Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands
May 29, 2024
The growing and diverse nature of recreation on federal lands has increased the challenge of
balancing different types of recreation with each other and with other land uses. In particular,
Mark K. DeSantis
motorized recreation has been controversial, with some stakeholders advocating for additional
Analyst in Natural
access to federal lands for such activities and others raising concerns regarding potential
Resources Policy
environmental impacts caused by this type of recreation.

In general, the term motorized recreation refers to the use of self-propelled, power-driven

vehicles to recreate over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain.
This includes off-road vehicles (ORVs; also referred to as “off-highway vehicles” and encompassing all-terrain vehicles,
utility terrain vehicles, and other similar vehicles), oversnow vehicles (e.g., snowmobiles), motorboats, and personal
watercraft (e.g., Jet Ski). As these forms of recreation have evolved and gained in popularity, conflicts with nonmotorized
recreationists or those seeking quiet and solitude on federal lands have arisen.
Each of the four federal land management agencies (FLMAs)—the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), and National Park Service in the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of
Agriculture—allows, to some degree, motorized recreation as a permissible use of federal lands and waters. When, where,
and to what extent certain forms of motorized recreation are permitted on agency lands is governed by numerous authorities,
including law, executive orders, agency regulations and policies, land management plans, and area-specific decisions. These
authorities may apply broadly to an entire agency or land system, or they may be narrow in scope, applying only to specific
units or regions.
Motorized recreation on federal lands and waters has been a contentious issue, due in part to growth in the use of ORVs,
closures of certain areas to motorized uses, potential resource degradation, and other factors. Federal land managers face an
array of social conflicts and resource challenges on federal lands and waters related to motorized recreation and uses. These
challenges include whether or to what degree to allow for motorized recreation in certain areas while balancing the various
uses for which FLMAs manage federal lands, how to protect against unauthorized uses, the progress agencies have made in
completing travel management plans, how to ensure adequate and available data on recreational opportunities, and more.
At times, these conflicts have resulted in congressional interest, oversight, and legislative efforts. For example, in 2019, as
part of P.L. 116-9, Congress designated roughly 200,000 acres of BLM lands within San Bernardino County, CA, as “Off-
Highway Vehicle Recreation Areas.” In April 2022, Congress enacted and the President signed the Modernizing Access to
Our Public Land Act (P.L. 117-114). The law requires, to the maximum extent practicable, FLMAs—as well as the Bureau of
Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—to make road and trail closure information publicly available on
agency websites. Such information includes the classes of vehicles and types of recreational uses allowed on each segment of
roads and trails. The 118th Congress has also considered legislation related to motorized recreational use of federal lands. For
example, H.R. 6492—the Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences Act (“EXPLORE Act”)—would require
BLM and FS to update motor vehicle use maps within five years and oversnow vehicle maps within ten years, and to make
such maps publicly available. Other legislation in the 118th Congress, such as H.R. 4580/S. 2262—the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah
Kukveni Grand Canyon National Monument Act—would create site-specific allowances for motorized recreational use
outside designated roads and trails.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 19 Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Authorities Governing Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands .................................................... 2
Motorized Recreation Across Agencies ........................................................................................... 3
Bureau of Land Management .................................................................................................... 4
Forest Service ............................................................................................................................ 5
Fish and Wildlife Service .......................................................................................................... 6
National Park Service ................................................................................................................ 7
Cross-Cutting Land Systems ..................................................................................................... 8
Wilderness Areas ................................................................................................................. 8
National Trails ..................................................................................................................... 9
Wild and Scenic Rivers ..................................................................................................... 10
Issues for Congress ......................................................................................................................... 11
Balancing User Conflicts ......................................................................................................... 11
Unauthorized Use and Enforcement ....................................................................................... 12
Travel Planning Progress ........................................................................................................ 13
Information Availability for Motorized Recreation Users ....................................................... 14
Accessing Federal Lands ......................................................................................................... 15

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 16

Congressional Research Service

link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 10 Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

Introduction
Four federal agencies administer about 95% of the approximately 640 million acres of federally
owned land in the United States: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the
Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. Collectively, these four agencies are
referred to as the federal land management agencies (FLMAs). The FLMAs manage federal lands
under varying missions for purposes relating to the preservation and use of the lands and their
resources. For many visitors, an important and popular use of federal lands is for outdoor
recreation. Among other types of outdoor activity, forms of motorized recreation have evolved
and gained in popularity, including off-roading, snowmobiling, and boating. These intersect with
many popular nonmotorized forms of recreation, including water-based activities (e.g., fishing,
canoeing, kayaking, rafting) and various land-based pursuits (e.g., birdwatching, camping, hiking,
hunting, horseback riding, rock climbing).
FLMAs face management challenges around how best to balance these different types of
recreation with each other and with other land uses. Increased motorized recreation, and
allegations of overuse in some areas, have contributed to disagreements on issues of access,
regulation, integrity of natural and cultural resources, and the extent of motorized versus
nonmotorized recreational activities.
This report provides a general overview of the ways in which FLMAs have provided for or
limited motorized recreation on lands and waters under their jurisdiction. It includes a brief
discussion of general terminology for discussing motorized recreational activities and how
FLMAs have used those terms in agency regulations and guidance. The report also discusses
issues of congressional interest in recent years, including the extent to which motorized recreation
should be allowed on federal lands and waters, enforcement challenges, and data digitization
efforts.
What Is Motorized Recreation?
There is no single statutory or regulatory definition of the term motorized recreation. Various regulations and
policies have addressed the use of motor vehicles, off-road vehicles (ORVs), or off-highway vehicles (OHVs) on federal
lands. Which types of vehicles—such as snowmobiles, personal watercraft (PWC), all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), or
others—fall under these terms may differ depending on the authorities and agencies involved.
Executive Order (E.O.) 11644, “Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands,” defines off-road vehicles as “any
motorized vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow,
ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain,” with exceptions for any registered motorboat or authorized or
emergency vehicles (for more information, see the section “Authorities Governing Motorized Recreation on
Federal Lands”). This definition would seem to encompass motorized vehicles such as snowmobiles, PWC (e.g., Jet
Ski), swamp buggies, motorized bicycles (including e-bikes), and others.
Implementation of the E.O. 11644 definition varies across agencies. For instance, National Park Service (NPS)
regulations and policies implementing E.O. 11644—which use the term off-highway vehicle rather than the
executive order’s term off-road vehicle—generally do not apply to snowmobiles and certain watercraft uses.
Instead, NPS has promulgated separate implementing regulations and agency guidance for use of these types of
vehicles (for more information, see “National Park Service”). The treatment of e-bikes also varies across agencies,
with FLMAs within the Department of the Interior (DOI) generally exempting e-bikes from agency-specific
definitions of motor vehicle, off-road vehicle, or off-highway vehicle, while the Forest Service includes e-bikes in the
agency definition. (For more information on electric bicycle use on federal lands, see CRS In Focus IF12459,
Electric Bicycles (E-Bikes) on Federal Lands, by Mark K. DeSantis.)
For the purposes of this report, motorized recreation refers to the use of self-propelled, power-driven vehicles to
recreate over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain. Such vehicles include
ORVs (which encompass ATVs, utility terrain vehicles, and other similar vehicles), oversnow vehicles (e.g.,
snowmobiles), motorboats, and PWC. Unless otherwise specified, motorized recreation as used in this report does
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 6 link to page 6 Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

