Mike McGarity, CORVA President
Recent headlines about opening national forest trails to motorized recreation have generated considerable interest among California’s off-road community. A federal policy change is being considered, but the announcement does not open currently closed trails to dirt bikes, ATVs, side-by-sides, or four-wheel-drive vehicles. The Forest Service’s proposal would favor appropriate public access while retaining legal restrictions and allowing closures supported by documented conditions. Existing motor-vehicle designations and maps would remain effective until revised.
The August 24 federal notice began environmental review and rulemaking. It contemplates reconsideration of closed or highly restricted routes, simpler procedures, and conditional access for activities such as dispersed camping and firewood collection. The initial comment period ended September 23, 2026. USDA anticipates releasing a proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement in spring 2027, followed by a final rule in early 2028. That schedule is subject to change. These dates are rulemaking milestones, not promised trail-opening dates.
For California riders, the practical opportunity is to identify specific access needs in forests such as Sierra, Sequoia, Stanislaus, Eldorado, Tahoe, Mendocino, and San Bernardino. A missing connection between legal routes, access to a dispersed campsite, or a trail awaiting repair may deserve attention. CORVA encourages members and clubs to document these needs with route numbers, maps, photographs, and information about how access would benefit the public. Clear proposals supported by local knowledge can help focus discussions with forest managers.
Until an authorized change takes effect, members must continue following applicable Motor Vehicle Use Maps, vehicle restrictions, seasonal limitations, and current forest orders. Sierra National Forest specifically directs visitors to consult its MVUM and cautions that opening and closing dates can change because of weather and safety conditions. A visible road, an old track, or a route shown in a recreation app should never be assumed to authorize motorized travel.
CORVA is asking members to contact their local national forest or ranger district and ask whether any new or restored OHV opportunities are expected to open soon. Ask to speak with the recreation, OHV, or trails staff. Find out whether the forest has approved new motorized routes, plans to reopen routes following repairs, is considering additional trail connections, or has upcoming projects that could improve OHV access. Ask what opportunities may become available during the coming months or the next riding season and whether public comments or volunteer assistance would help.
When discussing a potential opening, request the route name and number, location, permitted vehicle types, anticipated opening date, and any remaining approvals or work. Ask whether the opportunity is merely being considered, formally approved, or actually open for public use. A seasonal reopening should also be distinguished from a newly authorized motorized route. Request a written response, official project link, decision document, or updated map whenever possible.
Please report what you learn to CORVA. Forward the forest’s response and supporting materials to CORVA leadership or your field representative, including the ranger district, staff contact, and date of the conversation. This information will help CORVA verify potential opportunities, identify where advocacy or volunteer support could help, and share accurate updates with members. If an opening date remains uncertain, please make that clear. Send to: admin@corva.org.
Responsible recreation and expanded access belong together. CORVA encourages clubs to bring practical solutions to these conversations, including trail maintenance, drainage improvements, signage, restoration, and stewardship partnerships. By working with local forest staff and sharing verified information, members can help turn access needs into concrete proposals while protecting the places we enjoy.
CORVA remains committed to “Protecting Public Land FOR the people, not FROM the people.” Contact your local national forest, ask what OHV opportunities may be coming, and help keep CORVA informed.
September 2026 - CORVA and EcoLogic Partners are working together to protect legal access to Historic Randsburg while the Bureau of Land Management completes the court-ordered West Mojave planning process.
For decades, the Western Mojave Desert has been one of California’s most important areas for off-highway vehicle recreation. Its extensive network of designated roads and trails connects riding areas, historic mining sites, camping destinations and desert communities such as Randsburg and Johannesburg. Today, a substantial portion of that designated motorized network is closed to OHV recreation as the result of a federal court order.
For CORVA, however, this issue cannot be understood simply by counting the number of miles that have been closed. Our immediate concern is connectivity, particularly the loss of practical, legal OHV ingress and egress between the surrounding desert route network and Historic Randsburg. A relatively short route can serve as an essential transportation artery, and when that connection is removed, the impact can extend far beyond the mileage of the route itself. That is why CORVA has joined forces with EcoLogic Partners—SEMA, ORBA, the American Sand Association (ASA) and AMA District 37—to work toward a solution for Randsburg.
It is important for CORVA members to understand exactly what we are—and are not—trying to accomplish. We are not attempting to circumvent the federal court order or simply reopen the approximately 2,200 miles of WEMO routes affected by it before BLM completes the work required by the court. Instead, while the larger WEMO process continues, CORVA and EcoLogic Partners are working to determine whether a lawful solution can preserve meaningful OHV ingress and egress to Historic Randsburg.
We are intentionally not publishing the specific legal and administrative strategies currently being evaluated. Those discussions need to remain among the participating organizations, legal counsel and affected businesses while the available options are developed.
“WEMO” refers to the West Mojave Plan and the subsequent route-network planning undertaken by the Bureau of Land Management across a vast portion of California's Western Mojave Desert. The dispute that produced today's closures did not begin in 2026. It is the result of decades of federal land-use planning, environmental review, route designation and litigation.
BLM is responsible for determining where motorized vehicles may travel on the public lands it administers. In the Western Mojave, that responsibility is particularly complicated because the agency must address public access and recreation alongside wildlife habitat, cultural resources, vegetation, soils, wilderness characteristics and other federal land-management obligations. The Western Mojave historically contained an enormous network of roads and trails. Recreation organizations involved in the WEMO dispute have described that historical footprint as approximately 16,000 miles. Through years of planning, BLM progressively reduced and formalized that system into a designated motorized route network.
In 2019, BLM issued its Record of Decision for the West Mojave Route Network Project, establishing approximately 6,247 miles of routes available for motorized use. The decision represented BLM's effort to create a designated transportation network while satisfying its environmental and land-management responsibilities. The 2019 decision did not end the controversy. Environmental organizations challenged BLM's route-network decision in federal court, arguing that the agency had not adequately complied with federal requirements governing motorized route designation and protection of sensitive resources. That litigation eventually produced the January 2026 order that dramatically changed motorized access throughout portions of the Western Mojave.
On January 23, 2026, Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting a partial vacatur of BLM's 2019 Record of Decision. Of particular importance to the OHV community, the court required BLM to close routes affected by the order where they intersect designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise and Lane Mountain milk-vetch.
The consequences were substantial. Approximately 2,200 miles of routes that had been available under the 2019 network were affected, according to figures published by motorized-recreation organizations following the litigation. The approximately 6,247-mile designated network was consequently reduced to roughly 4,047 miles available for OHV recreation. That represents an immediate reduction of approximately 37 percent of the motorized route network available under the 2019 decision. When compared with the approximately 16,000-mile historical route footprint cited by recreation advocates, the remaining network represents a cumulative reduction of roughly 73 percent.
Those numbers demonstrate the scale of the issue, but they do not necessarily demonstrate its full effect. A transportation network is about more than mileage. It is about connectivity. Imagine two large trail systems connected by a single five-mile route. Closing that five-mile connector may represent only a small percentage of the total mileage, yet it can effectively separate the two larger systems. That is precisely why CORVA believes the practical function of the routes surrounding Randsburg deserves careful attention.
The January court order did more than require route closures. The court remanded the matter to BLM and established a deadline of October 14, 2029, for the agency to complete its revised environmental analysis and issue a new route-network decision that complies with the court's requirements.
