized equipment use for, among other things, downed big-game retrieval, firewood collection, dispersed camping, and for designating areas for over-snow and other motorized recreation. The proposed regulations would specify whether each use would be authorized through a route or area designation, a written authorization, or a categorical exemption and would establish applicable geographic, seasonal, vehicle-class, and resource-protection conditions.
The proposed action would separately revise specified portions of subpart A. Specifically, section 212.5(b)(1) would be revised to replace the current minimum-road-system requirement with criteria for determining an adequate and appropriate forest transportation system, including access needs, resource protection, safety, maintenance capacity, and applicable land management plan components. Section 212.1 would be revised to define the vehicle and use categories subject to different designation or exemption requirements specified in subparts B and C and part 261, rather than relying exclusively on a motorized or nonmotorized classification. For each provision, the proposed rule would identify whether it would be eliminated, retained in the CFR, moved to another CFR provision, or moved to Agency directives, and would explain any resulting change in legal effect, enforceability, or third-party rights and obligations.
The proposed action would add specified categories of exempt vehicles or uses to the designation and prohibition framework in 36 CFR parts 212 and 261 and would revise that framework to accommodate new vehicle types and uses without relying on a binary motorized or nonmotorized classification.
For purposes of the proposal, “class 1 electric bicycle” would have the meaning in 23 U.S.C. 217(j)(2)(A) and (B)(i). The proposed action would exempt class 1 electric bicycles from the motor vehicle use designation requirement in 36 CFR 212.51(a) and the prohibition in 36 CFR 261.13 when operated on an NFS trail where bicycle use is allowed, subject to applicable land management plan direction, seasonal restrictions, orders, and site-specific restrictions adopted by the responsible official under the criteria and procedures in the proposed rule. The EIS would analyze an alternative retaining class 1 e-bikes as motor vehicles subject to motor vehicle use designations and alternatives adopting broader or narrower exemption conditions.
Any additional categorical authorization for low-powered electric mobility devices used by persons with mobility disabilities would be defined by objective criteria in the proposed rule, including the covered devices and the scope and conditions of the authorization, and coordinated with applicable disability-access requirements. Any additional authorization would supplement, and would not limit, existing rights or Agency obligations under applicable disability-access laws. These changes would be evaluated in light of approaches used by other Federal and State land management agencies.
With regard to subparts B and C, the proposed action would establish an access-planning process and would not itself authorize construction or other ground-disturbing activities or projects. The access presumption set forth in the national policy would guide future decisions and would not itself open a currently closed route, airfield, trailhead, or other access point except to the extent that the amended regulations expressly make a specified vehicle- or use-specific exemption self-executing. Existing motor vehicle use designations, including the designations shown on MVUMs and OSVUMs, would remain in effect until revised under the amended regulations. Prohibitions established under other authorities would remain in effect until modified, rescinded, or expired under those authorities.
Future site-specific designation decisions would be made by local officials after analysis and evaluation of land and resource conditions, consistent with applicable law. If the rule removes sections 212.52 and 212.53, it would identify the public involvement, governmental-coordination, and Tribal-consultation requirements that will govern future designation and revision decisions.
E.O. 14408 is about, “Removing Unnecessary and Counterproductive Restrictions on Access to Federal Lands.” But, “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.” And this rule would not by itself trigger removing any restrictions. Have national forests been demanding an authority to do this that they don’t have?
To carry on the tradition of this blog to talk about forest planning, it’s worth also pointing out this:
“The Department proposes to replace the minimization criteria and other identified TMR-specific procedures with an access-oriented framework grounded in applicable statutes, regulations, and the proposed access rule, as follows:
(1) Clarify the relationship between land management planning under the National Forest Management Act and travel management or access decisions under this part. Land management plans establish the broad, integrated framework for managing NFS lands. They do not themselves authorize individual projects or activities. Decisions concerning the designation, management, modification, or discontinuation of particular roads, trails, areas, and classes of motor vehicle use are implementation-level decisions that are appropriately made by responsible officials based on current site-specific conditions and management needs.
(2) Experience implementing the 2005 TMR demonstrates that unnecessarily linking travel management decisions to land management planning can reduce the flexibility necessary to respond to changing access needs, recreation demands, resource conditions, wildfire and other disturbances, public safety concerns, maintenance capabilities, and available funding. Land management plans typically operate over long planning horizons, while transportation systems and public uses may require more timely adjustment.