not include the use of e-bikes, motorized wheelchairs, or aircraft (e.g., planes, waterplanes, or helicopters). In
general, policies related to motorized recreation do not apply to the use of these vehicles for emergency purposes
or their use by agency staff.
Authorities Governing Motorized Recreation on
Federal Lands1
Each of the four FLMAs administers its lands and waters in accordance with agency-specific
management statutes. Each of these statutes allows, to some degree, for recreation as a
permissible use of federal lands and waters.
• BLM manages public lands for varied purposes relating to the preservation, use
(including recreation), and development of the lands and natural resources, in
accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. §§1701 et seq.).
• FS manages the National Forest System (NFS) in accordance with the Multiple
Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (6 U.S.C. §§528 et seq.), which authorizes
outdoor recreation as a use of NFS lands, among other uses and services.
• NPS administers the National Park System for both recreational use and
preservation of park resources, a mission defined in the agency’s Organic Act of
1916 (54 U.S.C. §§100101 et seq.).
• FWS manages lands in the National Wildlife Refuge System in accordance with
the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. §§668dd-
668ee), under which recreation is generally authorized when compatible with the
mission and purpose for which the lands were set aside.
Although each of the FLMAs allows for recreation on lands under its jurisdiction, the extent and
types of motorized recreation allowed vary depending on the agency and the land unit in question.
Certain motorized activities could be determined to conflict with an agency’s overall statutory
mission or with specific regulations, policies, or management plans, requiring the agency to limit
or prohibit motorized recreation in certain areas. For more information, see “Motorized
Recreation Across Agencies.”
Other Federal and State Authorities
In some instances, regulations promulgated by agencies other than the federal land management agencies (FLMAs)
may apply to motorized recreational uses. For example, FLMA regulations related to boating and other water-
based motorized activities may contain language stating that the regulations are complementary to, and not in
derogation of, any regulations promulgated by the U.S. Coast Guard. In some instances, a state may have
jurisdiction to regulate recreational uses on waterways within federal land unit boundaries. In 2019, for example,
the Supreme Court held in Sturgeon v. Frost, 139 S. Ct. 1066 (2019), that navigable waters within Alaska’s national
parks are outside the scope of the National Park Service’s (NPS’s) regulatory authority under the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (P.L. 96-487). This ruling arose from a dispute in which NPS rangers stopped an
individual from using a personal hovercraft on the Nation River within the Yukon-Charley Rivers National
Preserve—a conservation system unit in Alaska—because such use violated agency regulations.
FLMAs also typically defer to states when considering the use, standards, registration, operation, and inspection of
vehicles used for motorized recreation. In general, FLMAs require operators of motorized vehicles to be in

1 For general information on the four federal land management agencies (FLMAs), see CRS In Focus IF10585, The
Federal Land Management Agencies, by Carol Hardy Vincent, Laura B. Comay, and Anne A. Riddle.
Congressional Research Service

2

Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

compliance with all state laws and prohibit the operation of vehicles by individuals without a valid state-issued
operator’s license or learner’s permit (e.g., see Bureau of Land Management regulations at 43 C.F.R. §8341.1).
In some instances, federal agencies have retained regulatory authority over the use of certain types of vehicles on
their lands. For example, in 2008, Utah enacted a bill allowing the use of certain off-road vehicles on roads and
highways designated by the controlling highway authority. Some of these roads went through national parks in the
state, putting state law in conflict with NPS policies prohibiting the use of such vehicles within park boundaries,
including on park roads. Although NPS regulations at 36 C.F.R. §4.2 generally defer state laws on vehicle usage,
NPS has maintained a prohibition on the use of off-road vehicles on park roads within the state.
Two executive orders (E.O.s) have defined and generally guided the use of off-road vehicles
(ORVs; also referred to as “off-highway vehicles (OHVs)”) on federal lands.2 The first (E.O.
11644, February 8, 1972) defines an “off-road vehicle,” as “any motorized vehicle designed for or
capable of cross-country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh,
swampland, or other natural terrain,” with exceptions for any registered motorboat or authorized
or emergency vehicles. It was issued to “establish policies and provide for procedures that will
ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to
protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to
minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands.” The order directed each agency to
develop and issue regulations to carry out this purpose and to provide for the designation of areas
and trails on which off-road vehicles may be permitted, as well as areas in which such vehicles
would not be permitted. Agencies were to monitor the effects of off-road vehicle use and amend
or rescind area designations or other actions taken pursuant to the order as needed to further the
policy of the executive order.
A subsequent executive order (E.O. 11989, May 24, 1977) amended the 1972 order to exclude
military, emergency, and law enforcement vehicles from the definition of off-road vehicles (to
which restrictions would apply). It provided authority to immediately close areas or trails if off-
road vehicles were causing or would cause considerable damage to the soil, vegetation, wildlife,
wildlife habitat, or cultural or historic resources of particular areas or trails. Areas could remain
closed until the manager determined that “the adverse effects have been eliminated and that
measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence.” Also, each agency was
authorized to adopt the policy that areas could be closed to off-road vehicle use except for those
areas or trails that are specifically designated as open to such use. This policy meant that only
open areas would have to be marked, a lesser burden on the agencies.
Motorized Recreation Across Agencies
Each of the FLMAs has issued agency-specific regulations and policies that address motorized
recreation activities and guide agency consideration of such uses. This section provides an
overview of these regulations and policies and discusses the degree to which motorized recreation
is typically allowed or prohibited on agency-administered lands and waters.

2 Federal laws, regulations, and policies vary in their use of the terms “off-road vehicle (ORV)” and “off-highway
vehicle (OHV)”; however, in general, the terms are interchangeable. In this report, the term “ORV” is used for
consistency.
Congressional Research Service

3

Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

Bureau of Land Management3
BLM lands are used for diverse forms of recreation, including both nonmotorized (e.g., hiking)
and motorized (e.g., off-roading) recreation. The use of motorized off-road vehicles—including
dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles—has been a major recreational use of BLM lands. The
proximity of BLM lands to many areas of population growth in the West has contributed to an
increase in recreation on some of these lands.
BLM managers have formulated guidance on the nature and extent of land uses, including
motorized recreational use, through regulations, national policies, land and resource management
plans, and area-specific decisions. Under agency regulations (43 C.F.R. §8340), BLM designates
public lands as open, limited, or closed to “off-road vehicle” use. The term includes “any
motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other
natural terrain,” excluding motorboats, e-bikes, and certain official vehicles.4 Designations must
consider the protection of resources and the safety of users and visitors, while minimizing of
conflicts among various uses of the public lands.5 Other regulations govern motorized recreation
in particular areas. For instance, BLM has supplementary rules for its lands in Oregon and
Washington, which include guidance on ORV use.6
Over the years, BLM has issued other types of agency-wide guidance for transportation on BLM
lands that impact motorized recreational use. For instance, in 2001, the agency issued the
National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands to guide
motorized ORV management on BLM lands.7 The strategy has multiple purposes, including to
guide land managers in resolving ORV issues, to promote consistency of ORV decisionmaking,
and to reduce conflicts among land users. In 2011, BLM issued a manual on travel and
transportation management, and in 2012 the agency released a related handbook on planning and
management of all modes of travel and public access needs.8 The documents are intended to serve
as a guide for BLM field offices to improve travel planning, signage, mapping, and travel
information. More recently, in 2017, BLM issued a National Motorized Recreation Action Plan
that directed BLM state offices to develop motorized recreation action plans for each state where
BLM has significant management responsibilities.9
At the unit level, BLM makes motorized recreation designations on an area-by-area basis during
the resource management planning (RMP) process. For each designation, the RMP defines
guidelines and objectives that explain how lands are to be managed and used to meet public or
administrative needs. BLM makes specific implementation decisions related to motorized
recreation (and transportation more generally) through a process known as Comprehensive Travel