That deadline is significant because it means the current restrictions could affect recreation and neighboring communities for years while BLM completes the required process. CORVA recognizes that BLM must perform the work required by the court. Our Save Randsburg effort is therefore not based upon pretending that the court order does not exist or asking BLM simply to disregard it. Instead, we are asking a more focused question:
While BLM completes the court-ordered WEMO process, can a lawful solution be found that maintains meaningful OHV ingress and egress to Historic Randsburg?
That is where our current effort is concentrated.
The terminology BLM uses to implement the court order is important. According to BLM's WEMO information, the agency implemented its compliance measures effective March 24, 2026, describing affected routes as “Closed to OHV Recreation.” BLM also specifically explains that OHV recreation includes street-legal vehicles used for recreation. That means a license plate on a Jeep, Bronco, pickup or other four-wheel-drive vehicle does not by itself allow recreational use of a route that is closed to OHV recreation.
At the same time, BLM recognizes that some routes may continue to serve purposes other than recreational OHV travel. Its published information identifies designated county roads and highways and routes needed to provide access for established easements, administrative access, emergency access and other permitted uses as remaining available as applicable, even though those routes are not open to general public OHV recreational use.
That distinction between recreational closure and other authorized access is one of the reasons understanding the transportation network around Randsburg is so important.
The WEMO closure map illustrates the relationship between Randsburg, Johannesburg and the surrounding route network. This map is provided for informational purposes and should not be relied upon as the sole source for navigation. Current BLM maps, closure notices and on-the-ground signage control.
When the WEMO closure area is viewed on a map, the Randsburg problem becomes much easier to understand. The question is not simply how many trails remain open. The more meaningful question is where those remaining routes go and whether they still connect recreationists with the destinations they historically accessed.
Randsburg is particularly important because it is not simply another recreational destination on a BLM map. It is a living historic community whose modern economy is closely connected to desert recreation and tourism.
Randsburg has survived in the California desert for more than 130 years. Its mining history helped create the community, but recreation and tourism have become important parts of its modern economy. For generations, dirt-bike riders, dual-sport motorcyclists, ATV and UTV users, four-wheel-drive enthusiasts and other desert visitors have traveled through the surrounding public lands and made Randsburg part of their trip. Those visitors eat at local restaurants, purchase food and drinks, visit the General Store, shop at other businesses, attend events and experience the town's mining history. That means the designated route network surrounding Randsburg is more than recreational infrastructure. It is also economic infrastructure.
When an important connecting route is removed from a transportation network, the consequences can extend beyond the boundary of federal land. Fewer visitors reaching town can mean fewer customers, reduced revenue and increased pressure on businesses operating in an already small desert economy. This is why CORVA believes the economic consequences to Randsburg deserve serious consideration while the broader WEMO process continues.
The Rand Mountains Management Area map shows Randsburg, Johannesburg and the surrounding transportation network. Route status can change. Always consult current BLM information before traveling.
The relationship becomes particularly clear when looking at the Rand Mountains Management Area. Randsburg and Johannesburg sit alongside an interconnected system of desert routes. Historically, recreationists could use portions of that system while incorporating Randsburg into a day of desert recreation. When important connecting routes are removed, portions of the remaining network may still technically be open while becoming much less useful as a transportation system.
That distinction is central to CORVA's position. We are not looking only at how many miles BLM says remain open. We are looking at whether the remaining system actually functions as a connected network and whether recreationists can legally reach communities such as Randsburg. A route can be a recreational trail, a transportation connection, access to a historic destination and an economic connection to a neighboring community all at the same time.
The January district-court order did not end the WEMO litigation. In April 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal on behalf of BLM and the federal defendants, moving the dispute into the appellate process before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
CORVA continues to monitor the appellate proceedings. However, the federal government's appeal and the larger WEMO litigation do not answer the immediate question facing Randsburg: What happens to this community while the litigation and BLM's planning process continue? That concern is driving the work now underway.
CORVA is working alongside EcoLogic Partners, bringing together organizations with significant experience in recreation, land use, the automotive and powersports industries and public-land advocacy.
The organizations working together on the Save Randsburg effort include CORVA, the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA), the Off-Road Business Association (ORBA), the American Sand Association (ASA) and AMA District 37.
Attorney David Hubbard of Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP is working with the coalition as the organizations examine the legal and procedural issues surrounding WEMO, the Rand Mountains and access to Randsburg. Just as importantly, we are working with the people who experience the consequences firsthand—the Randsburg business community. Their experiences help demonstrate what happens when changes to a federal transportation network affect the recreation traffic upon which a small desert community depends.
This is not simply an argument over lines on a map. It involves businesses, employees, customers, tourism and the future viability of a historic California community.
There has been understandable confusion within the recreation community about what can realistically be accomplished while the WEMO litigation continues. CORVA and EcoLogic Partners are not simply trying to reopen all approximately 2,200 miles affected by the January court order. BLM has been ordered to perform additional environmental analysis and issue a new legally compliant route-network decision, with the court establishing an October 14, 2029 deadline.
Our immediate objective is much more focused: Find a lawful solution that preserves meaningful OHV ingress and egress to Historic Randsburg while the larger WEMO process continues.
We believe it is appropriate to examine whether sensitive resources can be protected, the federal court's requirements respected, BLM's planning work completed and a historic desert community still remain meaningfully connected to the recreation network that supports it. Those objectives should not automatically be treated as mutually exclusive.
CORVA members should also understand why we are not providing every detail of what is happening behind the scenes.
CORVA, EcoLogic Partners, legal counsel and affected businesses are evaluating multiple legal, administrative and land-management issues. We are intentionally not publishing the specific strategies under consideration. That is not because nothing is happening. It is because effective advocacy sometimes requires organizations to conduct legal research, communicate with agencies, evaluate alternatives and negotiate potential solutions before publicly discussing the details.
Work is actively underway. Information is being gathered. Maps and individual routes are being examined. The economic effects on Randsburg are being documented. Legal questions are being evaluated. Discussions are taking place among the organizations and people involved.
When developments reach a point where they can responsibly be made public without compromising those efforts, CORVA will communicate them directly to our members.
One of the most important lessons from WEMO is that public-land transportation decisions cannot always be measured simply by miles. A line on a BLM map can represent a recreational trail. It can also represent access to a historic destination, a connection between two recreation areas, a route to private property or the path that brings customers into a small desert town.
That is why CORVA believes connectivity must remain part of the WEMO discussion.
It is not enough to say that a certain percentage of the route system remains open. We must also ask where those routes lead, what they connect and whether recreationists can still legally reach the destinations that historically made the network useful. For us, one of those questions is especially important:
Can OHV recreationists legally reach Historic Randsburg from the surrounding designated recreation network?
We believe that question deserves an answer—and a workable solution.
One of the most effective things CORVA members can do right now is support Randsburg itself. Visit the community using currently lawful access. Eat at its restaurants. Shop at its stores. Attend its events. Bring friends and family. Help demonstrate that Randsburg remains an important destination for California's recreation community. Members can also help by sharing CORVA's official Save Randsburg updates. Social media gives us an enormous ability to tell this story beyond the people who already understand WEMO. When CORVA publishes an announcement, share it with your club, riding group, four-wheel-drive organization, business contacts and fellow recreationists.
Personal stories matter as well. If your family has been visiting Randsburg for years, explain why. If you remember riding into town for lunch, buying supplies or making Randsburg part of a weekend in the desert, tell that story. Those experiences help demonstrate that these routes connect public lands to real communities and real people. At the same time, we ask everyone to respect the current closures. Do not assume that a route appearing on a recreational mapping application is legally open. Do not assume that having a street-legal vehicle makes recreational travel on a closed WEMO route permissible. Consult current BLM information, maps, closure notices and posted signs. Responsible recreation strengthens our credibility when we ask agencies and courts to take the OHV community's concerns seriously.
