New Federal Rule Could Change How We Access National Forest Trails — Here’s What Hikers Need to Know

The Good Stuff

Better digital maps. This is probably the clearest win for hikers. The proposed rule would require the Forest Service to publish integrated digital maps — GIS-compatible, publicly available — showing access rules for every trail, road, and trailhead. No more hunting for paper Motor Vehicle Use Maps at a ranger station that’s closed when you get there. This supports the EXPLORE Act’s mapping requirements and honestly, it’s overdue. If you’ve ever stood at a trailhead wondering whether ATVs are allowed on the trail you’re about to hike, better maps solve that problem.

A presumption that existing access stays open. The proposed rule establishes a national policy that existing roads, trails, and trailheads are presumed open to appropriate public use. If you’ve ever shown up to a favorite trail and found it gated with no real explanation, this is meant to address that. Closures would need to be specifically justified with documented, science-based reasons — not just an administrative decision made quietly in an office somewhere. For hikers who’ve watched trailheads get closed or access roads get decommissioned, this could be a positive development.

Annual review of closures. Under the proposed rule, all closed or highly restricted routes would get reviewed every year. If a trail was closed for a reason that no longer applies — say, a fire recovery that’s long since happened — this creates a mechanism to get it reopened. More accountability, more transparency.

Local decision-making is preserved. Site-specific designation decisions would still be made by local Forest officials who know the land. This isn’t a one-size-fits-all mandate from Washington.

The Concerns

Now here’s where it gets complicated, and I want to be straight with you about this.

The “minimization criteria” are being removed. Since the 1970s, executive orders have required the Forest Service to minimize the damage that off-road vehicles cause to soil, wildlife habitat, and conflicts with other users — meaning us, the hikers. The current administration rescinded those executive orders, and this proposed rule follows through by stripping those minimization standards out of the regulations. That’s a significant loss of an environmental guardrail that has, for decades, been one of the main checks on motorized expansion into quiet areas.

More motorized use could show up on trails you love. The rule would allow limited off-route motor vehicle use for things like big-game retrieval, firewood collection, and dispersed camping. It would also designate areas for over-snow motorized recreation. And Class 1 electric bicycles would be exempt from motor vehicle restrictions on any trail where regular bikes are already allowed. Each of these individually might sound reasonable. But taken together, they represent a meaningful expansion of motorized activity on lands that many of us value precisely because they’re quiet.

The burden flips. This is the one that concerns me most. Under the current rule, motorized use has to be designated — affirmatively approved. Under the proposed rule, everything is presumed open and closures have to be justified and re-justified every year. That’s a fundamental shift. It means the folks arguing for keeping a trail non-motorized now bear the burden of proof, year after year. If you’ve ever hiked a trail where the solitude was the whole point, that trail’s character now depends on someone in the local Forest office successfully defending its closure every twelve months.

Non-Wilderness backcountry is most at risk. Designated Wilderness Areas are protected by the Wilderness Act — motorized and mechanized use stays out regardless of this rule. But the vast majority of National Forest land isn’t designated Wilderness. It’s that beautiful backcountry we hike through to get to high lakes, ridgeline camps, and quiet valleys. That land has no statutory protection from motorized use, and under this rule, it becomes more vulnerable.

What This Doesn’t Do

A few things worth noting so we keep this in perspective:

• The rule doesn’t change anything yet. Existing motor vehicle use designations and maps stay in effect until revised under the new framework. The draft rule and environmental impact statement aren’t expected until spring 2027, with a final rule in early 2028.
• It doesn’t authorize road construction or ground-disturbing development on its own.
• It doesn’t override Wilderness protections.
• It doesn’t remove the requirement for environmental review of site-specific decisions.

My Take

I’m not anti-motorized. I understand that hunters, anglers, folks collecting firewood, and OHV riders have legitimate uses for these lands too. National Forests are multiple-use lands and always have been. But good trail management has always been about balance — making sure different users can enjoy the forest without one group’s experience coming at the expense of another’s.

What worries me about this proposal is that it tips the scales. Removing the minimization criteria, flipping the default to open, and requiring annual justification for closures — that’s a lot of structural change in one direction. The digital mapping improvements are great, and more transparency around closures is welcome. But I’d like to see those positives without losing the protections that keep our favorite backcountry trails the way they are.

Make Your Voice Heard

The comment period closes September 23, 2026. Over 124,000 comments have already been submitted. If access to quiet trails and backcountry solitude matters to you, this is the time to speak up.

Submit your comment here: regulations.gov — Docket FS-2026-0100-0001

You can also read the full Federal Register notice here: Travel Management; National Forest System Lands

Get out there — and let’s make sure we still can.