3 Portions of this section were prepared by Carol Hardy Vincent, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy.
4 43 C.F.R. §8340.0-5(a).
5 43 C.F.R. §8340.0-2.
6 Bureau of Land Management (BLM), “Final Supplementary Rules for Public Land in Oregon and Washington,” 75
Federal Register 51099, August 18, 2010.
7 This BLM strategy uses the term off-highway vehicle (OHV) as opposed to off-road vehicle (ORV), the term used in
the presidential executive orders and BLM’s related 43 C.F.R. §8340 regulations. According to BLM, it uses off-
highway vehicles because it is the more common term and because “the regulations address vehicles which use roads
and trails on BLM-administered land, and are therefore, not just ‘off-road.’” BLM, National Management Strategy for
Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands, January 2001, p. 3.
8 The BLM Travel and Transportation Management Manual is on the BLM website at https://www.blm.gov/sites/
blm.gov/files/uploads/mediacenter_blmpolicymanual1626.pdf. The BLM Travel and Transportation Handbook is on
the BLM website at https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/Media_Library_BLM_Policy_H-8342.pdf.
9 BLM’s National Motorized Recreation Action Plan and relevant state action plans can be found at BLM, National
Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, “BLM Action Plans,” https://nohvcc.org/nohvcc-initiatives/blm/.
Congressional Research Service

4

Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

and Transportation Management.10 Through this process, BLM develops comprehensive travel
and transportation management plans that include inventories of trails, roads, and travel routes;
specifies transportation routes and allowable uses; and establishes maintenance classifications for
those routes. In making such implementation decisions, BLM directs land managers to provide
varied transportation routes for access to BLM lands for both motorized and nonmotorized forms
of recreation, while protecting sensitive areas.11
Forest Service
FS manages lands and waters under its jurisdiction for various uses, including many types of
recreation—sightseeing, ORV use, backpacking, and more—while preserving the productivity of
the lands. Although more visitors engage in nonmotorized recreational activities on FS lands than
motorized activities, certain motorized uses continue to be a priority for millions of visitors on an
annual basis.12 FS has estimated that 7% (more than 11 million) of all FS visitors engage in
“OHV, motorized trail, and snowmobile use,”13 although this figure has fluctuated depending on
the year.
Under law, FS is required to develop a land use planning document known as a forest plan.14
Each forest plan identifies desired forest conditions and specifies objectives, standards, and
guidelines for activities in the plan area. This includes recreation decisions made within an FS
unit. In developing a forest plan, FS officials often use a classification system referred to as the
recreation opportunity spectrum to establish existing and desired recreation settings within a
given unit.15 The spectrum provides a framework for defining the types of outdoor recreation
opportunities and experiences visitors might desire, as well as the variety of opportunities that a
specific FS unit can accommodate.
In 2005, FS finalized regulations to require NFS units to identify a system of roads, trails, and
areas available for “motor vehicle” use and prohibit the use of such vehicles outside the
designated system.16 The regulations define motor vehicle as “any vehicle which is self-propelled,
other than: 1) a vehicle operated on rails; and 2) any wheelchair or mobility device.”17 The term
generally includes ORVs (referred to as OHVs in the regulations) but excludes aircraft,

10 Information on BLM’s travel management program is on the agency’s website at https://www.blm.gov/programs/
recreation/recreation-programs/travel-and-transportation.
11 For example, see BLM, Travel and Transportation Management Manual, MS-1626, p. 1-14.
12 The Forest Service (FS) National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) Program has issued annual reports estimating the
volume of recreation visitation to FS lands (see FS, “National Visitor Use Monitoring Program,”
https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/nvum, for recent annual reports).
13 FS, Off-Highway Vehicle Report, June 2019, https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2019-08/
ohv_final_report.pdf. Some annual NVUM reports from past years have indicated that five-year averages for motorized
recreational use may be higher than 7%. For example, data collected for FY2016-FY2020 indicate that more than 10%
of visitors participated in various forms of motorized recreational uses (including ORV use, snowmobiling, motorized
water activities, and other motorized recreation).
14 16 U.S.C. §1604. FS’s implementing regulations are promulgated at 36 C.F.R. §§219.1-219.19. Forest plan is
inclusive of plans for all National Forest System (NFS) units, including grasslands and others.
15 FS, Chapter 2300, “Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management,” in Forest Service Manual (FSM),
2020 (hereinafter cited as FSM), Section 2310. Agency policies define the recreation opportunity spectrum to include
six distinct classes of recreation settings: (1) primitive, (2) semi-primitive nonmotorized, (3) semi-primitive motorized,
(4) road natural, (5) rural, and (6) urban.
16 FS, “Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use,” 70 Federal Register 68264-68291,
November 9, 2005, codified at 36 C.F.R. §212. For additional information, see also the FS Travel Management & Off-
Highway Vehicle (OHV) Program at https://www.fs.usda.gov/recreation/programs/ohv/.
17 36 C.F.R. §212.1.
Congressional Research Service

5

Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

watercraft, emergency vehicles, and oversnow vehicles (which are considered separately in FS
regulations, as discussed below). Through this identification process, FS makes specific
implementation decisions related to motorized recreation that comply with the established forest
plan and other existing planning documents for the unit.
Pursuant to the regulations, each FS unit is required to designate roads, trails, and areas where
motor vehicle use is allowed and to identify them on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM).18 Among
other information, MVUMs specify the classes of vehicles allowed in certain areas and, if
appropriate, the times of year for which use is designated. In making such designations, FS
officials must consider various factors, such as potential effects on natural and cultural resources,
public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, and conflicts between motor vehicle use and
other recreational uses. The FS also is required, with some exceptions, to allow for public
comment consistent with agency procedures.19
FS regulations separately address the management of oversnow vehicles (e.g., snowmobiles).
Similar to motor vehicle use, the regulations require that FS officials designate areas where
oversnow vehicle use is permitted, in regions where snowfall is adequate.20 Such designated areas
must be identified on an oversnow vehicle use map. With some exceptions, the decisionmaking
process for designating such areas follows the same criteria and public notice requirements as the
process to designate areas for motor vehicle use.
Fish and Wildlife Service
Unlike BLM and FS, FWS generally does not allow motorized recreation—and in particular,
ORV use—on most lands under its jurisdiction. Agency regulations prohibit the use of motor
vehicles, “including those used on air, water, ice, snow,” in national wildlife refuges except on
designated routes of travel (e.g., public roads).21 Recreational motorized boating within refuges
generally is not allowed but has been permitted at certain units, following special rulemaking for
those sites.22 FWS does not define motorized vehicles, off-road vehicles, or boats in regulations
that apply broadly to lands and waters in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
FWS has promulgated regulations specifically for refuges located in Alaska, pursuant to the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA; P.L. 96-487).23 The regulations
allow for the use of “snowmobiles, motorboats, dog teams and other means of surface
transportation traditionally employed by local rural residents engaged in subsistence uses” within