(3) Accordingly, the proposed rule would acknowledge the need to remain consistent with the National Forest Management Act but would clarify that travel management or access decisions are not land management planning decisions and need not be made through the procedures governing development, amendment, or revision of land management plans, unless a plan amendment or revision is required to resolve inconsistency with an applicable plan component. Within those constraints, responsible officials would retain discretion to make access decisions under this part based on the circumstances presented at the time of the decision.”
Points 4 and 5 just reiterate compliance with NEPA and other laws. This language is an “access-oriented framework?” All they are really doing is getting rid of the minimization criteria – applicable to hypothetical future decisions. Should we expect that following a final rule, there would be an order to replace all travel plans?
But I have no idea what “unnecessarily linking travel management decisions to land management planning” is talking about. The 2012 Planning Rule covers this link in a couple of places, and I’m not aware of any confusion about this.
36 CFR §219.2(b)(2) – “A plan does not authorize projects or activities or commit the Forest Service to take action. … Projects and activities must be consistent with the plan (§ 219.15). A plan does not regulate uses by the public, but a project or activity decision that regulates a use by the public under 36 CFR Part 261, Subpart B, may be made contemporaneously with the approval of a plan, plan amendment, or plan revision.” (Maybe that latter language could lead to confusion, but has this ever been done for a travel plan?)
36 CFR 219.15(e) – “Consistency of resource plans within the planning area with the land management plan. Any resource plans (for example, travel management plans) developed by the Forest Service that apply to the resources or land areas within the planning area must be consistent with the plan components. Resource plans developed prior to plan decision must be evaluated for consistency with the plan and amended if necessary.” (To that last point, what I have seen in forest plan revisions is making the revisions consistent with existing travel plans – no desire to reopen those questions during plan revision.)
So what is the problem they are trying to solve?
Jon, I don’t understand that either. Maybe one of our knowledgeable motorized folks will know.
I would think that that would be a very good comment to make if you are so inclined. They should really explain what and where the problem has been (and to whom it is a problem) so we understand. I think all the travel management plans I know of have been separate from plan revisions but follow existing plans.
Thank you, Sharon for posting this and Jon for commenting here on this proposal. I’ve had the Regulations.gov page open on my computer for 2 weeks now, dreading having to look through the proposed MVUM rule change, but haven’t been able to tackle it, especially just after commenting on the Roadless Recission. Comments are due in 9 days, and they’ve got about 100,000 comments so far. This seems like a lot of effort to justify “access along section lines in certain national grasslands in North Dakota” among other things. Who’s in North Dakota? And, hummm, is there someone in maybe Idaho who’s interested in “NFS airfields and the use of NFS lands for aircraft landing and takeoff”? Electric bikes take the stage here to become one with nonmotorized transportation. Oh, and “require, subject to available appropriations, an annual unit-level process to identify closed or highly restricted trails, roads, airfields, trailheads, and other access routes and points that may warrant reconsideration” as if the smaller workforce has the time to do this. I’ll add in the idea of what problem are they trying to solve. Thanks, guys!
Hi Teri, you might want to take a look at some of the concerns with the TMR expressed by folks here. Whether or not you agree with them, or that the Admin’s proposal will help. And there are the “review not repeal” folks. https://forestpolicypub.com/2026/02/03/review-not-repeal-nafsr-on-the-travel-management-rule/ you also might look at Jim Z’s comments on that post. I’m always a review not repeal thinker in general, but to review it seems necessary to understand the views of those who aren’t happy with the status quo. And sometimes it’s not the Rule per se but the way different folks in different regions or forests have carried it out.
I do wish I could have seen this before I submitted my comment (after writing my comment here). I looked at NASFR website and didn’t see anything on MVUM, nor did I catch the February discussion here. Probably wouldn’t have changed my comment, though. The comments from February seem to be the opposite side of the same coin. It’s an overwhelming prospect to implement any kind of travel management and with the hollowing out of the agency with many new mandates plus reorganization, they’re asking too much. I’m focused on cross country travel, not roads, which seems to be the concern in the comments here. In Florida we had rampant mud bogging and cross country OHV use churning up the countryside. It took many years to get the genie into the bottle and it might be impossible to get it back in. I questioned something so specific as a boundary line in North Dakota, why can’t that be resolved locally? Or a rider in an appropriation bill. Suspicious of airplane runways and letting e-bikes into non motorized areas. The old trope about disabled access. They’re going to do this anyway but I just wanted to weigh in. As a line officer, I was grateful to have a national rule. It’s always going to come down to local relationships but having a framework helps.