Ultimate Secrets Of The Washington OHV Trail Decisions

If a favorite connector, campsite route, or desert loop is tied up in a pending Bureau of Land Management travel plan, the final paperwork now has another stop before it can be signed.

On July 23, 2026, the BLM issued immediate interim guidance for ongoing and newly initiated travel and transportation management planning. Field offices are supposed to keep evaluating routes, analyzing alternatives, and accepting public participation. Before an official signs a travel-management decision, however, the state or field office must coordinate with the BLM Director’s Office.

That is a significant change in how pending OHV decisions are processed within the agency. It is not, by itself, an order to open more trails, to stop proposed closures, or to reverse court-ordered restrictions.

The July 23 BLM Guidance Changes the Process, Not the Trail Map

The new Instruction Memorandum, identified as IM 2026-023, applies to BLM offices nationwide and took effect immediately. It is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2029, although the wider policy landscape could change sooner through formal rulemaking.

The memorandum gives field offices four important directions:

• Continue administering and enforcing current area, road and trail designations until they are formally revised under existing regulations and other applicable laws.
• Continue work on travel and transportation management planning, including route evaluations, public participation and National Environmental Policy Act analysis.
• Coordinate with the BLM Director’s Office before signing any travel-management decision, including an individual route-designation decision.
• Focus the supporting NEPA analysis on the impacts of the alternatives. Unless a court order or settlement requires otherwise, address the OHV minimization criteria in the final decision document rather than in the NEPA analysis supporting it.

For riders, the first point may be the most important: the legal trail map did not change on July 23.

A route already designated open remains open unless another closure order or applicable restriction controls it. A route that is already closed does not become legal simply because the administration has declared a more access-friendly route.

The Underlying OHV Regulation Is Still in Force

The new guidance follows President Donald Trump’s May 29, 2026, Executive Order 14408. That order rescinded two executive orders dating to the Nixon and Carter administrations and directed federal agencies to begin rulemaking to rescind or revise regulations created to implement them.

That rulemaking matters because the current BLM regulation at 43 CFR 8342.1 is still on the books. It requires the agency to designate public lands as open, limited, or closed to off-road vehicles and to route them to minimize impacts across several categories.

In plain language, the existing criteria direct the BLM to consider:

• Damage to soil, watersheds, vegetation, air and other public-land resources
• Wilderness suitability
• Harassment of wildlife and disruption of habitat
• Protection of threatened and endangered species
• Conflicts between OHV recreation and other public-land uses
• Noise and compatibility with nearby populated areas

The current rules also preserve public participation. Before routes are designated or redesignated, the BLM must provide interested groups, agencies, landowners, and other parties with an opportunity to express their views and have those views considered.

That means the administration has changed its policy direction, but it has not yet completed the regulatory change that may rewrite the underlying standards.

The National-Office Checkpoint Could Cut Both Ways

Requiring coordination with the Director’s Office could make decisions more consistent across BLM regions. It also allows national leadership to check whether a final plan reflects Executive Order 14408 and the administration’s stated preference for improved access and multiple use.

For riders frustrated by field offices applying the same regulation differently, that added consistency could be useful.

There is another side to it. Adding a national-office checkpoint can create another queue, particularly if several Utah, California and other western travel plans approach the finish line at once. It can also pull decisions based on route-level maps, local terrain and field data into a more centralized policy review.

The wording matters. The memorandum requires offices to “coordinate” with the Director’s Office. It does not publicly define that coordination, impose a deadline, or explicitly say the Director’s Office must approve each plan.

Claims that the change will speed access-friendly decisions or deliberately stall closures go beyond the available evidence. Both outcomes are possible; the memorandum establishes neither.

The Minimization Explanation Is Moving to the Decision Document

The second major change involves where the BLM explains its application of the minimization criteria.

NEPA analysis is supposed to disclose and compare the environmental effects of the alternatives. The route-designation decision is the point at which the agency selects a network and applies the statutory standards governing that choice. The new guidance tells offices to keep the NEPA document focused on the impacts of the alternatives and, unless a court order or settlement says otherwise, place the minimization explanation in the final decision document.

This is not a complete break from prior guidance. An October 2024 BLM policy memorandum already emphasized that a decision document should clearly explain how route designations minimize impacts and user conflicts. The July 2026 instruction draws a sharper line, stating that the minimization criteria should not be addressed in the supporting NEPA analysis unless a court or settlement requires it.

The Western Mojave litigation helps explain the distinction. In October 2024, a federal district court found that the BLM’s environmental impact statement was generally adequate under NEPA while separately finding that the 2019 route network did not affirmatively demonstrate compliance with the minimization criteria. In other words, analyzing environmental effects and showing how the selected routes satisfy a route-designation rule are related but distinct legal questions.

For riders, the practical lesson is not to wait for the final decision before getting involved. Route-specific information submitted during the public process can still shape the alternatives, the impact analysis and the agency’s eventual explanation for keeping a route open, limiting it or closing it.

There is also an unanswered question about transparency. If the full minimization rationale first appears in a final decision after public comments have closed, stakeholders on all sides may argue that they had less opportunity to challenge the agency’s reasoning before the choice was made. The memorandum does not prevent the BLM from disclosing that reasoning earlier, but it no longer directs most offices to put it in the supporting NEPA analysis.

Utah’s Pending Plans Now Have an Added National-Office Step

The timing is especially important in Utah, where several major travel plans are moving forward.