18 36 C.F.R. §212.51.
19 Such exceptions include instances where temporary emergency closures are deemed to be necessary (36 C.F.R.
§212.52).
20 36 C.F.R. §212.81. The initial 2005 rule promulgated by FS did not require agency officials to designate a system of
routes and areas where oversnow vehicle use is allowed and instead made this process discretionary. In 2013, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho ruled that in exempting oversnow vehicles from this process, the FS rule was in
violation of E.O. 11644, as amended by E.O. 11989 (Winter Wildlands Alliance v. U.S. Forest Serv., 2013 WL
1319598, No. 1:11–CV–586–REB (D. Idaho Mar. 29, 2013)). In 2015, FS amended Subpart C, requiring designated
officials to designate roads, trails, and other areas where oversnow vehicle use is allowed (80 Federal Register 4500).
21 50 C.F.R. §27.31.
22 Regulations at 50 C.F.R. §27.32 specifically prohibit the use of “boats” in national wildlife refuges, but regulations at
50 C.F.R. §26.32 state that recreational uses such as “boating” may be permitted. For a list of current refuges that allow
motorized boating, see FWS, “Boating-Motorized,” https://www.fws.gov/activity/boating-motorized, accessed on
March 15, 2024.
23 50 C.F.R. Part 36.
Congressional Research Service

6

Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

Alaska national wildlife refuges.24 Refuge managers retain the authority to restrict or close certain
areas if determined that such use is “causing or is likely to cause an adverse impact.”25 In
addition, motorized vehicle use is allowed within Alaska national wildlife refuges, if such use is
“directly incident” to the exercise of valid commercial fishing rights or privileges.26 Emergency,
temporary, or permanent closures for such use must go through required notice and hearing
processes prior to becoming effective.27
National Park Service28
NPS’s laws, regulations, and policies generally emphasize the conservation of park resources in
conservation/use conflicts, and NPS has fewer lands open to motorized recreation use than do
other FLMAs, such as BLM and FS. NPS regulations limit the use of “motor vehicles” within
park system units to roads and parking areas and prohibit use of these vehicles elsewhere unless
otherwise specified.29 NPS allows for the designation of routes and areas for “off-road motor
vehicle” use but limits such designations to four types of NPS units—national recreation areas,
national seashores, national lakeshores, and national preserves.30
Snowmobile use and boating in the National Park System are governed by separate regulations.
For snowmobiles, regulations limit such vehicles to designated routes and water surfaces that are
used by motor vehicles or motorboats during other seasons.31 The regulations prohibit
snowmobiles except “when their use is consistent with the park’s natural, cultural, scenic and
aesthetic values, safety considerations, [and] park management objectives, and will not disturb
wildlife or damage park resources.”32 For boating, NPS generally prohibits power-driven
“vessels” on waters not accessible by road or in areas specified as closed for such uses.33 In
addition, NPS rules specifically prohibit the use of “personal watercraft” (PWC) in park waters,
with the exception of 21 park units identified in regulations.34 For motor vehicle, snowmobile,

24 50 C.F.R. §36.12(a). Specifically, the regulations require managers to consider adverse impacts to “public health and
safety, resource protection, protection of historic or scientific values, subsistence uses, conservation of endangered or
threatened species, or other purposes and values for which the refuge was established.” Regulations for national
wildlife refuges in Alaska define snowmobile to mean “self-propelled vehicle intended for off-road travel primarily on
snow having a curb weight of not more than 1,000 pounds (450 kg), driven by track or tracks in contact with the snow
and steered by a ski or skis in contact with the snow” (50 C.F.R. §36.2).
25 50 C.F.R. §36.12(b).
26 50 C.F.R. §36.32(b).
27 50 C.F.R. §36.42.
28 Portions of this section were prepared by Laura Comay, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy.
29 36 C.F.R. §4.10(a). National Park Service (NPS) regulations define motor vehicle to include “every vehicle that is
self-propelled and every vehicle that is propelled by electric power, but not operated on rails or water” (36 C.F.R.
§1.4). The term specifically excludes e-bikes, snowmobiles, and motorized wheelchairs.
30 36 C.F.R. §4.10(b). For a discussion of the various unit designations in the National Park System, see CRS Report
R41816, National Park System: What Do the Different Park Titles Signify?, by Laura B. Comay.
31 36 C.F.R. §2.18. NPS regulations define snowmobile as “a self-propelled vehicle intended for travel primarily on
snow, having a curb weight of not more than 1000 pounds (450 kg), driven by a track or tracks in contact with the
snow, and steered by ski or skis in contact with the snow” (36 C.F.R. §1.4).
32 36 C.F.R. §2.18(c).
33 36 C.F.R. §3.8. NPS defines vessel as any “watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used,
as a means of transportation on the water.” The term does not apply to a seaplane on the water.
34 A list of the park units can be found at 36 C.F.R. §3.9. As of May 2024, there are 429 individual units of the National
Park System, including national parks, national monuments, national preserves, national historic sites, national
recreation areas, national battlefields, and many others.
Congressional Research Service

7

Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

and PWC use, regulations require special rulemaking, with environmental impact analysis and
public comment, to designate routes and areas in those park units where such uses are permitted.35
NPS’s management policies provide additional guidance related to motorized recreation within
the National Park System. For example, off-road motor vehicle use “may be allowed only in
locations where there will be no adverse impacts on the area’s natural, cultural, scenic, and
esthetic values, and in consideration of other existing or proposed recreational uses.”36 For
snowmobile and PWC use, NPS management policies state that such uses may be authorized only
where they will not result in “unacceptable impacts.”37
Unit-level decisions regarding designated routes for motorized recreation (including temporary
and permanent closures) may be included in a park’s general management plan and/or determined
by the park superintendent.38 In addition, enabling legislation for individual NPS units may
establish specific activities as an appropriate use (e.g., water-oriented recreation, snowmobiling
for subsistence or recreational purposes, or ORV travel to reach hunting or fishing areas).
Similar to FWS, NPS has promulgated separate regulations specifically for National Park System
units located in Alaska, pursuant to ANILCA. These regulations allow for the use of
“snowmobiles, motorboats, dog teams, and other means of surface transportation traditionally
employed by local rural residents engaged in subsistence uses” on NPS lands in Alaska, unless
specified as closed.39 Special unit-level regulations also allow for “off-road motor vehicle” use
under certain conditions in certain Alaska units or in specified areas of such units.40
Cross-Cutting Land Systems
Congress has provided agencies the authority to open or limit motorized recreation on lands and
waters designated as part of cross-cutting systems, such as wilderness areas, national trails, and
wild and scenic rivers. Depending on the designation, these areas may encompass multiple
federal agency lands and waters, as well as state, local, and privately held lands. Depending on
the lands in question, these cross-cutting designations may carry specific management
requirements that may limit motorized uses, including those for recreation purposes.
Wilderness Areas41
In 1964, the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. §§1131-1136) established a national system of
congressionally designated areas to be preserved in a wilderness condition: “where the earth and
its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not
remain.”42 The National Wilderness Preservation System comprises 806 wilderness areas