WEMO is the product of decades of land-use planning, environmental review and litigation. There is no credible one-sentence solution to the larger dispute, and CORVA will not pretend otherwise. But Randsburg should not disappear inside that complexity.
The community is real. The businesses are real. The economic consequences are real. And the need for meaningful transportation connectivity deserves serious consideration. CORVA, EcoLogic Partners—SEMA, ORBA, ASA and AMA District 37—legal counsel and members of the Randsburg business community are working together to find a lawful path forward.
We are not going to disclose our legal or negotiating strategies prematurely. We are not going to promise an outcome that nobody can guarantee. And we are not going to encourage anyone to violate a federal closure. But we are not going to stop looking for a solution.
Historic Randsburg has survived for more than a century. CORVA believes responsible motorized recreation, protection of desert resources and the survival of historic gateway communities can all have a place in the future of the Western Mojave.
To be continued…. More updates soon.
September 21, 2026
President Donald Trump signed the “Reinvigorating America’s Hunting Heritage” executive order on September 17, directing federal agencies to expand recreational access, review restrictions, and support hunting participation. Announced during a White House Rose Garden celebration, the initiative drew support from hunting organizations and objections from animal-protection advocates. NSSF announcement
The order establishes a “presumption of accessibility” for federally managed lands. Within 180 days, agencies must propose changes addressing hunting, fishing, shooting, access infrastructure, and other recreational opportunities, consistent with applicable law. The broader review generally excludes national parks and national monuments, with specific exceptions for two named monuments. Executive order
For California, the most direct provision concerns Castle Mountains National Monument. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum is directed to allow hunting there within 90 days, alongside Idaho’s Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve. The directive excludes species protected under the referenced Endangered Species Act provisions. It establishes an implementation deadline; visitors should not interpret the announcement as immediate authorization to hunt. Executive order
The order also directs agencies to propose policies permitting traditional lead ammunition and fishing tackle, and instructs Interior to encourage expanded Sunday hunting opportunities within one year. It does not itself reopen closed OHV routes or authorize unrestricted motorized travel. Its access provisions require subsequent agency implementation. Executive order
California hunters should pay particular attention to ammunition requirements. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife states that certified nonlead ammunition is required when taking wildlife with a firearm anywhere in California, including public and private lands. Hunters should continue following that requirement rather than assuming the federal announcement changes state hunting rules. California nonlead ammunition requirements
Beyond regulatory changes, the administration’s initiative addresses practical barriers to outdoor participation. The White House identifies voluntary access easements, land exchanges, and cooperative agreements as tools for reaching landlocked federal parcels while respecting private property. It also calls for assistive technology at hunting locations and access trails, youth and veteran participation, and support for wild-game donations to schools and food banks. These provisions connect recreational access with education, accessibility, wildlife management, and community food programs. White House fact sheet
The order follows a separate expansion of hunting and fishing opportunities within the National Wildlife Refuge System. The frequently cited 92-million-acre figure describes the total refuge acreage available for hunting following that initiative—not 92 million acres newly opened. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s May proposal identified more than 1,450 new or expanded opportunities across 111 stations in 32 states. An “opportunity” means permission to hunt or fish a particular species at a particular location, so expanded opportunities can occur on land already open for other hunting activities. Fish and Wildlife Service announcement
Claims about changes at individual California refuges require separate verification against each location’s current regulations. The September executive order does not list Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, Sutter, or Kern refuges as specific openings. Readers should not assume that the national announcement establishes new seasons, species permissions, or access conditions at those locations. Executive order
Trump also signed “Restoring American Saltwater Angling and Recreation.” That order directs improvements in recreational fishing data, reviews of fisheries management guidelines, and greater consideration of recreational fishing in federal decisions. Its published text does not contain a provision rescinding a 10-mile-per-hour boating speed limit, so that claim should not be attributed to this order. Saltwater recreation executive order
Reaction reflects differing views about access and wildlife management. NSSF welcomed the hunting initiative, emphasizing participation, ammunition affordability, and conservation funding generated through firearm and ammunition excise taxes. Humane World for Animals criticized the potential for increased lead exposure and expanded predator killing, including possible effects on wolves, bears, and mountain lions. These are the organizations’ stated positions; the effects will depend on implementation. NSSF response, Humane World response
For CORVA members following federal access policy, the next developments to watch are agency proposals, monument hunting announcements, and location-specific access decisions. Those actions will determine how the executive order translates into opportunities on the ground. . Executive order
A CORVA Legislative Update — September 2026
California’s SB 1392, commonly called “Jay Leno’s Law” or “Leno’s Law,” has received considerable attention from California’s classic-car community. For CORVA members, however, there is another important question: What does this legislation mean for owners of vintage, street-registered four-wheel-drive vehicles?
That includes classic Jeeps, Ford Broncos, Chevrolet Blazers and GMC Jimmys, International Scouts, Toyota Land Cruisers, vintage pickups and other older 4x4s that remain an important part of California’s off-road community. These vehicles aren't necessarily museum pieces or show cars. Many are still driven to club events, trail cleanups, camping trips, public lands and recreational four-wheel-drive trails.
CORVA has been looking closely at SB 1392 and has sought clarification about several provisions that could determine whether Leno’s Law actually works for vintage 4x4 owners. The legislation could eventually provide meaningful Smog Check relief for some of these vehicles, but members need to understand that this is not a blanket Smog Check exemption for every 1976–1985 vehicle. How a vehicle is insured, how much it is driven and the regulations ultimately adopted by the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) and Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) will all matter.
California currently provides a broad Smog Check exemption for vehicles manufactured before the 1976 model year. Leno’s Law does not simply move that cutoff forward ten years and automatically exempt everything manufactured before 1986.
Instead, SB 1392 creates an exemption for qualifying collector motor vehicles and phases additional model years into eligibility over several years.
Beginning January 1, 2028, qualifying collector vehicles manufactured before the 1981 model year could become eligible for the exemption. The eligible model years would then expand annually until January 1, 2033, when qualifying collector vehicles manufactured before the 1986 model year would be included. In practical terms, the legislation ultimately reaches qualifying vehicles from the 1976 through 1985 model years.
The critical word is “qualifying.” Simply owning a 1978 Jeep, 1982 Bronco or 1985 Toyota pickup will not, by itself, make that vehicle Smog Check exempt.
For vintage 4x4 owners, one of CORVA’s biggest concerns has been insurance.
During the initial implementation period in 2028 and 2029, collector-vehicle insurance will be an important part of qualifying for the exemption. BAR is expected to develop a process through which an owner can demonstrate that the vehicle is insured as a collector vehicle. Collector coverage may be available from specialty collector insurers as well as traditional insurance companies that offer collector-vehicle policies.
For someone who owns a classic automobile primarily driven to car shows, this may be relatively straightforward. For an owner who actually takes a vintage Jeep, Bronco or Scout four-wheeling, it deserves much closer attention.
Some collector insurance policies place limitations on how an insured vehicle can be used. Depending upon the insurer and policy, restrictions may apply to mileage, everyday transportation, competition or off-road recreational use. SB 1392 itself does not specifically prohibit a qualifying 4x4 from being driven off highway, but the legislation cannot override restrictions contained in an owner's private insurance policy.