The Trail Canyon plan near Kanab covers approximately 469 miles of evaluated routes. Its draft environmental assessment comment period ended July 22, one day before the national memorandum was posted. Dinosaur North covers approximately 700 miles of routes, and its comment period ended July 23. The Dolores River plan covers roughly 321 miles, with a draft environmental assessment expected in fall or winter 2026.

Work on those plans can continue. When the BLM reaches a decision, however, the new national-office coordination requirement applies before it is signed.

There is an extra complication. Trail Canyon, Dinosaur North, Dolores River and other Utah plans stem from a 2017 settlement that established route-evaluation and minimization obligations. The July 23 memorandum expressly makes an exception when a court order or settlement requires the criteria to be handled differently.

The memorandum does not identify which projects fall within that exception or explain how the Utah settlement will affect the placement of the final minimization analysis. Riders should watch the next official documents rather than assume every pending Utah plan will follow an identical template.

The Western Mojave Closures Do Not Disappear

2,200 Miles of OHV Routes Closed: Why the Western Mojave Fight Matters to Every Rider

The Western Mojave planning area is the clearest warning against reading the new guidance as an instant reopening order.

Beginning March 24, 2026, the BLM closed OHV recreation on routes within designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise and Lane Mountain milk-vetch under a federal court order. The agency says those restrictions affect approximately 37% of the OHV routes in the planning area, leaving about 63% open. It also says it will prepare an amended analysis and issue a new route-network decision.

The July 23 memorandum does not override that court order. Existing restrictions remain enforceable, and the court-order exception may control how the BLM handles the minimization issue in its next decision.

A future decision on the Western Mojave route will also require coordination with the Director’s Office before it is signed. What that means for the eventual network is not yet known.

Riders Still Have Work to Do Before the Final Decision

The national office checkpoint does not make local knowledge any less important. National-office coordination cannot identify the value of a half-mile connector, a dispersed campsite spur, or an accessible route unless that information is in the record.

Riders following a pending BLM plan should:

• Use the official BLM project page and maps, not screenshots or old GPS layers, to confirm route numbers and current designations.
• Submit route-specific comments during the public period, explaining connectivity, destination access, hunting use, camping access, mobility needs or a practical mitigation option.
• Watch for revised maps, supplemental comment periods and final decision documents.
• Check whether a court order or settlement controls the plan.
• Follow the federal rulemaking that may eventually revise 43 CFR Part 8340, because that process—not the July 23 memorandum—is where the underlying regulatory criteria could change.

Most importantly, do not treat a political announcement, advocacy post, or navigation-app layer as permission to ride a closed route. Until the BLM formally changes a designation and publishes an updated legal map or decision, the existing restriction remains the rule on the ground.

ORBA Relaunches for 2026 as Off-Road Access Fight Intensifies for UTV and SXS Riders

The July 23 guidance gives national leadership a larger role in the last stage of pending OHV decisions. Whether that produces better access, slower decisions, or another round of courtroom fights will depend on the documents the agency signs—not the promises riders or critics attach to the memo today.

Sources

1. Bureau of Land Management — Interim Guidance for Off-Highway Vehicle Management – Travel and Transportation Management Planning — July 23, 2026 — Confirmed the immediate guidance, Director’s Office coordination, continuation of planning and public participation, treatment of existing designations, documentation direction and September 30, 2029, expiration.
2. The White House — Executive Order 14408, Removing Unnecessary and Counterproductive Restrictions on Access to Federal Lands — May 29, 2026 — Confirmed rescission of Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 and the direction to initiate rulemaking to revise or rescind implementing regulations.
3. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations — 43 CFR 8342.1, Designation Criteria — Current text reviewed July 28, 2026 — Confirmed that the minimization criteria remain in the regulation and summarized what they require.
4. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations — 43 CFR 8342.2, Designation Procedures — Current text reviewed July 28, 2026 — Confirmed public-participation and route-designation procedures.
5. Bureau of Land Management — Policy Memorandum: Application of the Minimization Criteria at 43 CFR 8342.1 — October 15, 2024 — Confirmed prior BLM direction on granular minimization analysis and the Western Mojave court’s distinction between NEPA review and compliance with the route-designation criteria.
6. Bureau of Land Management — BLM Advances Travel Management Planning Across Utah With Three Initiatives — June 22, 2026 — Confirmed the scope and status of the Dolores River, Trail Canyon and Dinosaur North plans.
7. Bureau of Land Management — Final Settlement Agreement, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior et al. — January 13, 2017 — Confirmed the settlement’s travel-planning and route-report requirements.
8. Bureau of Land Management — West Mojave Route Network Project — Current update reviewed July 28, 2026 — Confirmed the March 24, 2026, court-ordered OHV restrictions, the approximate 37% affected and 63% remaining open, and the planned revised analysis and route-network decision.
9. SXS Nation — BLM Trail Canyon OHV Plan Near Kanab: How to Comment by July 22 — July 21, 2026 — Used for the duplication audit and to identify a contextual internal link.
10. SXS Nation — 2,200 Miles of OHV Routes Closed: Why the Western Mojave Fight Matters to Every Rider — Publication date not visible in the fetched page — Used for the duplication audit and to identify a contextual internal link.
11. SXS Nation — ORBA Relaunches for 2026 as Off-Road Access Fight Intensifies for UTV and SXS Riders — Publication date not visible in the fetched page — Used for the duplication audit and to identify broader off-road-access background.