35 See 36 C.F.R. §4.10, §2.18, and §3.9, respectively.
36 NPS, Management Policies 2006, §8.2.3.1, p. 104, http://www.nps.gov/policy/mp2006.pdf.
37 Ibid., §§8.2.3.2-3, p. 104. For a discussion of what constitute “unacceptable impacts,” see NPS, Management
Policies 2006, §1.4.7.1, p. 12.
38 36 C.F.R. §1.5.
39 36 C.F.R. §13.460.
40 For example, off-road motor vehicle use is permitted in Bering Land Bridge National Preserve when conducted for
purposes of reindeer grazing management (36 C.F.R. §13.702) and in Denali National Park and Preserve by authorized
residents engaged in subsistence uses (36 C.F.R. §13.903).
41 For more information on wilderness areas and the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. §§1131-1136), see CRS Report
RL31447, Wilderness: Overview, Management, and Statistics, by Anne A. Riddle and Katie Hoover; and CRS Report
R41610, Wilderness: Issues and Legislation, by Anne A. Riddle, Katie Hoover, and Eric P. Nardi.
42 16 U.S.C. §§1131-1136.
Congressional Research Service

8

Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

managed by the four FLMAs, with approximately 111.9 million acres in 44 states and Puerto
Rico.43
The Wilderness Act prohibits use of “motor vehicles,” “motorized equipment or motorboats,” and
“mechanical transport,” as well as the “landing of aircraft.”44 In total, these prohibitions are
generally construed to prohibit the use of equipment or transportation that is not human-powered
(e.g., cars, trucks, ORVs, chain saws, and bulldozers) and to prohibit human-powered,
mechanized vehicles (e.g., bicycles, strollers). For some agencies, aircraft or motorboats (but not
other motorized or mechanized vehicles) may continue to be used in wildernesses where their use
was established prior to designation.45
National Trails46
The National Trails System was created in 1968 by the National Trails System Act (NTSA; 16
U.S.C. §§1241-1251). The system includes four types of trails: (1) national scenic trails (NSTs),
which display significant physical characteristics of U.S. regions; (2) national historic trails
(NHTs), which follow travel routes of national historical significance; (3) national recreation
trails (NRTs), which provide outdoor recreation accessible to urban areas; and (4) connecting or
side trails, which provide access to the other types of trails. Currently, there are a combined 32
NHTs and NSTs covering roughly 58,300 miles.47 Additionally, the system contains more than
1,300 NRTs located in every state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, as well as seven
connecting or side trails.48
The use of motorized vehicles by the general public is typically prohibited on national scenic
trails.49 Although the term motorized vehicle is not defined in NTSA, it has generally been

43 Figures compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) from multiple sources, including Wilderness.net
Acres by Year, Public Laws Enacted by Year, Areas Enacted by Year reports, and direct review of legislation. For
more information, see Table 1 of CRS Report RL31447, Wilderness: Overview, Management, and Statistics, by Anne
A. Riddle and Katie Hoover.
44 16 U.S.C. §1133(c).
45 16 U.S.C. §1133(d) specifies that “within wilderness areas designated by this chapter the use of aircraft or
motorboats, where these uses have already become established, may be permitted to continue subject to such
restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable.” FS and NPS policies specify that aircraft and motorboats
are acceptable in an area where these uses were established prior to the area’s designation as wilderness. NPS policy
specifies that the conditions under which motorized equipment may be used will be described in each National Park
System unit wilderness management plan; the specific meaning of the reference to the “Secretary of Agriculture” with
respect to NPS is unclear. Similar provisions do not appear in BLM or FWS policies. BLM Manual 6340,
“Management of Designated Wilderness Areas”; FSM Section 2320, “Wilderness Management”; FWS Policy 610,
“Wilderness Stewardship”; and NPS Management Policies 2006, Chapter 6, “Wilderness Preservation and
Management.” National Wilderness Preservation System designations do not affect the airspace above a wilderness and
as such have no effect on overflights by airplanes. Therefore, “use of aircraft” is generally construed to mean aircraft
landing and takeoff from designated wilderness.
46 For more information on national trails and the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. §§1241-1251), see CRS
Report R43868, The National Trails System: A Brief Overview, by Mark K. DeSantis.
47 Personal communication from Peter Bonsall, GIS Specialist, NPS, September 2020. According to NPS, these data
reflect the mileage figures in enabling legislation. This reflects the trail extensions enacted as part of P.L. 116-9 and the
estimated mileage of the Butterfield Overland National Historic Trail (NHT; 3,292 miles) and the Chilkoot NHT (16.5
miles) established in the 117th Congress.
48 NPS, Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs and American Trails, National Recreation Trail Database.
49 16 U.S.C. §1246(j). However, this provision directs the administering Secretary (either the Secretary of the Interior
or the Secretary of Agriculture) to allow motorized vehicle use in certain circumstances, such as for emergencies and
when necessary to give adjacent landowners reasonable access to their lands or timber rights. Additionally, specific
provisions for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (16 U.S.C. §1244(a)(5)) allow motorized use in accordance
with regulations established by the administering Secretary.
Congressional Research Service

9

Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

interpreted to apply to the use of motorcycles, ORVs, four-wheel drive vehicles, and
snowmobiles. Motorized vehicles may be allowed on NHTs if the vehicles do not substantially
interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail and were allowed by administrative regulations
at the time of designation.50 NTSA also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Agriculture, in consultation with relevant agencies and parties, to issue regulations “governing
the use, protection, management, development, and administration of trails.”51 To date, agencies
have used this authority only a handful of times, typically issuing regulations that address
allowance or prohibition of certain motorized uses along NST or NHT routes under their
jurisdiction.52
Wild and Scenic Rivers
The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was established in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
of 1968 (WSRA; P.L. 90-542, 16 U.S.C. §§1271-1287). The act established a policy of preserving
designated free-flowing rivers and their immediate environments “for the benefit and enjoyment
of present and future generations.”53 Rivers generally are added to the system by an act of
Congress, although states can nominate, and the Secretary of the Interior can approve, rivers
protected under state law and managed by a state agency. The WSRA established three classes of
rivers—wild, scenic, and recreational—reflecting the characteristics of the rivers at the time of
designation and affecting the type and amount of subsequently allowable development.
Altogether, the system now includes 228 river units comprising over 13,400 miles in 41 states and
Puerto Rico.54
The WSRA does not specifically address motorized recreational use within the established
boundaries of a designated river’s corridor. Generally, motorized recreational use has been
permitted after designation.55 However, agencies are required to administer rivers in a manner
that emphasizes the values that led to the designation. Specifically, Section 10(a) of the WSRA
states,
Each component of the national wild and scenic rivers system shall be administered in such
manner as to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included in said system
without, insofar as is consistent therewith, limiting other uses that do not substantially
interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values. In such administration primary
emphasis shall be given to protecting its esthetic, scenic, historic, archeologic, and
scientific features. Management plans for any such component may establish varying

