ROADLESS 2.0: WHY A 25 YEAR OLD FIGHT MAY BE READY FOR A DIFFERENT ANSWER

 

 

COMMENTARY

By Don Amador

August 24, 2026

 

Roadless 2.0: Why a 25-Year-Old Fight May Be Ready for a Different Answer

 

NOTE TO READER: This narrative is based on my 30 year-long “Roadless” journey starting with the multi-year run-up to the 2001 Roadless Rule and my ongoing review of the Forest Service 2026 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 2001 Roadless Rule Rescission. It is intended as an educational piece, not as a formal legal interpretation of the proposed rule.

 

For many California OHV riders, the words “Roadless Rule” probably don't mean much. You may have heard them in a club meeting, seen them in another public-land fight, or watched another battle unfold over a trail that seemed perfectly reasonable but somehow became tangled up in federal land-management policy. For those of us who have been involved in public-land recreation for decades, however, the Roadless Rule is a familiar—and sometimes frustrating—part of the landscape.

Now, after 25 years of litigation, policy battles and changing conditions on our national forests, the Forest Service has proposed rescinding the national 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The proposal would remove the nationwide prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction and timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) and return those decisions largely to individual forests through their existing land-management planning processes. For California's OHV community, I think this is something much more interesting than simply another logging issue. It could be an opportunity to reset the way we think about roadless country, forest health and managed motorized recreation. I call that potential reset “Roadless 2.0.”

First, let's clear up one misconception. The 2001 Roadless Rule did not close all the roads and OHV trails inside inventoried roadless areas. The Forest Service's original analysis considered—and rejected—an alternative that would have prohibited motorized recreation in roadless areas. The new 2001 ROADLESS AREA CONSERVATION RULE RESCISSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) makes the distinction even clearer. It identifies approximately 5,200 miles of motorized trails within the potentially affected roadless areas and recognizes that trailheads around the periphery of IRAs can provide motorized trail access into those areas. Existing OHV use on trails designated for motorized use remains governed by the applicable Forest Plan and Travel Management decisions.

How did we get here? The original Roadless Rule was adopted in January 2001 after years of controversy over how the Forest Service should manage the remaining large blocks of relatively undeveloped national forest land. The rule established national restrictions on road construction, road reconstruction and most timber harvesting within inventoried roadless areas. It immediately became controversial. Environmental organizations viewed it as one of the most important conservation protections ever placed on National Forest lands. Many timber, mining, recreation and multiple-use interests viewed it as another example of Washington imposing a broad management prescription on vastly different landscapes. And the litigation began.

California became part of that long-running legal and administrative struggle. For years, questions surrounded how the Roadless Rule interacted with Forest Plans, Travel Management and local decisions. For riders, however, the practical question was usually much simpler: “Can I legally ride on my motorcycle, ATV or UTV on that trail?” That question didn't always have a simple answer.

The world has changed dramatically since 2001. California had already experienced major wildfires, but we had not yet experienced the landscape transformation of the last decade. Since then, California has endured fire seasons that have fundamentally changed portions of our national forests. The Camp Fire, Caldor, Dixie, Mendocino and August Complex Fires, Mosquito, and many others have left landscapes dramatically different from what they were when the original Roadless Rule was created.

2019 Post Fire Trail Survey of 2015 Rt. 1 Complex Fire - Pilot Creek OHV Trail System 

 South Fork Mountain IRA – Six Rivers National Forest

 

In some areas, what was once called an Inventoried Roadless Area could now reasonably be described by riders as an “Inventoried Treeless Area.” That's obviously a little tongue-in-cheek, but there is a serious point behind it. A designation created around the idea of maintaining relatively intact, undeveloped forest landscapes now exists in places where fire, drought, insects, disease and extreme weather have radically altered the landscape. The question shouldn't simply be, “Was this area roadless in 2001?” The better question is, “What is the appropriate management strategy for this landscape today?”

  
        

         Dan East Trail BEFORE 2015 Rt.1 Complex Fire(top) – Dan East Trail AFTER 2015 Rt. 1 Complex Fire (bottom)

                              Pilot Creek OHV Trail System - South Fork Mountain IRA – Six Rivers National Forest

 

This isn't an argument to pave the backcountry. Most OHV riders don't want every mountain road turned into a highway. We don't want every remote forest landscape turned into a subdivision or motocross track. And we don't need to pretend that every roadless area is appropriate for motorized recreation. Some places are genuinely remote, special and appropriate for rugged backcountry non-motorized recreation.

