Motor Vehicle Use Map Policy Primer
In 2005, the Forest Service finalized what is commonly known as the Travel Management Rule. Among other things, the rule requires forest officials to publish a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM).1 The MVUM displays National Forest System routes (roads and trails) and areas designated as open to motorized travel. Once these designations are identified on an MVUM, motor vehicle use off these designated roads, trails and areas is prohibited.2 This article will explain the different ways in which MVUMs are published, why MVUMs are important, and how organizations can establish standing to challenge the agency on travel route designations using a MVUM.
The Publication Process
The Travel Management Rule (TMR) mandates that forest officials produce an MVUM, at either the ranger district or forest-wide level, illustrating the specific routes and areas open to summer off-road vehicle use. One method of MVUM publication, commonly known as the “MVUM First” approach, is used when no changes to management direction (regarding route designations) are proposed.3 In this case, forest officials can forego NEPA analysis and public participation, but they must have restricted travel to previously designated routes across either the forest or ranger district.
Alternatively, the Forest Service may want to make changes to route designations, in which case any proposed changes would need to go through the travel planning process, subject to NEPA (and public participation).
Why MVUMs Are Important
MVUMs are important because their publication completes the route designation process. Under the new TMR, restrictions on off-road vehicle use do not go into effect until the MVUM is published. MVUMs are legally significant because they can be challenged in court if the agency adds or extends routes on an MVUM without public participation and NEPA analysis.
Before the TMR, forest maps were not legally challengeable because they were not “final agency actions.” Instead, maps were considered to be a display of past administrative decisions. As such, legal challenges had to attack the site-specific decision to open or close an area to travel. Sometimes these decisions were made in a forest plan, but many times there was a separate site-specific decision. This has all changed under the TMR.
It is possible that the agency will claim that MVUMs cannot be challenged in court, saying that they are like the old forest maps in that they do not represent a decision, but simply display past decisions. If this were true, the agency could use the “MVUM First” approach to put user-created routes onto the MVUM without NEPA analysis or public scrutiny.
However, under the Travel Management Rule, it is likely that a MVUM is legally challengeable, because it marks the “consummation of the agency’s decision-making process,” and determines rights or obligations from which legal consequences will flow.4 According to the TMR:
“Motor vehicle use off designated roads, trails and areas is prohibited once the designations are identified on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM).” 36 C.F.R. § 261.13.
Furthermore, the proposed Forest Service Handbook (FSH) states, “[t]he motor vehicle use map completes the designation process.” Proposed FSH 7709.55 (p. 15)(emphasis added). These two statements support the idea that MVUMs mark the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process because completion of the MVUM is the final step before any prohibition on ORV use goes into effect.
Legal consequences flow from the publication of the MVUM. A recent court case out of Montana addressed this idea when it said that “the MVU Map designations are legally enforceable…”5 The court cited 36 C.F.R. § 261.13 for support. The regulation states:
“After designations have been identified on a motor vehicle use map, it is prohibited to possess or operate a motor vehicle on National Forest System lands in that administrative unit or Ranger District other than in accordance with those designations.”
In sum, MVUMs are important under the new Travel Management Rule because they can be used to challenge the agency if it attempts to alter the route designations without NEPA analysis and public scrutiny. This is an important departure from past practices and forest users should appreciate the importance of the new Motor Vehicle Use Maps.
Standing
Before an MVUM can be challenged in court, plaintiffs must establish standing. Organizations will have little trouble establishing standing if they have individuals with standing at the earliest stages in the administrative process. While a showing of standing is not required for administrative appeals, it is a required element of legal action. Potential plaintiffs are wise to make sure at least one member of a group has standing.
Plaintiffs will need to submit affidavits or other evidence showing, through specific facts, that one or more of their members would be “directly affected apart from their special interest in the subject.”6 The “key requirement” for the purposes of standing is “that the plaintiff have suffered his injury in a personal and individual way.”7
For challenges to motorized use decisions, the standing is best met by involving persons who use the area in question for recreation such as wildlife observation, quiet, beauty or other appropriate reasons. The more specific and detailed the use of the area by potential plaintiffs, the easier it will be to rebut a standing challenge. Standing allegations would include:
Conclusion
Motor vehicle use off designated roads, trails and areas is prohibited once the designations are identified on a Motor Vehicle Use Map. MVUMs are important for forest users because they can be used to challenge the agency when it designates routes in a way that is not in accord with the Travel Management Rule. Organizations that want to challenge the agency over route designations should have at least one member that uses the trails in question to establish standing for court purposes.
— John Meyer is a third year student at Vermont Law School and is wildly passionate about MVUMs.
— Jack Tuholske has practiced law for 23 years, with an emphasis on public lands and natural resource litigation. He also teaches law at Vermont and Montana law schools.
Footnotes
1 36 C.F.R. § 212.56
2 36 C.F.R. § 212.56; 36 C.F.R. § 261.13.
3 36 C.F.R. § 212.52
4 Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177 (1997).
5 Montana Wilderness Association v. McAllister, 2007 WL 4564175 at *9 (D. Mont. 2007).
6 Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 563.
7 Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Glickman, 332 U.S. App. D.C. 104, 154 F.3d 426, 433 (D.C.Cir. 1998).