50 16 U.S.C. §1246(c). In practice, travel along NHTs typically involves automobile or tour bus travel that
approximates the historic route, with stops made to see individual sites or to walk and retrace short distances on
remnant trail segments.
51 16 U.S.C. §1246(i).
52 CRS was able to identify four instances where this authority was used to promulgate regulations governing the use,
protection, management, development, and administration of trails. These are 36 C.F.R. §7.100 (NPS), which
establishes prohibited and allowed uses of bicycles, motorcycles, motor vehicles, and snowmobiles along the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail (NST); 36 C.F.R. §212.21 (FS), which establishes certain exceptions for motorized
vehicle use along the Pacific Crest NST; 43 C.F.R. §8351.1-1 (BLM), which creates an exception for motorized vehicle
uses on all NSTs on land under the agency’s jurisdiction; and 43 C.F.R. §9268.3(e)(2)(iv) (BLM), which establishes
certain visitor use rules.
53 16 U.S.C. §1271.
54 Rivers.gov, “River Mileage Classifications for Components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System,”
December 2022, https://www.rivers.gov/sites/rivers/files/2023-07/rivers-table-12-2022.pdf.
55 In certain instances, Congress has specifically allowed for certain motorized recreational use on segments of wild and
scenic rivers designated legislatively. For example, Congress specified that the use of motorboats (including motorized
jetboats) within certain segments of the North Fork of the Salmon River “shall be permitted to continue at a level not
less than the level of use which occurred during calendar year 1978” (16 U.S.C. §1274(a)(24)(C)).
Congressional Research Service

10

Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

degrees of intensity for its protection and development, based on the special attributes of
the area.
As a result, motorized recreation may be prohibited or regulated in designated rivers, or in certain
segments or areas of a designated river. Generally, the availability of motorized recreation on
lands or waters in the river corridor is determined through the river management planning
process, which considers factors such as impacts on river values, user demand for such motorized
recreation, and compatibility of motorized recreation with the values for which the river was
originally designated, including the river’s class.56
Issues for Congress
Motorized recreation on federal lands and waters has been a contentious issue, due in part to
growth in the use of ORVs, closures of certain areas to motorized uses, potential resource
degradation, and other factors. Federal land managers continue to face an array of social conflicts
and resource challenges on federal lands and waters related to motorized recreation and uses.
These issues include whether or to what degree to allow for motorized recreation in certain areas
while balancing the various uses for which FLMAs manage federal lands, how to protect against
unauthorized uses, the progress agencies have made in completing travel management plans, and
more.
Balancing User Conflicts
The use of federal lands and waters for motorized recreation can at times conflict with other uses
and values for which FLMAs administer lands and waters. In particular, the use of ORVs on
federal lands and waters has been contentious because of the potential for damage to natural and
cultural resources; safety concerns; and conflicts with nonmotorized recreationists, particularly
those seeking quiet and solitude on agency land. These disputes have led to congressional interest
and oversight; changes in agency decisionmaking; and, in some cases, litigation.
Supporters of motorized recreation and ORV use on federal lands generally oppose restrictions on
such activities and favor expanded access to and use of lands and waters. For example, some
stakeholders contend that ORVs allow visitors access to hard-to-reach natural areas and, in the
case of snowmobiles, allow increased access to sites during winter. In addition, supporters
contend that motorized vehicles can provide outdoor recreation opportunities for the disabled,
senior citizens, and others with mobility limitations.57 During legislative hearings on H.R. 6342,
the Military and Veterans in Parks Act (118th Congress), representatives from motor vehicle trade
associations advocated for the use of ORVs as a means to encourage recreation among veterans
and returning servicemembers with disabilities.58 Motorized recreation also, according to
supporters, brings economic benefits to communities serving riders.59 In response to concerns

56 For example, FS policy indicates that motorized recreation use is normally prohibited in FS-administered segments
of rivers classified as wild (FSM, Chapter 2354.42o).
57 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Federal Lands, Legislative Hearing on
Military and Veterans in Parks Act, 118th Cong., 1st sess., July 20, 2023, H.Hrg. 118-50 (Washington: GPO, 2024), pp.
55-57. Hereinafter “H.Hrg. 118-50.”
58 H.Hrg. 118-50. Statement for the Record, Duane Taylor, Director, Safe and Responsible Use Programs, Motorcycle
Industry Council.
59 For example, see Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), “Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account, U.S. and States,
2022,” press release, November 17, 2023, https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/orsa1123.pdf. Analysis from
the BEA indicates that the three largest conventional outdoor activities (on both federal and nonfederal lands and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

11

Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

regarding potential adverse effects of motorized uses, supporters point to improvements in
technology and increasing trends in electrification as possible solutions to limit noise and
pollution caused by ORV use.60
By contrast, some stakeholders see the expansion of motorized recreation and ORV use as a threat
to nonmotorized recreational uses and a potential cause of damage to federal resources. Concerns
include potential damage to wildlife habitat and land and water ecosystems, such as the impact of
dust on winter snow melts and water supply; noise, air, and water pollution; and a diminished
experience for recreationists seeking quiet and solitude and/or hunting and fishing opportunities.61
Others have raised concerns regarding potential impacts from both motorized and nonmotorized
recreation to tribes and their ability to exercise treaty rights on federal lands and waters.62 Critics
also point to the significant contribution that other, nonmotorized forms of recreation have on
local and national economies as a rationale for prioritizing or maintaining resources for those
nonmotorized purposes.63
At times, Congress has intervened in debates over closures or openings of federal lands for
motorized recreational use. For example, in 2019, as part of P.L. 116-9, Congress designated
specified BLM lands within San Bernardino County, CA, as “Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation
Areas.”64 Unlike administrative closures or openings, this law codified the designation of roughly
200,000 acres of federal land specifically for recreational uses (including opportunities for ORV
recreation) and withdrew such lands from disposal or mining uses. In the 118th Congress, H.R.
4580/S. 2262, the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni Grand Canyon National Monument Act, would
allow motorized recreational use outside designated roads and trails within the boundaries of a
new national monument for certain purposes, including wildlife management, emergency
response, and hunting and fishing.
Unauthorized Use and Enforcement
As use of ORVs on federal lands has grown in recent decades, unauthorized use also has been
reported in some areas. The extent of unauthorized off-road use of federal lands is unclear. For
example, in 1999, the environmental organization Bluewater Network surveyed 108 NPS units