This means an owner considering the collector-insurance pathway should talk directly with the insurance company and determine whether the policy actually covers the intended use of the vehicle. If your classic Jeep is going to spend weekends on Forest Service roads, BLM routes or four-wheel-drive trails, don't assume that a policy designed for a collector automobile traveling between a garage and a car show provides the same coverage.
The insurance company ultimately determines what its policy covers.
For many CORVA members, 2030 may ultimately be the more significant date.
SB 1392 provides for development of another pathway involving vehicles driven fewer than 1,000 miles annually. This DMV-administered process is intended to provide qualifying owners with another route to the exemption without necessarily requiring collector-vehicle insurance.
That distinction could be extremely important to the off-road community.
Consider an older Jeep that travels only 600 or 700 miles during an entire year but is still driven recreationally on four-wheel-drive trails. Its owner may prefer to maintain traditional automobile insurance because that policy better accommodates how the vehicle is actually used.
Beginning in 2030, the low-mileage pathway could potentially allow that owner to maintain traditional insurance and still qualify for the Leno’s Law exemption, assuming the vehicle satisfies all of the other requirements established by DMV and BAR.
This alternative was important because not every collector-vehicle owner can or wants to obtain specialized collector insurance. For active vintage 4x4 owners, that flexibility could make the difference between an exemption that looks good on paper and one they can actually use.
Nothing identified in SB 1392 specifically says that a qualifying vehicle becomes ineligible simply because it is a four-wheel drive or is operated off highway. That is encouraging for CORVA members.
However, that does not mean every question concerning trail use has already been resolved.
During the collector-insurance pathway, the first consideration will be whether the insurance policy permits that type of recreational use. Later, the DMV regulations governing the 1,000-mile pathway will become equally important.
CORVA therefore does not want members to interpret the legislation as guaranteeing that every type of trail use will be treated the same. The regulatory process still needs to address important implementation details.
Activities such as club runs, club gatherings, trail cleanups, stewardship projects and other organized four-wheel-drive activities are particularly important to CORVA members. We want to make sure California recognizes that preserving a historic four-wheel-drive vehicle can include responsibly using and enjoying that vehicle.
Another important clarification concerns license plates.
SB 1392 does not contain the Historical Vehicle license-plate requirement that appeared in an earlier legislative proposal. Members should therefore not assume that participating in Leno’s Law requires converting a normally registered vintage 4x4 to California Historical Vehicle plates.
The expectation is that qualifying vehicles will be able to retain normal registration, subject to whatever final implementation requirements are established.
This is an important distinction because information about earlier versions of collector-vehicle legislation continues to circulate online. CORVA members should make sure they are looking at the requirements associated with SB 1392, rather than requirements contained in an older proposal.
The 1,000-mile pathway presents another question of particular importance to four-wheelers: What mileage counts?
DMV will still need to establish how annual mileage is documented and verified. CORVA specifically asked about mileage accumulated off highway, such as miles traveled on Forest Service roads, BLM routes, designated OHV routes and private four-wheel-drive trails.
At this point, there has been no indication that DMV intends to distinguish between highway and off-highway mileage, but those implementation details have not been finalized.
For that reason, CORVA believes owners should conservatively assume that all mileage could count toward the annual limit unless the eventual regulations state otherwise.
The regulatory process will also need to address what happens if a participating vehicle exceeds the mileage limitation. Whether the vehicle simply returns to the conventional Smog Check program, how mileage will be verified and whether other consequences apply remain implementation questions that CORVA intends to follow closely.
This could become one of the most important issues for the off-road community.
Anyone familiar with vintage four-wheel drives knows that many have been modified during their 40- or 50-year lives. An older Jeep might have a replacement engine, suspension lift, axle swaps, different gearing, larger tires, transmission or transfer-case changes, an aftermarket fuel system and numerous other modifications.
Many of those modifications have absolutely nothing to do with emissions. Others clearly do.
Exactly how BAR and DMV will treat engine swaps and emissions-related modifications under the new exemption has not yet been fully determined. The legislation should therefore not be interpreted as automatically legalizing an emissions modification that would otherwise violate California law.
BAR and DMV will have authority over important implementation details, and their regulations will go through a public process. This is where continued participation from CORVA, SEMA, PRI, ORBA and the larger automotive enthusiast community will be particularly important.
For CORVA, passage of the legislation does not mean the work is finished. The regulations could ultimately determine how useful the law is to an actively used vintage 4x4.
There is another important point that has sometimes been lost in discussions about Leno’s Law: participation is optional.
SB 1392 does not automatically turn every 1976–1985 vehicle into a collector vehicle. If you own a vintage 4x4 that currently complies with California's Smog Check requirements and you prefer to maintain conventional registration and insurance, you can continue doing so.
Likewise, vehicles manufactured before 1976 are not being brought into this new program. Their existing Smog Check exemption remains unaffected.
Leno’s Law therefore creates another option for qualifying owners rather than taking away the existing registration and Smog Check pathway.
The definition of a collector vehicle is especially important to the off-road community.
Under the information provided to CORVA regarding SB 1392, the applicable definition would encompass a motor vehicle that:
“is used primarily in shows, parades, charitable functions, and historical exhibitions for display, maintenance, and preservation, and is not used as the owner’s primary mode of transportation.”
For vintage 4x4 owners, the language concerning the owner's primary mode of transportation deserves attention.
A Jeep can be a recreational vehicle without being someone's daily commuter. Likewise, an International Scout or classic Bronco can be preserved as an historically significant vehicle while still being driven and enjoyed.
SEMA advocated for an alternative pathway for enthusiasts who do not qualify for collector insurance so they could continue using their classic vehicles for community activities. For the four-wheel-drive community, that makes activities such as club events, trail cleanup days and other stewardship activities particularly relevant as DMV develops the final regulations.
CORVA believes there is a broader issue involved here.
When we talk about protecting America's automotive heritage, the discussion shouldn't end with muscle cars, hot rods and sports cars.
The Jeep CJ, Ford Bronco, Chevrolet Blazer, GMC Jimmy, International Scout, Toyota Land Cruiser and classic American 4x4 pickup are also historically significant vehicles.
They helped create the recreational four-wheeling community that exists today. Many have survived for nearly half a century precisely because enthusiasts continue to maintain, restore and use them.
A collector vehicle doesn't stop being historically significant because there is some dirt under the fenders.
Nothing changes immediately for your vehicle. The earliest new exemption provisions are scheduled to begin in 2028, and important BAR and DMV implementation work still needs to occur.
For qualifying owners, 2028 and 2029 represent the initial collector-insurance pathway. Beginning in 2030, the low-mileage DMV pathway is intended to provide an additional option for qualifying vehicles driven fewer than 1,000 miles annually, including vehicles that may carry traditional automobile insurance. The model-year phase-in continues until 2033, when qualifying vehicles manufactured before 1986 would be included.
Throughout that process, participation remains optional.
For owners who primarily show and preserve their vehicles and already maintain collector insurance, the earlier pathway may make sense. For CORVA members who actively use their vintage 4x4s for recreational four-wheeling, the 2030 low-mileage pathway may ultimately prove to be the more useful option.
The practical impact of Leno’s Law on our community will depend not only on the legislation itself but also on the regulations that follow.
CORVA intends to monitor how BAR and DMV address insurance verification, mileage reporting, recreational use, vehicle modifications and enforcement. We will work with our partners in the automotive and off-road communities where appropriate and keep our membership informed as those details develop.
