Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Panel hears competing views on restoring 'open unless posted closed' presumption for designated routes
Loading...
Summary
The Public Lands Access Restoration Act would presume designated motorized roads and trails open unless signed closed and create a public nomination process for omitted routes; proponents said it restores access and supports rural economies, while agencies urged careful technical work to avoid safety and resource impacts.
Lawmakers and outside witnesses told a House subcommittee that restoring an "open unless posted closed" presumption for designated motorized routes could reverse decades of inventory omissions and help rural recreation economies, but agency witnesses urged care in implementation to avoid resource and safety problems.
Representative Crank (R‑CO), sponsor of the Public Lands Access Restoration Act, said the bill would restore a "common sense" approach so that designated trails for motorized use are presumed open unless agencies justify closures and mark them clearly. "When routes are not properly inventoried or clearly marked, users are forced to assume those routes are closed," he said.
Chad Hixson, executive director of the Trails Preservation Alliance, argued that inventories produced under the 2005 travel management rule excluded many historically used routes and that lack of inclusion has functionally closed them. He told the panel Colorado now has only about 8% of single‑track trails open to motorcycles and urged a timely nomination process to bring missing routes back into consideration.
The U.S. Forest Service emphasized safety, resource impacts, and timeline concerns. Ellen Schulzbarger said the agency supports increasing recreation access and would provide technical assistance but noted that public comment, emergency closures, NEPA timelines, and coordination obligations must be reconciled with any statutory change.
Members questioned how the bill would interact with existing travel management plans and whether the nomination process would force agencies to revisit plans or provide a quicker supplemental path. Witnesses acknowledged the bill would not immediately restore all omitted routes but said it would shift the burden back to agencies to mark and justify closures and allow the public to request review.
The hearing did not produce formal action; members and witnesses agreed to continue technical conversations.