waters) contributing to the economy were using recreational vehicles, boating/fishing, and motorcycling/using all-
terrain vehicles (ATVs). For more information on the outdoor recreation economy, as well as the contribution of
motorized recreational uses, see CRS Report R45978, The Outdoor Recreation Economy, by Anne A. Riddle. For
additional studies see, National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, “Economic Impact Studies,”
https://nohvcc.org/economic-impact-studies/.
60 For example, see PR Newswire, “Growing Emphasis on Noise-Free Vehicles to Surge Off-Highway EV Components
Sales to US$ 106.2 billion by 2033,” October 23, 2023, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/growing-
emphasis-on-noise-free-vehicles-to-surge-off-highway-ev-components-sales-to-us-106-2-billion-by-2033—future-
market-insights-inc-301964208.html.
61 For example, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on the
Interior, Energy and Environment, Access to Public Lands: The Effects of Forest Service Road Closures, 115th Cong.,
2nd sess., June 26, 2018, H.Hrg. 115-89 (Washington: GPO, 2018); Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility, “Big Cypress ORV Plan Triggers Lawsuit Threat,” press release, March 9, 2011, http://www.peer.org/
news/news-releases/2011/03/09/big-cypress-orv-plan-triggers-lawsuit-threat-/.
62 Libby Halpin Nelson and David Bailey, The “Recreation Boom” on Public Lands in Western Washington: Impacts
to Wildlife and Implications for Treaty Tribes, The Tulalip Tribes, Natural Resources Department, February 28, 2021,
https://nr.tulaliptribes.com/Base/File/NR-Tulalip-Recreation-Impacts-to-Wildlife-2-28-21-v2.
63 For information on the effects on the economy of various types of recreation, see Outdoor Industry Association, The
Outdoor Recreation Economy, 2017, https://outdoorindustry.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/
OIA_RecEconomy_FINAL_Single.pdf.
64 P.L. 116-9, Title I, §1441, Mar. 12, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

12

Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

and found unauthorized ORV use in 40 units.65 However, a 2004 NPS survey found unauthorized
use in “several parks” and generally “less than significant” resource damage.66 In 2009, the
Government Accountability Office reported an increase in both authorized and unauthorized ORV
use on federal lands across agencies from FY2004 to FY2008, but the survey responses from
agencies were not quantified so as to determine the degree of such increases.67 More recent
comprehensive data across federal lands have been limited; however, FLMAs continue to identify
unauthorized, user-created motorized recreation trails as a significant concern for land managers
and law enforcement.68
Clashes over unauthorized off-road use could intensify between riders, law enforcement officers,
and property owners in areas where new prohibitions or limitations are placed on ORV use. Some
agencies, such as NPS and BLM, have addressed unauthorized ORV use through public outreach;
signage and mapping; education; and enforcement activities, such as officer training and
increased fines and penalties. Agencies also encourage units with illegal ORV use to pursue
enforcement actions. However, some believe budgetary and staff constraints limit enforcement
effectiveness.69 In addition, enforcement may be impeded in some locations due to their
remoteness. By contrast, some have claimed that current enforcement strategies are unfair,
asserting that many ORV users may not be aware of closures due to a lack of publicly available
information on when or where off-road activities are allowed.70
Travel Planning Progress
Some stakeholders have suggested federal agencies could do more to create certainty as to when
and where motorized recreation is permitted. Some uncertainty could be the result of real or
perceived delays in finalizing travel management plans for federal land units. Although agencies
such as FS and BLM have prioritized finalizing travel management plans, sites across the country
do not have finalized plans, leaving the future of ORV use in those areas potentially unclear.
Progress on completion of travel management plans has varied depending on the agency in
question. For example, as of 2024, FS reported that MVUMs have been completed for 148

65 Bluewater Network, Off-the-Track: America’s National Parks Under Siege, 1999. Bluewater surveyed park units for
unauthorized use of ATVs; four-wheel drive vehicles (jeeps, sport utility vehicles, etc.); and dune, sand, and swamp
buggies.
66 Letter from Steve P. Martin, NPS Deputy Director of Operations, to Bluewater Network Executive Director Russell
Long, May 3, 2005. No more recent estimates are available.
67 Government Accountability Office (GAO), Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in Managing Increased Use of
Off-Highway Vehicles, GAO-09-509, June 2009, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09509.pdf.
68 For example, see NPS, “Several Off-Road Drivers Stuck, Then Cited in Death Valley National Park,” press release,
December 29, 2023, https://www.nps.gov/deva/learn/news/press-release-12-29-2023.htm; FS, “Damage from Illegal
OHV Use on the Hoosier National Forest,” press release, December 9, 2019, https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/hoosier/
news-events/?cid=FSEPRD683832; Patrick Connolly, “Ocala Off-Roading: Illegal Routes Damages Environment,”
Orlando Sentinel, June 20, 2020; Sammy Shaktah, “Officials Warn Against ‘Dangerous and Illegal Activity’ at Crater
Lake National Park,” KTVL10, February 19, 2020, https://ktvl.com/news/local/dangerous-and-illegal-activity-at-crater-
lake-national-park-gains-attention.
69 For example, see Joseph K. Giddens, “Yavapai County Talks OHV Use on Public Lands,” JournalAZ, October 12,
2023; Christopher Fox Graham, “Give USFS More Money to Police Forest,” Sedona Red Rock News, May 28, 2021.
About half of the NPS officials surveyed in GAO’s 2009 report identified staffing and financial resources as a “great
challenge” in managing both authorized and unauthorized ORV use. See GAO, Enhanced Planning Could Assist
Agencies in Managing Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles, GAO-09-509, June 2009, pp. 37-38,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09509.pdf.
70 Testimony of Amy Granat, Managing Director, California Off-Road Vehicle Association, in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and Environment, Access to
Public Lands: The Effects of Forest Service Road Closures, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., June 26, 2018, H.Hrg. 115-89.
Congressional Research Service

13

Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

national forests and 19 national grasslands.71 Seven remaining FS units have not completed
MVUMs.72 By contrast, BLM reported that by 2017, the agency had completed 153 of its travel
management plans, with 597 plans to be completed.73 In 2018, BLM issued the 5-Year Travel and
Transportation Management Strategy (2018-2022), which laid out the agency’s vision for
addressing transportation needs and set a goal of completing 48% of travel management plans by
2022. As of 2024, the agency has completed 27% of its plans, short of its 48% goal.74 In some
instances, agencies have revised environmental documents and analysis; in others, litigation and
subsequent settlements have required agencies to revisit or rescind proposed plans.75 Both of
these factors have contributed to longer than anticipated timelines for completion.
Information Availability for Motorized Recreation Users
Even in instances where travel plans have been finalized and established, understanding which
particular areas or routes are open or closed to motorized recreation may remain a challenge for
some visitors.76 Documents such as FS MVUMs may not reflect specific temporary closures of
areas due to resource degradation, public safety, or other concerns. Reporting across agencies or
land units also has varied, with some information accessible online and other information
accessible only on-site. In particular, some agencies have pointed to a lack of comprehensive
information for motorized recreation on federal waters. Generally, agencies do not maintain
centralized information on all water bodies that are closed to watercraft or have horsepower
limitations. Additionally, some agencies have suggested that building and updating a database of
those restrictions on water bodies where states, counties, or other governmental entities have
jurisdiction over watercraft use would be “exceedingly difficult.”77
The Modernizing Access to Our Public Land Act (MAPLand Act; P.L. 117-114), enacted in April
2022, contained provisions addressing this issue. The MAPLand Act requires, to the maximum
extent practicable, FLMAs—as well as the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers—to make road and trail closure information publicly available on agency websites.
Required information includes the classes of vehicles and types of recreational uses (including
ORVs, e-bikes, and oversnow vehicles) allowed on each segment of roads and trails. As the law
does not include watercraft or similar terminology among the types of vehicle classes agencies