Our objective is straightforward: a vintage 4x4 owner should not have to choose between preserving a historically significant vehicle and responsibly enjoying it for the purpose for which it was built.
Leno’s Law could ultimately provide meaningful Smog Check relief to qualifying California vintage 4x4 owners. It does not automatically exempt every 1976–1985 vehicle, it does not require Historical Vehicle license plates, it does not force owners to participate, and nothing identified in the bill specifically prohibits recreational off-road use. At the same time, collector-insurance restrictions and the forthcoming BAR and DMV regulations remain important considerations.
Whether your classic is a muscle car sitting at a show or a vintage Jeep sitting at the top of a trail, it is part of California's automotive history—and it is worth preserving.
California Off-Road Vehicle Association (CORVA) Protecting Public Lands FOR the People, Not FROM the People
California’s changing OHV sticker system and what it means for dirt-bike and ATV owners.
This article will explain the differences between Green, legacy Red, and the newer Tan Stickers, including the major changes affecting competition motorcycles and ATVs. Owners of model-year 2003–2021 Red Sticker vehicles may now generally ride year-round in areas open to their vehicle type. However, model-year 2022 and newer motorcycles and ATVs that do not meet California emissions requirements are classified as competition vehicles and are generally restricted to closed-course competition use on public lands.
We will also explain how to determine whether a motorcycle is legal for recreational trail riding, what buyers should check before purchasing a dirt bike, and why the color of the decal alone may not tell the whole story.
If you own—or are considering buying—an off-highway motorcycle or ATV in California, this is an article you will not want to miss.
California now effectively has three categories of OHV identification: Green, legacy Red, and the newer Tan sticker. The most important change concerns model-year 2022 and newer competition dirt bikes and ATVs.
A Green Sticker identifies an OHV that is legally eligible for recreational operation on public lands open to motorized use throughout the year.
Green Stickers generally go to:
A Green Sticker does not grant access everywhere. The vehicle must still be operated on a road, trail, open area, or facility where that class of OHV is authorized. Sound limits, spark-arrester requirements, seasonal closures, fire restrictions, and local land-management rules still apply. California DMV OHV registration guidance
The Red Sticker Program historically applied to dirt bikes and ATVs that did not meet CARB recreational-OHV emissions standards. These vehicles were allowed to operate only during locally established riding seasons, generally outside the months with the highest ozone levels.
The important dates are:
Consequently, a properly registered 2003–2021 Red Sticker motorcycle or ATV may now generally be operated year-round anywhere Green Sticker OHVs of that vehicle type are permitted. The sticker may still physically be red, but its former seasonal restriction no longer applies. California State Parks says these vehicles “will no longer be restricted to a riding season.” California State Parks OHMVR FAQ
This did not convert every Red Sticker registration physically into a Green Sticker. It changed the operating privileges of the existing fleet.
The change beginning with model year 2022 created a sharp distinction between a recreational trail motorcycle and a competition motorcycle.
A competition dirt bike that failed to meet CARB’s recreational emissions standards could usually receive a Red Sticker. Although riding was seasonally restricted, the motorcycle could still be used for ordinary recreational trail riding during the area’s authorized Red Sticker season.
Examples included many motocross, cross-country, enduro, and two-stroke motorcycles.
A competition motorcycle that is not CARB-certified no longer qualifies for recreational Green Sticker privileges. DMV now identifies these vehicles with a Tan Sticker, and the title or registration may be branded:
CARB states that a noncompliant vehicle or one carrying a Tan Sticker is considered a competition vehicle restricted to closed-course competition use on public lands. CARB Red Sticker Program guidance
This means a 2022-or-newer competition dirt bike generally cannot legally be used for:
It may generally be used:
The Tan Sticker allows California to title, identify, and track the vehicle. It does not give the vehicle the same recreational public-land privileges as a Green or qualifying legacy Red Sticker. California DMV noncomplying-OHV procedures
Some owners of model-year 2022 and newer competition motorcycles were issued Red Stickers while DMV and other agencies worked through implementation of the new system. A Red-colored decal issued administratively does not necessarily transform a 2022-or-newer noncompliant competition motorcycle into a recreational OHV.
The controlling questions are:
In other words, owners should not assume, “DMV mailed me a red decal, so I can trail ride it.” For 2022-and-newer motorcycles, the underlying CARB certification and DMV record are more important than the apparent decal color.
A buyer should examine more than the eighth character of the VIN.
Historically, a 3 or C in the eighth position of the VIN commonly identified a noncompliant OHV. DMV continues to reference this indicator, but the emissions label, CARB certification, and DMV classification should be checked together.
2020 two-stroke competition motorcycle with a valid Red Sticker: It is part of the legacy 2003–2021 fleet and may generally be ridden year-round beginning in 2025 on public lands open to that type of OHV.
2024 two-stroke motocross motorcycle with a Tan Sticker: It is not a general recreational trail motorcycle. On public land, it is limited to qualifying closed-course competition use.
2024 CARB-certified four-stroke trail motorcycle with a Green Sticker: It may be operated year-round on designated public OHV routes and areas.
2001 competition motorcycle: DMV treats model-year 2002 and older OHVs as Green Sticker eligible.
The 2025 change was good news for owners of older Red Sticker motorcycles: model-year 2003–2021 vehicles gained year-round recreational riding privileges.
However, it did not restore trail access for model-year 2022 and newer noncompliant competition motorcycles. Those machines fall under the Tan Sticker/noncompliant system and remain limited to closed-course competition when operated on public lands.
This distinction should be made clear:
Legacy Red Sticker motorcycles gained year-round access, but 2022-and-newer competition motorcycles did not become Green Sticker trail bikes.
CORVA is closely monitoring the proposed removal of Scott Dam and the future of Lake Pillsbury because of the potential impacts to motorized recreation, camping, staging areas, and route connectivity in the Mendocino National Forest.
CORVA’s position is that regardless of the final decision on Scott Dam, public access must be protected. If the reservoir and existing recreation infrastructure are removed, FERC, PG&E, and the U.S. Forest Service must provide a clear mitigation plan that preserves or replaces important roads, crossings, campgrounds, staging areas, and connections to surrounding public lands.
We are also concerned that losing recreation opportunities around Lake Pillsbury could push additional OHV use into other areas such as Middle Creek and Stonyford, increasing crowding and pressure on those trail systems.
CORVA will continue advocating for a comprehensive Recreation and Motorized Access Mitigation Plan so that the loss of the dam does not also become an unnecessary loss of access to the public lands surrounding Lake Pillsbury.
Deadline for public comments: September 18, 2026. More information below!!
CORVA Comment Ltr:
September 10, 2026
Re: Potter Valley Hydroelectric Project Decommissioning — Docket No. P-77-332Scott Dam Removal and Lake Pillsbury Recreation Access
To the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:
On behalf of the California Off-Road Vehicle Association (CORVA), I am submitting these comments regarding Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s proposed surrender and decommissioning of the Potter Valley Hydroelectric Project, including the proposed removal of Scott Dam and the resulting elimination of Lake Pillsbury.
CORVA represents motorized recreationists throughout California and advocates for responsible off-highway vehicle recreation, public-land access, stewardship, and the long-term protection of connected motorized recreation opportunities. Our concern with the proposed decommissioning is not limited to the physical removal of Scott Dam. We are particularly concerned about the broader consequences that dam removal, reservoir elimination, recreation-facility removal, and subsequent landscape changes could have on public access and motorized recreation throughout the Lake Pillsbury basin and surrounding Mendocino National Forest.