But there is a huge difference between saying that some places should remain undeveloped and saying that a national rule adopted 25 years ago should determine the transportation and management options available on every roadless landscape regardless of what has happened since. That's where I think Roadless 2.0 comes in.

To me, Roadless 2.0 starts with a simple concept: manage the landscape we have—not simply the landscape we mapped in 2001. That means looking at each area based on current conditions, including wildfire history, forest health, fuels, watershed conditions, wildlife, existing roads and trails, historic access, recreation demand, community needs, fire response, post-fire recovery and the potential for sustainable motorized recreation.

The DEIS recognizes that the current planning system includes both Semi-Primitive Motorized and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized recreation settings. It also identifies approximately 3.1 million acres of potentially affected IRAs as Semi-Primitive Motorized. Motorized recreation is therefore already part of the Forest Service's legitimate recreation planning framework. Roadless does not have to mean nonmotorized.

California is also showing us what managed OHV recreation can look like. OHV recreation itself has changed. We have moved a long way from the old image of “just go ride wherever you want.” Today's legitimate OHV system is increasingly based upon designated routes, MVUMs, trail standards, seasonal restrictions, route signing, resource monitoring, law enforcement, trail maintenance, restoration of damaged routes, user education, clubs and volunteers, and purposefully designed trail systems.

This is where conservation and OHV interests have found more common ground than we sometimes did in the past. A legal, designated trail can be mapped, signed, monitored, maintained, rerouted when necessary, closed seasonally, designed around sensitive resources and enforced. An illegal user-created route has none of those advantages. A carefully planned trail connection can sometimes be a conservation tool by concentrating use onto a durable corridor and keeping riders out of fragile areas. A logical loop or connector can also prevent riders from reaching a dead end and creating their own way around it.

The DEIS recognizes that new transportation infrastructure can provide additional access to dispersed recreation and that some temporary roads could potentially become trails after management activities are completed. That's an important concept for California and for other fire-affected national forests.

The DEIS says the proposed rescission would return decision-making to individual forests and existing land-management plans. That's good. But local decision-making needs to mean multiple-use decision-making where the OHV community gets skin-in-the-game by showing up and participates.

The DEIS identifies road construction needs associated with much more than timber harvesting. It specifically identifies fuels reduction, pre-commercial thinning, watershed restoration, habitat improvement and recreation development as activities that can require transportation access. That is a very different landscape than the Roadless debate of 2001 and leaves room for hybrid fuel reduction/recreation projects that can meet multiple objectives.

And here's something every California rider should understand: the Roadless Rule isn't the only thing that determines whether you can ride. Even if the national Roadless Rule disappears, your Forest Supervisor doesn't simply get to say, “Open it all.” Forest Plans still matter. NEPA still matters. The Travel Management Rule or a revised version still matters. The MVUM still matters. Wilderness designations still matter. Wild and Scenic River protections still matter. Endangered species protections still matter. Private property rights matter. Tribal interests matter. Site-specific environmental analysis still matters. Roadless 2.0 is not a blank check.

What should California OHV riders support? I think the answer is pretty straightforward. We should support an alternative that ends the one-size-fits-all national prohibition, returns appropriate decision-making to individual forests, requires genuine consideration of motorized recreation, recognizes the difference between roads, motorized trails and unmanaged cross-country travel, and encourages strategic and collaborative transportation access planning efforts.

Roadless 2.0 could be an opportunity. But only if the recreation community helps define what that opportunity looks like.

The Forest Service is currently accepting comments on the proposed rescission, with the comment period scheduled to close September 21, 2026.  https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/planning/roadless

# # #

Don Amador is a longtime public lands advocate with over 30 years of experience in recreation policy, trail stewardship, post-wildfire recovery, and collaborative land management and is former Chair of the CA State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission.

ACTION ALERT - SPEAK UP FOR COASTAL ACCESS IN CA

LOSS OF HISTORIC MOTORIZED ACCESS IN KING RANGE

 

SPEAK UP FOR COASTAL RECREATION ACCESS -  According to the CA State Coastal Conservancy,  NOAA will hold two virtual public meetings on Tuesday, August 11 and Wednesday, August 12, 2026, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. PT. NOAA will conduct the virtual public meetings via Adobe Connect. Each person who wants to attend either virtual meeting must electronically register by August 10, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Attendance at each virtual public meeting will be limited to 1,000 individuals; therefore, NOAA requests that individuals attend only one meeting, on either August 11 or 12.