71 Figures based on data provided to CRS by FS, Office of Legislative Affairs, April 2024.
72 According to FS, these are Okanogan-Wenatchee, Willowa-Whitman, Malhuer, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Apache-
Sitgreaves, and Tonto National Forests, as well as the Little Missouri National Grassland within the Dakota Prairie
Grassland. FS notes that the Tonto National Forest has a completed National Environmental Policy Act decision and is
working to produce its motor vehicle use maps.
73 BLM, 5-Year Travel and Transportation Management Strategy (2018-2022), March 2018, p. 8,
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/TTM_5YearStrategy_03132018.pdf.
74 Figures based on data provided to CRS by BLM, Office of Legislative Affairs, April 2024. Specifically, BLM
reported having completed 154 travel management plans (TMPs), out of 569 total identified TMPs, with 415
outstanding. This 569 figure differs from the estimated figure of 750 total TMPs reported by the agency in March 2018.
75 For example, in 2017, BLM signed a settlement agreement resolving Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, et al. v.
U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. As part of the agreement, BLM is required to complete TMPs for 11 travel
management areas in Utah following challenges to prior plans issued in 2008.
76 Testimony of Joel Pedersen, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mule Deer Foundation, in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Legislative Hearing,
117th Cong., 2nd sess., June 8, 2021. Hereinafter “Pedersen testimony, 2021.”
77 Testimony of Jennifer Eberlien, Associate Deputy Chief, NFS, FS, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural
Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Legislative Hearing, 117th Cong., 2nd sess.,
June 8, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

14

Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

must report on, the degree to which the MAPLand Act might increase agency reporting around
boating or PWC usage on waters within federal land units is not immediately clear.78
In the 118th Congress, H.R. 6492—the Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences
Act (“EXPLORE Act”)—also includes provisions aimed at creating more certainty around
motorized recreation opportunities on federal lands. Specifically, the EXPLORE Act would
require BLM and FS to update MVUMs within five years and oversnow vehicle maps within ten
years, and to make such maps publicly available. The bill would also direct the relevant
Secretaries to “seek to create additional opportunities, as appropriate … for motorized and
nonmotorized access and opportunities.”79
Accessing Federal Lands
Some recreational advocates have expressed support for increased access to federal lands for
motorized recreational use on the grounds that some federally owned areas are inaccessible or
have limited accessibility. According to a 2018 report, more than 9.52 million acres of land in the
American West lack permanent, legal access points for public use.80 In some cases, federal land is
wholly enclosed by private landholdings, through which no legal public road or trail passes. In
other instances, public access roads cut across private property, leaving recreationists to rely on
easements or agreements with landowners to access federal lands.81 Recently, the issue of “corner
crossing” has been a source of controversy between landowners and recreationists.82 “Corner
crossing” refers to the checkerboard pattern of land ownership in western states that results in
public and private parcels meeting corner to corner, meaning users must potentially violate state
or local trespass laws to “corner-cross” into public lands. These and other access issues have led
to conflicts between private landowners and both motorized and nonmotorized recreation users,
and have been the subject of litigation.83

78 The version of the bill as reported out by the House Committee on Natural Resources included a provision requiring
agencies to identify boundaries of any portion of a body of water on federal land that is closed to watercraft or has
horsepower limitations; this provision was not included in the enacted version of the law. See U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Natural Resources, Modernizing Access to Our Public Land Act, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., March 15, 2022,
H.Rept. 117-272.
79 H.R. 6492 §127. A similar version of this provision was included in S. 873, America’s Outdoor Recreation Act of
2023.
80 OnX and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation, Off Limits, But Within Reach: Unlocking the West’s Inaccessible Public
Lands, 2018, https://www.onxmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/
onX_TRCP_West_Federal_Landlocked_Report.pdf.
81 Nicole Blanchard, “Texas Billionaire Brothers Block Another Idaho Road, Prompting Criticism over Public Access,”
Idaho Statesman, June 12, 2019.
82 For example, see Julie Turkewitz, “Who Gets to Own the West?: A New Group of Billionaires Is Shaking Up the
Landscape,” New York Times, June 22, 2019; and Michael Allen, “The Hunters, the Landowner and the Ladder That
Triggered a Wyoming Showdown,” Wall Street Journal, November 10, 2022.
83 For example, in 2023, a group of hunters was sued by a private ranch owner after crossing a corner onto BLM lands
using a homemade ladder. In that case, the District Court of Wyoming found that corner crossing “on foot … without
damaging private property” does not constitute an unlawful trespass (Iron Bar Holdings, LLC v. Cape, No. 22-CV-67-
SWS (D. Wyo. May. 26, 2023)). Although the case deals primarily with nonmotorized access to public lands, the
ruling—which has subsequently been appealed to the Tenth Circuit—has raised concerns among some private
landowners who worry about broader implications regarding snowmobilers, ORV users, and other motorized
recreationists crossing private lands to access previously inaccessible federal lands. See Angus M. Thuermer Jr.,
“Ranch Owner: Corner Crossing Would Erase Billions in Private Property Value,” Oil City News, February 14, 2024;
see also, Amanda Eggert, “Montana Proponents for Public Access, Landowners, Await Implications of Wyoming
Lawsuit,” Bozeman Daily Chronicle, March 10, 2024.
Congressional Research Service

15

Motorized Recreation on Federal Lands

Congress has, at times, sought to address concerns related to these issues. For example,
provisions in the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management and Recreation Act (P.L. 116-9)
require annual reporting from agencies on parcels that are open to the public “to hunt, fish, or use
the land for other recreational purposes,” but are not accessible.84 The MAPLand Act, enacted
three years later, required agencies to identify federal interests in private land—including
easements, reservations, and rights-of-way—that could be used to provide public recreational
access.85 Such requirements could, according to some stakeholders, better distribute uses across
federal lands and reduce user conflicts.86 By prioritizing and acquiring legal access to these lands,
agencies also may be able to meet the increasing demand for recreational activities on federal
lands and waters—including motorized recreational uses.87 However, it is not clear that increased
access would address or solve use conflicts in such areas. Increased access could be met with a
comparable increase in demand by motorized recreation users resulting in similar—or even
increased—rates of user conflict.

Author Information

Mark K. DeSantis

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

84 P.L. 116-9, Title IV, §4105, March 12, 2019, 133 Stat. 759.
85 P.L. 117-114, §4, April 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 1176.
86 Testimony of Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural
Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Legislative Hearing, 117th Cong., 2nd sess.,
June 8, 2021. See also, Pedersen testimony, 2021.
87 BLM, “Summary of DRAFT BLM Priority Access Lists & DRAFT Map of Public Nominations for BLM Priority
Access Areas,” March 12, 2020.
Congressional Research Service
R48076 · VERSION 1 · NEW
16