Lake Pillsbury is more than a reservoir. It functions as an important recreational hub within a much larger public-land network. Campgrounds, roads, shoreline access points, parking areas, day-use facilities, and nearby Forest Service routes collectively provide access for OHV recreation, four-wheel-drive touring, dual-sport riding, overlanding, dispersed camping, hunting, fishing, and other forms of outdoor recreation.
The removal of Scott Dam could fundamentally change how the public accesses and travels through this portion of the Mendocino National Forest. CORVA therefore requests that FERC fully analyze these impacts and require meaningful mitigation before approving any final decommissioning plan.
CORVA’s primary concern is the potential loss of regional motorized connectivity. Roads and routes surrounding Lake Pillsbury do not function independently. They are part of a broader transportation and recreation network that allows the public to travel between campgrounds, Forest Service roads, trail systems, dispersed recreation areas, and destinations throughout the forest.
Conversion of the reservoir basin back into a river corridor could alter crossings, road alignments, shoreline access, and connections that currently allow recreationists to complete loop routes through the area. Roads that are useful today because they connect to a larger network could become dead ends if crossings or connecting segments are eliminated.
That distinction is important. The value of a motorized recreation system is not measured simply by the number of miles of roads remaining open. Connectivity determines whether those miles continue to provide a functional recreation network.
CORVA requests that FERC require a comprehensive inventory of all existing motorized routes, crossings, access points, and recreation connections potentially affected by decommissioning. Where a route or crossing would be eliminated, the environmental review should identify how connectivity will be maintained or replaced.
CORVA is also concerned about the potential removal of existing recreation infrastructure associated with the Potter Valley Project. Campgrounds, day-use areas, parking areas, boat ramps, sanitation facilities, and other developed sites provide more than traditional lake recreation. Many of these locations also function as staging areas and base camps for people recreating throughout the surrounding National Forest.
OHV users frequently travel with trailers, tow vehicles, motorcycles, side-by-sides, four-wheel-drive vehicles, camping equipment, and recovery equipment. Adequate staging and camping infrastructure is therefore an essential component of motorized recreation. If existing recreation facilities are removed without replacement, the impact will extend far beyond former shoreline recreation. It could reduce public access to thousands of acres of surrounding public land.
CORVA requests that FERC require PG&E, in coordination with the U.S. Forest Service and other appropriate agencies, to determine which existing recreation facilities currently support access to surrounding public lands and to provide replacement or equivalent facilities where necessary.
Before Scott Dam is removed, CORVA believes there should be a formal Recreation and Motorized Access Mitigation Plan.
That plan should address, at minimum:
Existing Forest Service roads and designated motorized routes affected by decommissioning.
Vehicle crossings that may be eliminated or made unusable after reservoir drawdown.
Motorized route connectivity through and around the former Lake Pillsbury basin.
Existing campgrounds and staging areas that support OHV recreation.
Parking and trailer-staging capacity.
Dispersed camping access.
Day-use facilities and sanitation infrastructure.
Emergency and wildfire-response access.
Alternative road or trail connections where existing routes will be severed.
Funding for construction, relocation, or replacement of recreation infrastructure.
Long-term maintenance responsibilities for replacement facilities and routes.
These issues should be resolved before irreversible infrastructure removal occurs.It would be unacceptable to dismantle existing public recreation infrastructure first and attempt to address lost access afterward.
FERC should also evaluate the recreation displacement effects associated with eliminating or substantially reducing recreation opportunities around Lake Pillsbury. Recreationists displaced from the basin will not simply stop recreating. Many will shift their activities to other areas of the Mendocino National Forest, including established OHV destinations such as Middle Creek and Stonyford.
Those systems already support significant recreation activity. Concentrating additional OHV use into fewer areas can increase congestion, parking demand, sanitation needs, trail maintenance, enforcement requirements, and resource impacts. Over time, those pressures could themselves become justification for additional restrictions.
The environmental review should therefore evaluate the cumulative impact of shifting recreation from the Lake Pillsbury basin into remaining OHV systems rather than treating the loss of Lake Pillsbury recreation as an isolated site-specific effect.
Motorized access in this region also serves purposes beyond recreation. Roads and staging areas can provide access for firefighters, emergency responders, search-and-rescue personnel, land managers, utility crews, volunteers, and residents during wildfire and other emergencies.
Given California’s wildfire environment, FERC should carefully evaluate whether removal of existing roads, crossings, or recreation infrastructure would reduce emergency access or complicate wildfire response. Maintaining a connected transportation network across the basin should therefore be considered both a recreation issue and a public-safety issue.
FERC should also consider the economic consequences of lost recreation access.
Visitors to the Lake Pillsbury area purchase fuel, food, lodging, supplies, vehicle parts, camping equipment, and other goods and services from surrounding communities. OHV recreation, camping, hunting, fishing, boating, and overlanding collectively contribute to the regional recreation economy.
A reduction in public access can therefore have consequences well beyond the project boundary. CORVA requests that the environmental review evaluate these economic impacts and consider mitigation measures that preserve public recreation opportunities and visitor access.
CORVA recognizes that the Potter Valley Project involves complex considerations involving fisheries, water resources, tribal interests, sediment management, infrastructure, public safety, and environmental restoration.
Our comments are focused specifically on ensuring that public access and motorized recreation receive the same serious consideration as the other resources affected by this project.
Regardless of the ultimate decision regarding Scott Dam, the public should not unnecessarily lose access to surrounding National Forest lands because recreation infrastructure or transportation connections were removed without adequate planning.
The decommissioning process represents a rare opportunity to plan the future of this landscape before major physical changes occur. That opportunity should be used to create a long-term access strategy rather than leaving recreation connectivity to be addressed after the reservoir and its infrastructure are gone.
CORVA respectfully requests that FERC:
Require a comprehensive inventory of existing recreation facilities, motorized roads, OHV routes, access points, and transportation connections affected by the project.
Require analysis of how reservoir removal will affect motorized route connectivity throughout the Lake Pillsbury basin.
Require a formal Recreation and Motorized Access Mitigation Plan before decommissioning begins.
Require replacement or relocation of staging areas, campgrounds, parking areas, and other recreation infrastructure where removal would substantially reduce public access.
Require replacement crossings or alternative routes where decommissioning would sever existing motorized connections.
Evaluate recreation displacement into Middle Creek, Stonyford, and other areas of the Mendocino National Forest.
Evaluate cumulative impacts on OHV trail systems, maintenance needs, visitor capacity, dispersed camping, and surrounding communities.
Preserve access necessary for wildfire response, emergency services, Forest Service management, volunteer stewardship, and public recreation.
Establish enforceable mitigation commitments and funding responsibilities before existing recreation infrastructure is removed.
Include CORVA, Cal4Wheel, local OHV organizations, county representatives, recreation businesses, residents, and other affected recreation stakeholders in future planning discussions concerning access and mitigation.
The future of Scott Dam is a complex issue, but the future of public access should not be an afterthought.
For generations, the Lake Pillsbury basin has served as a gateway to recreation throughout the Mendocino National Forest. If the landscape is going to be fundamentally changed, the public deserves a clear plan explaining how access, connectivity, camping, staging, emergency routes, and recreation opportunities will be preserved.
CORVA’s position is straightforward: if Scott Dam is removed, the loss of the reservoir should not also mean the unnecessary loss of access to the surrounding public lands.