The Publication Process
The Travel Management Rule (TMR) mandates that forest officials produce an MVUM, at either the ranger district or forest-wide level, illustrating the specific routes and areas open to summer off-road vehicle use. One method of MVUM publication, commonly known as the “MVUM First” approach, is used when no changes to management direction (regarding route designations) are proposed.3 In this case, forest officials can forego NEPA analysis and public participation, but they must have restricted travel to previously designated routes across either the forest or ranger district.
Alternatively, the Forest Service may want to make changes to route designations, in which case any proposed changes would need to go through the travel planning process, subject to NEPA (and public participation).
Why MVUMs Are Important
MVUMs are important because their publication completes the route designation process. Under the new TMR, restrictions on off-road vehicle use do not go into effect until the MVUM is published. MVUMs are legally significant because they can be challenged in court if the agency adds or extends routes on an MVUM without public participation and NEPA analysis.
Before the TMR, forest maps were not legally challengeable because they were not “final agency actions.” Instead, maps were considered to be a display of past administrative decisions. As such, legal challenges had to attack the site-specific decision to open or close an area to travel. Sometimes these decisions were made in a forest plan, but many times there was a separate site-specific decision. This has all changed under the TMR.
It is possible that the agency will claim that MVUMs cannot be challenged in court, saying that they are like the old forest maps in that they do not represent a decision, but simply display past decisions. If this were true, the agency could use the “MVUM First” approach to put user-created routes onto the MVUM without NEPA analysis or public scrutiny.
However, under the Travel Management Rule, it is likely that a MVUM is legally challengeable, because it marks the “consummation of the agency’s decision-making process,” and determines rights or obligations from which legal consequences will flow.4 According to the TMR:
“Motor vehicle use off designated roads, trails and areas is prohibited once the designations are identified on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM).” 36 C.F.R. § 261.13.
Furthermore, the proposed Forest Service Handbook (FSH) states, “[t]he motor vehicle use map completes the designation process.” Proposed FSH 7709.55 (p. 15)(emphasis added). These two statements support the idea that MVUMs mark the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process because completion of the MVUM is the final step before any prohibition on ORV use goes into effect.
Legal consequences flow from the publication of the MVUM. A recent court case out of Montana addressed this idea when it said that “the MVU Map designations are legally enforceable…”5 The court cited 36 C.F.R. § 261.13 for support. The regulation states:
“After designations have been identified on a motor vehicle use map, it is prohibited to possess or operate a motor vehicle on National Forest System lands in that administrative unit or Ranger District other than in accordance with those designations.”
In sum, MVUMs are important under the new Travel Management Rule because they can be used to challenge the agency if it attempts to alter the route designations without NEPA analysis and public scrutiny. This is an important departure from past practices and forest users should appreciate the importance of the new Motor Vehicle Use Maps.
Standing
Before an MVUM can be challenged in court, plaintiffs must establish standing. Organizations will have little trouble establishing standing if they have individuals with standing at the earliest stages in the administrative process. While a showing of standing is not required for administrative appeals, it is a required element of legal action. Potential plaintiffs are wise to make sure at least one member of a group has standing.
Plaintiffs will need to submit affidavits or other evidence showing, through specific facts, that one or more of their members would be “directly affected apart from their special interest in the subject.”6 The “key requirement” for the purposes of standing is “that the plaintiff have suffered his injury in a personal and individual way.”7
For challenges to motorized use decisions, the standing is best met by involving persons who use the area in question for recreation such as wildlife observation, quiet, beauty or other appropriate reasons. The more specific and detailed the use of the area by potential plaintiffs, the easier it will be to rebut a standing challenge. Standing allegations would include:
- Identification of the trail or area at issue;
- Dates (approximate is fine) when you have visited the area;
- Why you enjoy the area (wildlife, quiet recreation etc.);
- That the ORV decision under challenge harms your recreation and aesthetic use of the area because it permits motorized use without proper analysis;
- That you are a member of the plaintiff organization;
- That the failure of the Forest Service to comply with NEPA (or other statute) undermines good government and denies you the opportunity to provide information and to understand and assess the effects of government action;
- That your injuries would be addressed in part by government compliance with the law.
Conclusion
Motor vehicle use off designated roads, trails and areas is prohibited once the designations are identified on a Motor Vehicle Use Map. MVUMs are important for forest users because they can be used to challenge the agency when it designates routes in a way that is not in accord with the Travel Management Rule. Organizations that want to challenge the agency over route designations should have at least one member that uses the trails in question to establish standing for court purposes.
— John Meyer is a third year student at Vermont Law School and is wildly passionate about MVUMs.
— Jack Tuholske has practiced law for 23 years, with an emphasis on public lands and natural resource litigation. He also teaches law at Vermont and Montana law schools.
Footnotes
1 36 C.F.R. § 212.56
2 36 C.F.R. § 212.56; 36 C.F.R. § 261.13.
3 36 C.F.R. § 212.52
4 Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177 (1997).
5 Montana Wilderness Association v. McAllister, 2007 WL 4564175 at *9 (D. Mont. 2007).
6 Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 563.
7 Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Glickman, 332 U.S. App. D.C. 104, 154 F.3d 426, 433 (D.C.Cir. 1998).
Resource Information
Article Type:
Policy Primer
Road RIPorter Issue:
Tribal Related:
Not Tribal-Related
Site-Wide Search
Subscribe to The Dirt