 

NOAA will call on speakers on a first come/first served basis through the raised hand function of Adobe Connect. Each speaker will have three minutes to speak. NOAA will adjourn the meeting at 5 p.m. PT or when all participants have spoken, whichever is earlier. NOAA retains discretion to extend the virtual public meetings if appropriate and feasible. To register for either virtual meeting, use the following link: https://noaabroadcast.adobeconnect.com/e23ewcr5d65q/event/event_info.html

 

NOAA will prepare written transcripts of the in-person and both virtual meetings which will be available via email request to czma.california-evalution@noaa.gov. Written comments may be submitted to NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management by email at czma.california-evaluation@noaa.gov

 Include ‘‘Comments on Performance Evaluation of the California Coastal Management Program’’ in the subject line. Written comments received by 11:59 pm PT on August 22, 2026, will be accepted.

____________________________________________________________________________ 

 

OUTLINE OF AMADOR’S TESTIMONY FOR AUG. 11 NOAA MEETING

  I will be speaking as a CA North Coast Humboldt County native who spent much of his life exploring, documenting, and working on California's coastal public lands.

 

I will highlight that for much of the twentieth century, motorized recreation was one of many accepted ways Californians accessed and experienced the coast—alongside fishing, camping, hiking, horseback riding, surfing, wildlife viewing, and other activities.  But over the past fifty years, those motorized opportunities have steadily diminished.

 

Places where people once legally drove onto beaches and dunes have been closed or substantially restricted. Today, Oceano Dunes remains the only state-managed coastal beach where motorized recreation continues as a principal use, while the BLM's Samoa Dunes provides an important federal example of continued coastal OHV access.

 

While I am not suggesting that every historic riding area should be reopened. I will be asking NOAA to look at the “cumulative trend” and determine whether the full balance envisioned by the Coastal Act is still being achieved.

 

I will point out that California has demonstrated that conservation and recreation do not have to be mutually exclusive.

 

For an illustration, Oceano Dunes and Samoa Dunes provide examples of monitoring, habitat protection, restoration, visitor education, designated use areas, and collaboration being used to manage recreation while protecting resources.

 

Also before permanently eliminating an established recreational opportunity, I believe agencies should fully examine whether measurable environmental objectives can instead be achieved through adaptive management.

 

I will share my experiences and concerns with planning efforts where narrow scopes and predetermined sideboards prevent stakeholders from addressing interconnected problems as I have seen this in recent federal forest planning, where recreation, transportation, and post-fire recovery were difficult to address within narrowly defined planning frameworks.

 

After decades of working with agencies, conservation organizations, recreation interests, and local communities, I have learned that durable solutions come from bringing people together early—before positions harden and before the range of alternatives has been predetermined.

 

Here are my requests to NOAA:

 

Please evaluate not only what California's Coastal Management Program has accomplished, but how it makes decisions.

 

Use a process that is sufficiently broad, collaborative, science-based, transparent, and adaptive to address today's changing conditions?

 

Recognize that conservation, public access, recreation, local communities, tribes, and stewardship continue to have a meaningful place at the table.

 

QWR REPORT 2026-1 - A Policy Review of Recreation, Public Access, Adaptive Management, and the Implementation of the California Coastal Act and Federal Coastal Zone Management Act

https://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/QWR%20Policy%20Report%20No.%202026-1.pdf

 

# ##

OPINION - AB 1613 - PROCESS MATTERS AS MUCH AS THE PRODUCT

 

OPINION

 By Don Amador, President

Quiet Warrior Racing LLC

August 7, 2026

 

AB 1613 - Why Process Matters as Much as the Product

 

Over the past 35 years, I have been fortunate to participate in numerous collaborative efforts involving recreation organizations, conservation groups, industry representatives, local governments, state and federal agencies, tribal governments, and elected officials. Some of those efforts have produced lasting successes, while others have struggled to achieve their intended goals. Throughout that journey, I have learned one lesson that continues to shape my view of public policy: people are generally willing to support difficult decisions—even decisions they may not completely agree with—if they believe the process was fair, transparent, and respectful of everyone's contributions.