Motorized recreation connectivity must be identified, protected, and— where necessary— reconstructed before existing infrastructure disappears. CORVA appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and requests continued involvement as the decommissioning and environmental-review process moves forward.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike McGarityPresidentCalifornia Off-Road Vehicle Association (CORVA)Protecting public lands FOR the people, not FROM the people.
You can submit your public comment electronically through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) online portal.
Depending on how long your comment is, use one of the two official links below:
Quick Submission Tips
Subject: Public Comment on Potter Valley Hydroelectric Project Decommissioning — Docket No. P-77-332
I am submitting these comments regarding Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s proposed surrender and decommissioning of the Potter Valley Hydroelectric Project, including the proposed removal of Scott Dam and the resulting elimination of Lake Pillsbury.
As a public-land recreationist, I am concerned about the potential loss of motorized access, recreation infrastructure, camping opportunities, and route connectivity in and around the Lake Pillsbury basin and the Mendocino National Forest.
Lake Pillsbury is more than a reservoir. The surrounding area serves as an important recreation hub for off-highway vehicle users, four-wheel-drive enthusiasts, dual-sport riders, overlanders, campers, hunters, anglers, and other visitors. Existing campgrounds, parking areas, roads, day-use facilities, and access points help connect people to a much larger network of public lands.
If Scott Dam is removed, the physical transformation of the basin could eliminate or disrupt vehicle crossings, road connections, shoreline access, staging areas, and loop routes that currently support motorized recreation. Removing existing recreation infrastructure without first providing replacement access could leave routes disconnected, reduce camping and staging capacity, and push additional recreation into already heavily used areas such as Middle Creek and Stonyford.
I respectfully ask FERC to require a comprehensive Recreation and Motorized Access Mitigation Plan before any irreversible decommissioning work begins.
That plan should:
I also encourage FERC to work closely with the U.S. Forest Service, Lake County, recreation organizations, local residents, businesses, and affected user groups before final decisions are made.
The future of Scott Dam may involve many competing considerations, but public access should not be treated as an afterthought. If the dam is removed, the loss of Lake Pillsbury should not also result in the unnecessary loss of access to the surrounding public lands.
Please ensure that motorized recreation, camping, staging, transportation connectivity, and public-land access are fully addressed before the project is approved.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
[Your Name] [City, State] [Optional: OHV club, organization, business, or years recreating in the area]
For off-road recreationists, this could become one of the most consequential federal land-management actions in a generation. On August 24, 2026, the U.S. Forest Service published a Letter of Intent announcing plans to reconsider and substantially revise the 2005 Travel Management Rule, the regulation that has governed motorized vehicle access throughout the National Forest System for more than two decades.
For CORVA members, four-wheel-drive clubs, motorcycle riders, ATV and side-by-side users, dispersed campers, hunters, rural communities, and anyone who depends on motorized access to public lands, this deserves serious attention. And its significance extends far beyond California. National Forests across the country were required to implement the 2005 Travel Management Rule, making this a potentially nationwide change in how motorized recreation is managed.
The 2005 rule established the regulatory framework that required National Forests to designate the specific roads, trails, and areas where motorized vehicles could legally travel. Forests subsequently developed Motor Vehicle Use Maps, commonly called MVUMs, identifying routes legally available for motorized use. For millions of recreationists, that process fundamentally changed access to National Forest lands.
Now, for the first time in roughly 20 years, the Forest Service is considering major changes to the framework that produced those decisions.
Before implementation of Travel Management, many National Forests operated under systems where motorized recreation was generally permitted unless a route or area had specifically been restricted. The 2005 rule changed that approach by moving the Forest Service toward a designated-route system. Under that framework, motorized use generally became prohibited unless a road, trail, or area had specifically been designated for that type of vehicle use.
Each National Forest then went through its own travel-management planning process. Thousands of roads and trails were evaluated, mapped, designated, restricted, converted to administrative use, or left off Motor Vehicle Use Maps entirely. For the OHV community, the consequences were significant.
Historic trails disappeared from maps, long-used connector routes were lost, and access to dispersed camping areas became more difficult. In some locations, traditional recreation networks became fragmented because a single missing connector could separate otherwise usable trail systems. Routes that generations of families had used to reach campsites, scenic destinations, hunting areas, and other public-land destinations were no longer available for public motorized travel.
Because those decisions were made forest by forest, the impacts varied throughout California and across the United States. CORVA and other motorized recreation organizations participated extensively in these processes, fighting to preserve legitimate access while supporting responsible management of public lands.
Twenty years later, the Forest Service is reconsidering the underlying rule that created that system. That is why this rulemaking could be so important.
According to the Forest Service's August 24 Letter of Intent, the agency wants to modernize Travel Management regulations to allow faster local decision-making and increase recreational access, including access for motor vehicles, e-bikes, and other mobility devices.
One of the most significant concepts under discussion is movement toward a more flexible management philosophy that could differ substantially from the designated-route system recreationists have operated under for the past two decades. Such a change could provide local Forest Service officials with greater flexibility to reconsider routes, correct past travel-management problems, improve connectivity, recognize changing recreation demands, and respond more quickly to legitimate access needs.
CORVA members should understand, however, that these proposed changes do not automatically reopen closed roads or trails. Existing Motor Vehicle Use Maps remain in effect, and a route currently closed under an MVUM does not suddenly become legal because the Forest Service has announced its intent to revise the national rule.
What could change is the regulatory framework used by Forest Service officials when evaluating access in the future. For communities that lost significant access during previous Travel Management decisions, that opportunity should not be underestimated.
That will undoubtedly be one of the first questions many off-roaders ask. The answer is potentially yes, but not automatically.
Changing the national regulation would not erase two decades of individual Forest Travel Management decisions. Reopening a particular road or trail could still require site-specific analysis, environmental review, resource evaluation, public participation, and approval from the appropriate Forest Service official.
However, a revised rule could potentially provide something the OHV community has needed for years: a more workable pathway for reconsidering access.
Instead of treating additional motorized access as something that must overcome an inherently restrictive regulatory framework, future management could provide greater flexibility for forests to determine that responsible motorized recreation is an appropriate use of National Forest lands where conditions support it.
That distinction matters. CORVA has consistently argued that public-land management should focus on responsible management rather than unnecessary closure. Routes can be repaired, drainage can be improved, sensitive resources can be protected, and seasonal restrictions can be used where scientifically justified. Volunteer organizations can provide maintenance, while education and enforcement can address irresponsible behavior.
Closing access should not automatically be the first or only management tool available.
Another significant concept included in the Forest Service proposal involves limited exceptions that could allow motorized vehicles to travel outside designated routes for certain legitimate purposes. Activities under consideration include big-game retrieval, firewood collection, dispersed camping, snowmobile use, and other specifically authorized activities.
For many Western recreationists, these are not minor issues. Travel Management frequently created situations where someone could legally drive down a Forest Service road but could not travel a short distance beyond that designated route to establish a dispersed campsite, retrieve legally harvested game, or conduct another traditional activity.
The proposed rulemaking could give Forest managers greater flexibility to authorize these activities where local conditions allow. The details will be extremely important, and CORVA will be watching closely to ensure that any exceptions are practical, understandable, and capable of being implemented locally rather than buried beneath additional layers of bureaucracy.
The Forest Service is also considering changing how Class 1 electric bicycles are treated. Under existing Forest Service regulations, e-bikes have generally been classified as motor vehicles. Under the proposal, Class 1 e-bikes — pedal-assist bicycles with assistance generally limited to 20 mph — could instead be managed more similarly to traditional bicycles.
