Why We Are Concerned About Access in the Forest Plan

You might be asking yourself: why is Forest Access For All so concerned that the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision could restrict motorized access?

Agency staff have repeatedly said this plan does not directly address access or travel management. We have been told travel management will come later, after the forest plan revision, so access is not really an issue in this plan.

That sounds reassuring.

Until you start digging into the documents.

Access may not always show up under the word “access.” It can show up through other plan tools, sideboards, definitions, and management direction. One example is the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, often called ROS.

ROS is a Forest Service planning tool used to define and manage recreation settings. Those settings can influence what kind of use is expected in different areas, including motorized and nonmotorized use.

That matters because ROS is still in the DEIS.

It was in the 2025 preliminary draft. It is still in the current DEIS. The DEIS glossary still includes ROS classes like Primitive, Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, Rural, and Urban. Appendix B-4 still includes desired ROS classes by management area.

So the framework was not removed.

But the wording around Semi-Primitive Motorized appears to have changed.

In the 2025 preliminary draft, Semi-Primitive Motorized included language saying motorized travel occurs on “designated routes and areas.” For motorized access, that phrase matters because it points toward travel being limited to designated roads, trails, or areas, not general cross-country motorized access.

That same “designated routes and areas” language also appears in the Forest Service’s November 2024 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Technical Guide and Travel Management guidance.

But in the current DEIS, the Semi-Primitive Motorized language appears to be softened. Instead of plainly saying “designated routes and areas,” the DEIS says motorized use typically occurs on maintenance level 1-2 roads or motorized trails.

That may sound like a small wording change.

It is not.

If the agency tells the public that travel management is outside this plan, while still carrying forward ROS settings that can shape and support later travel management decisions, the public deserves to understand that connection clearly.

There is another piece the public needs to understand.

Not all ROS categories protect access the same way.

For existing roaded, working, multiple-use forest landscapes, Roaded Natural may be the better access-protective category. The Forest Service’s ROS definition for Roaded Natural recognizes roads, developed recreation sites, grazing, timber harvest, mining, restoration work, and other multiple uses. One of the strongest lines is simple:

“Roads, motorized equipment, and vehicles are common in this setting.”

That matters.

In regular conversation, “Rural” may sound more open or access-friendly. But under ROS, Rural often points toward more developed, facility-heavy, higher-use settings with more obvious management presence. It is not automatically the best fit for protecting existing roaded forest access.

Our position is straightforward:

Existing roaded and multiple-use landscapes should be assigned Roaded Natural where roads, vehicles, grazing, timber, firewood gathering, hunting access, administrative access, and other traditional uses are already part of the setting.

The plan should not assign existing motorized-access areas to nonmotorized ROS settings in a way that could later be used to justify reducing public access through future travel management decisions.

We are not going to guess at motive. But we can speak to effect.

The effect is that the DEIS keeps a planning framework that can influence future motorized access decisions, while making that connection harder for the public to see.

That is a problem.

If ROS is going to be used as a sideboard for future travel management, route designation, recreation planning, or access decisions, then the Forest Service needs to say that plainly. The DEIS should use the current official definitions or clearly explain why it changed the wording.

This is exactly why Forest Access For All has been warning people not to accept “travel management comes later” as the end of the conversation.

The forest plan may not close a specific road today.

But it can set the direction, definitions, and sideboards that shape what happens to access tomorrow.

Access was not removed from this plan.

It is showing up in other places.

And we intend to help the public find it.