 

That lesson has been on my mind as California continued its discussion of Assembly Bill 1613, the proposal to establish a statewide Off-Highway Vehicle Safety and Stewardship Program, at the August 6 OHMVR Commission meeting at Kings Beach, CA.

 

CALSPAN VIDEO OF COMMISSION MEETING

https://cal-span.org/meeting/ohmvr_20260806/

 

Before anyone misunderstands my perspective, let me be perfectly clear. I support improving OHV safety. I support rider education. I support responsible recreation and stewardship. In fact, I have spent much of my professional career working toward those very goals. The question before us has never been whether California should improve safety. The real question is whether the process used to reach that goal honors the collaborative work that made the idea possible in the first place.

 

For four years, California State Parks convened annual OHV Safety Summits that brought together an impressive cross-section of the OHV community. Recreation organizations, conservation interests, law enforcement, federal land managers, OHMVR commissioners, volunteer non-profits, local governments, rider training providers, and State Parks staff all came to the table. Many of us invested hundreds of hours discussing safety trends, identifying emerging challenges, and searching for practical solutions that could improve rider safety while preserving recreational opportunities. Those meetings were not always easy. There were disagreements, spirited debates, and difficult compromises. But that is precisely what meaningful collaboration looks like.

 

Over time, common ground began to emerge. We were not simply concepts of creating an online OHV safety education program; we were building relationships and developing trust. That trust became every bit as valuable as the recommendations themselves.

 

Today, much of the frustration expressed at the commission meeting concerning AB 1613 does not appear to stem from opposition to safety education. Rather, it comes from the perception among many participants that the collaboratively developed work product was not fully reflected in the legislation that ultimately advanced through the Capitol. Whether everyone agrees with that perception is almost beside the point. The perception itself has become a significant issue because collaboration depends as much on confidence in the process as it does on the final outcome.

 

One irony has not been lost on many stakeholders. The current version of AB 1613 calls for the creation of yet another stakeholder process to develop the details of the new safety program. That raises an understandable question. If participants believe the recommendations from one four-year collaborative effort were not fully carried forward, what confidence will they have that a future stakeholder process will produce a different result? That question extends well beyond this bill. It speaks to the credibility of other state-led collaborative governance model.

 

My perspective on this issue has also been shaped by experiences where collaboration worked exceptionally well. One of the best examples is FireScape Mendocino, where I have served as a Co-Founder and Core Team member. FireScape brought together the U.S. Forest Service, CAL FIRE, conservation organizations, county governments, private landowners, scientists, and community leaders to address forest health and wildfire resilience. We certainly did not agree on every issue, but participants trusted the process. Ideas were openly debated, recommendations were refined together, and everyone understood that their contributions mattered. That trust allowed FireScape Mendocino to become a nationally recognized example of collaborative conservation.

 

Yesterday's California OHMVR Commission meeting illustrated why this issue deserves careful consideration. The public testimony reflected genuine concern from several long-time OHV leaders regarding the current direction of AB 1613. Interestingly, none of the speakers argued against improving OHV safety. Instead, the discussion focused on stakeholder engagement, legislative intent, governance, implementation, and preserving the integrity of the collaborative process that had taken place over the previous four years. The Commission recognized that these concerns warranted additional discussion and requested that State Parks provide a future report to help clarify the issues. That was an encouraging step because healthy organizations ask difficult questions, and effective collaborative programs welcome those conversations.

 

One concern that particularly resonates with me is the potential long-term effect this experience could have on future stakeholder processes. California increasingly relies on collaborative groups to address complex issues involving recreation, forest management, wildfire resilience, watershed restoration, wildlife conservation, and public land management. These collaborations succeed because people often volunteer their time with the expectation that their knowledge, experience, and recommendations will receive meaningful consideration. If participants begin to believe that years of collaborative work can simply be set aside without explanation, it becomes much harder to convince experienced stakeholders to invest their time in future public processes.

 

I remain optimistic that California can develop an outstanding Off-Highway Vehicle Safety and Stewardship Program. The objective is worthwhile, and I believe there is broad agreement within the OHV community that education and stewardship should continue to be strengthened. But I also believe we have an opportunity—and perhaps an obligation—to ensure that the final legislation reflects the collaborative spirit that originally inspired the effort.

