A Double Blow to Our National Forests
Just days after announcing plans to rescind the Roadless Rule “in its entirety,” the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced a sweeping effort to rewrite the Forest Service’s Travel Management Rule (TMR).
Together, these proposals deal a double blow to all forest users by overturning 50 years of established use of our National Forests on which we have all relied.
Now is the time to join the effort to stop this needless destruction of our federal land policies. Below, we explain how you can help.
What is the Travel Management Rule (TMR)?
Established in 2005, the TMR provides the framework for deciding where motorized vehicles can travel on National Forest System lands. The rule was established to ensure the long-term, sustainable use of our national forests for both motorized and non-motorized recreationists, reduce user conflict and safety concerns, and limit harm to wildlife, trails, and watersheds. Its foundations reach back to Executive Orders issued by Presidents Nixon and Carter in 1972 and 1977.
Now, the Forest Service is proposing a fundamentally different approach—one that would establish a national policy favoring increased access to motorized vehicles and presume that existing roads, trails, airfields, trailheads, and other access routes are open to them unless they are explicitly closed or restricted.
Together, these proposals deal a double blow to all forest users by overturning 50 years of established use of our National Forests on which we have all relied.
Now is the time to join the effort to stop this needless destruction of our federal land policies. Below, we explain how you can help.
What is the Travel Management Rule (TMR)?
Established in 2005, the TMR provides the framework for deciding where motorized vehicles can travel on National Forest System lands. The rule was established to ensure the long-term, sustainable use of our national forests for both motorized and non-motorized recreationists, reduce user conflict and safety concerns, and limit harm to wildlife, trails, and watersheds. Its foundations reach back to Executive Orders issued by Presidents Nixon and Carter in 1972 and 1977.
Now, the Forest Service is proposing a fundamentally different approach—one that would establish a national policy favoring increased access to motorized vehicles and presume that existing roads, trails, airfields, trailheads, and other access routes are open to them unless they are explicitly closed or restricted.
Make your voice heard today! The deadline for public comment is Wednesday, September 23.
Here are two alternative ways to send a comment:
Sign the Virginia Wilderness Committee petition. We’ll send the names in by the deadline, and each person will be counted individually toward the total comments received. The text of the petition is similar to the info below, VWC petition.
OR
Submit your own comment directly to the Forest Service. Personalized, specific comments give the agency more information to evaluate. Below are points you can work from. Anybody can submit a comment on an agency’s proposed regulation at Regulations.gov.
Here are two alternative ways to send a comment:
Sign the Virginia Wilderness Committee petition. We’ll send the names in by the deadline, and each person will be counted individually toward the total comments received. The text of the petition is similar to the info below, VWC petition.
OR
Submit your own comment directly to the Forest Service. Personalized, specific comments give the agency more information to evaluate. Below are points you can work from. Anybody can submit a comment on an agency’s proposed regulation at Regulations.gov.
WHAT COULD CHANGE?
1. From “closed unless designated open” to “open unless explicitly closed.”
Under the current system, motorized use is generally limited to routes and areas specifically designated for that use and shown on Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUMs).
The proposed framework would reverse the current approach by establishing an “open unless closed” presumption for existing access routes and other features. It would also require Forest Service staff to conduct annual trail reviews despite funding shortages and staff cuts. This raises serious questions about whether the agency has the resources to identify, evaluate, maintain, sign, and enforce routes across millions of acres of national forest land.
2. Elimination of the Mandatory Safety and Environmental Protection Rules (National Minimization Criteria)
The proposal would remove the TMR’s existing minimization criteria, guidelines intended to help land managers reduce negative impacts from motorized use on soil, vegetation, and wildlife. Those criteria have helped guide travel-management decisions around conflicts among uses and impacts to natural resources.
3. Changes to public participation.
Under the proposal, only “substantive” changes would require environmental review under NEPA or similar public-participation processes. Because the term is undefined, the public could be excluded from decisions affecting trail access or permitted uses.
4. A new classification for some e-bikes.
The proposed framework would redefine Class 1 e-bikes as non-motorized.
5. The proposal assumes other safeguards will remain in place.
The Forest Service’s proposal relies in part on other laws, regulations, and land-management authorities to address resource protection and environmental impacts. But many of those safeguards have also been weakened this year—or removed altogether.
1. From “closed unless designated open” to “open unless explicitly closed.”
Under the current system, motorized use is generally limited to routes and areas specifically designated for that use and shown on Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUMs).
The proposed framework would reverse the current approach by establishing an “open unless closed” presumption for existing access routes and other features. It would also require Forest Service staff to conduct annual trail reviews despite funding shortages and staff cuts. This raises serious questions about whether the agency has the resources to identify, evaluate, maintain, sign, and enforce routes across millions of acres of national forest land.
2. Elimination of the Mandatory Safety and Environmental Protection Rules (National Minimization Criteria)
The proposal would remove the TMR’s existing minimization criteria, guidelines intended to help land managers reduce negative impacts from motorized use on soil, vegetation, and wildlife. Those criteria have helped guide travel-management decisions around conflicts among uses and impacts to natural resources.
3. Changes to public participation.
Under the proposal, only “substantive” changes would require environmental review under NEPA or similar public-participation processes. Because the term is undefined, the public could be excluded from decisions affecting trail access or permitted uses.
4. A new classification for some e-bikes.
The proposed framework would redefine Class 1 e-bikes as non-motorized.
5. The proposal assumes other safeguards will remain in place.
The Forest Service’s proposal relies in part on other laws, regulations, and land-management authorities to address resource protection and environmental impacts. But many of those safeguards have also been weakened this year—or removed altogether.
CRITICAL ISSUES
The Travel Management Rule does more than determine where vehicles can go. It provides a framework for balancing access with public safety, natural-resource protection, conflicts among different forms of recreation, and the capacity of the Forest Service to manage its transportation system.
Without clear, enforceable standards and meaningful opportunities for public participation, decisions about motorized access could become harder for the public to track, understand, and engage with.
The TMR revision fails to address the ecological and maintenance effects of increased motorized trail use, the safety risks and user conflicts that will arise from uncertain trail access, or the financial and staffing burden on the Forest Service.
The future of how we share and protect our national forests is being shaped now.
The Travel Management Rule does more than determine where vehicles can go. It provides a framework for balancing access with public safety, natural-resource protection, conflicts among different forms of recreation, and the capacity of the Forest Service to manage its transportation system.
Without clear, enforceable standards and meaningful opportunities for public participation, decisions about motorized access could become harder for the public to track, understand, and engage with.
The TMR revision fails to address the ecological and maintenance effects of increased motorized trail use, the safety risks and user conflicts that will arise from uncertain trail access, or the financial and staffing burden on the Forest Service.
The future of how we share and protect our national forests is being shaped now.