 

As someone who has spent much of his career working around collaborative tables, I hope California chooses the path that strengthens, rather than weakens, confidence in stakeholder engagement. Good public policy is rarely built by the loudest voices or the quickest victories. It is built through respectful dialogue, careful listening, thoughtful compromise, and mutual trust.

 

In the end, the true measure of a successful collaborative process is not simply the policy or legislation it produces. It is whether the people who devoted countless hours to building consensus are willing to return to the table the next time they are invited.

 

That may ultimately be the most important lesson of all.

 

# # #

Don Amador has been in the trail advocacy, post wildfire recovery and recreation management profession for 35 years.  Don is Past President/CEO and current board member of the Post Wildfire OHV Recovery Alliance.  Don is a Co-Founder of FireScape Mendocino, a forest health collaborative that is part of the National Fire Learning Network.  Don served as Chairman of the CA State Parks Off-Highway Vehicle Commission (circa 1994-2000). Don served as an AD Driver for the Forest Service North Zone Fire Cache during the 2022, 2023, and 2024 Fire Seasons.   

MEDIA AND STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY - QWR SUBMITS COMMENTS AND REPORT ON NOAA REVIEW OF CA COASTAL COMMISSION

MEDIA ADVISORY

 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 August 5, 2026

 

Quiet Warrior Racing Releases New Policy Report for NOAA's Review of California Coastal Management Program

 

NOTE: Public Invited to Submit Comments by August 22 Deadline

 

Cottonwood, California — Quiet Warrior Racing LLC (QWR) announced today that it has formally submitted comments to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as part of the agency's Section 312 Performance Evaluation of the California Coastal Management Program.

 

As part of its submission, QWR transmitted Policy Report No. 2026-1, “California's Coastal Management Program at Fifty: A Policy Review of Recreation, Public Access, Adaptive Management, and the Implementation of the California Coastal Act and Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.”

 

The report examines nearly five decades of California coastal management policy, reviewing the historical evolution of recreation, public access, conservation, adaptive management, and implementation of the California Coastal Act and the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

 

"Our report recognizes California's remarkable conservation accomplishments while asking an important public policy question," said Don Amador, President of Quiet Warrior Racing. "Has implementation of the Coastal Act continued to reflect the Legislature's original vision of balancing environmental stewardship with public access, recreation, coordinated planning, and the social and economic needs of Californians?"

 

Unlike many public comments focused on a single issue, the QWR report provides a broader historical perspective on California's coastal management program. It documents the significant reduction in legal coastal motorized recreation opportunities over the past fifty years while also highlighting successful examples of adaptive management, including Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area and the Bureau of Land Management's Samoa Dunes Recreation Area.

 

OHMVR Commission Meeting

 

The California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission meets August 6 in North Lake Tahoe. While the QWR report is not a formal agenda item, NOAA's ongoing evaluation of California's Coastal Management Program and the future of coastal recreation are expected to be topics of interest during Commission related public testimony and discussions.

 

Public Comment Opportunity

 

NOAA's evaluation provides an opportunity for all Californians—not just organized stakeholder groups—to participate in reviewing the implementation of California's federally approved Coastal Management Program.

 

QWR encourages recreation enthusiasts, local governments, businesses, conservation organizations, Tribal governments, and interested citizens to submit respectful, constructive, and fact-based comments describing their experiences and perspectives.

 

Comments may address topics such as:

 

·         Public access to California's coast.

·         Outdoor recreation opportunities.

·         Adaptive management and collaborative stewardship.

·         Coastal conservation.

·         Local community impacts.

·         Implementation of the California Coastal Act.

 

Public comments must be received by NOAA no later than August 22, 2026.

 

QWR COMMENT LETTER

https://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/QWR%20Report%202026-1%20NOAA%20Comment%20letter%20updated.pdf

 

COPY OF QWR REPORT 2026-1

https://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1140/files/QWR%20Policy%20Report%20No.%202026-1.pdf

 

# # #

Quiet Warrior Racing LLC is a California-based public lands consulting and communications firm specializing in off-highway vehicle recreation, sustainable trail management, post-wildfire recovery, forest stewardship, and collaborative public land policy. Through research, education, and stakeholder engagement, QWR works to promote responsible recreation while supporting the long-term conservation of America's public lands.