That does not mean every non-motorized trail would automatically become open to e-bikes. Local restrictions, trail designations, environmental considerations, and other management decisions could still apply. However, the regulatory change could substantially expand opportunities for Class 1 e-bike access in locations where conventional bicycles are already permitted.
For hunters, older recreationists, people with mobility limitations, and riders seeking access to remote areas without using a conventional motor vehicle, this could become another meaningful change in National Forest recreation policy.
Another important part of the proposal may receive less attention, but it could provide enormous practical benefits for recreationists. The Forest Service is proposing improvements to digital mapping and public GIS information consistent with requirements of the federal EXPLORE Act.
For years, OHV users have struggled with outdated maps, inconsistent GIS information, confusing Motor Vehicle Use Maps, and differences between what appears on a recreational navigation application and what the Forest Service considers legally designated. Standardized, regularly maintained GIS datasets could allow mapping platforms such as onX, CalTopo, and other applications to incorporate more reliable Forest Service information about roads, trails, access points, and legal designations.
For recreationists navigating a National Forest System containing approximately 380,000 miles of roads and 165,000 miles of trails, accurate digital access information is more than a convenience. It is an important compliance and public-safety tool.
California recreationists understand Travel Management very well. Clubs and organizations spent years attending agency meetings, reviewing maps, submitting comments, providing GPS tracks, identifying historic routes, documenting recreation destinations, and fighting to preserve connectivity throughout California's National Forests.
But this issue is national in scope. Forests throughout the West and across the United States implemented the 2005 Travel Management Rule. That means a change to the federal regulation could ultimately influence motorized recreation from California to Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, and many other states.
For OHV organizations nationwide, this rulemaking deserves close attention because the regulatory decisions being made today could establish the foundation for motorized access policy for decades to come.
It is extremely important for CORVA members to understand that this proposal is separate from the Forest Service's effort involving the 2001 Roadless Rule. The two issues may both affect public-land access, but they address different policies.
The Roadless Rule concerns millions of acres of inventoried roadless areas and restrictions involving road construction, reconstruction, timber management, and related activities within those areas. The Travel Management Rule, by contrast, governs how motorized vehicles use the existing system of National Forest roads, trails, and designated motorized areas.
The fact that the Forest Service is reconsidering both policies during the same period could represent a significant broader shift in federal land-management policy, but they are separate rulemakings with separate public-comment processes and deadlines. CORVA will continue to engage on both.
Several national environmental organizations have strongly criticized the proposed Travel Management revisions, arguing that changes could weaken protections for fish, wildlife, watersheds, and other natural resources. Motorized recreation organizations view the issue differently and see an opportunity to create a more flexible, modern system that recognizes legitimate public access while retaining local management authority.
CORVA has long maintained that responsible motorized access and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive. OHV volunteers throughout California spend thousands of hours maintaining trails, clearing fallen trees, repairing drainage, installing signs, removing garbage, restoring damaged areas, educating recreationists, and assisting public-land managers.
The answer to every management challenge should not automatically be another locked gate. Decisions should be based on actual conditions, science, recreation demand, available management tools, and site-specific circumstances.
Access creates stewardship. People protect the places they know, use, maintain, and love.
While this announcement is significant, members should understand that the process is only beginning. The August 24 Letter of Intent starts what could be a lengthy federal rulemaking process involving environmental review, proposed regulatory language, additional public participation, and ultimately a final rule.
Current estimates indicate that the rulemaking process could continue into 2028. Until a new rule is formally adopted and subsequent local decisions are made, existing Travel Management regulations and Motor Vehicle Use Maps remain in effect.
In other words, do not assume that currently closed roads or trails have reopened. They have not.
What has opened is an opportunity to influence the rules that could govern National Forest access for the next generation.
The Forest Service's August 24 Letter of Intent opened an initial 30-day public-comment period that runs through September 23, 2026. Additional opportunities for public involvement are expected as the Environmental Impact Statement and proposed regulations move forward.
CORVA strongly encourages every motorized recreationist to participate. The Forest Service needs to hear directly from the people who actually use these lands. Tell the agency about routes lost during previous Travel Management decisions and explain why connectivity matters. Describe how closures affect camping, hunting, exploring, family recreation, tourism, local businesses, emergency access, volunteer stewardship, and rural communities.
Clubs should also document the work their members perform on National Forest lands. Trail clearing, drainage repair, signing, cleanup projects, education, restoration, and volunteer partnerships demonstrate that the motorized recreation community does far more than simply use these areas — we help maintain them.
Most importantly, recreationists should encourage the Forest Service to establish a regulatory framework that allows local managers to restore, maintain, improve, and expand responsible motorized access where conditions support it.
Comments can be submitted directly through the federal Regulations.gov docket for the Forest Service Travel Management Rule:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FS-2026-0100-0001
Click the link above, review the Forest Service Letter of Intent, and submit your comment before September 23, 2026.
Your comment does not need to be long or complicated. In fact, the strongest comments are often personal, specific, and focused on how Forest Service decisions affect real people and real places. Avoid simply saying “I support this” without explaining why. Tell the Forest Service how you use National Forest lands and what you want the revised Travel Management Rule to accomplish.
Consider including these points:
The most effective comment is your own story in your own words. The Forest Service needs to hear from the families, volunteers, clubs, businesses, hunters, campers, and OHV enthusiasts who are directly affected by these policies.
Be respectful. Be specific. Be heard.
CORVA participated in Travel Management planning throughout California when these decisions were originally made, and we intend to be fully engaged as the Forest Service determines what comes next.
Over the coming months, CORVA will review the Forest Service proposal, monitor development of the Environmental Impact Statement, coordinate with our state and national recreation partners, and advocate for policies recognizing motorized recreation as a legitimate and important use of America's National Forests.
There will be technical details to work through, organized opposition, additional rounds of public comments, and no instant reopening of every road that disappeared from a Motor Vehicle Use Map over the past 20 years. But the significance of this opportunity should not be minimized.
For two decades, the OHV community has operated under a Travel Management system that fundamentally reshaped motorized access throughout the National Forest System. Now the Forest Service is reconsidering that framework.
This could be huge — not just for California and not just for CORVA, but for off-road recreationists across America.
Twenty years ago, the Travel Management Rule changed the future of motorized access on our National Forests. Now we have an opportunity to help determine what the next twenty years will look like.
CORVA will be there — protecting public lands FOR the people, not FROM the people.
The U.S. Forest Service has completed a nationwide review of its regional offices and Research and Development facilities as part of a broader agency reorganization. The review resulted in a decision to retain 41 additional research facilities while closing or consolidating 23 locations across the country.
For CORVA members, the most important point is that this announcement does not close National Forests, OHV areas, roads, trails, campgrounds, staging areas, or recreation sites. It also does not, by itself, change a Motor Vehicle Use Map, eliminate a designated OHV route, or alter an existing travel-management decision. The Forest Service describes this primarily as a facilities and cost-management decision, not a reduction in its scientific mission.
However, because research, staffing, environmental review, wildfire recovery, and local technical expertise all play important roles in how California's National Forests are managed, CORVA believes the implementation of this restructuring is worth watching carefully.
According to the Forest Service, the agency is facing a major long-term facilities problem. The Forest Service owns more than 16,000 facilities and maintains more than 500 leases and space-occupancy agreements nationwide. Approximately half of those facilities are reportedly rated in poor condition, while the agency has accumulated more than $3 billion in deferred maintenance.
At the same time, approximately one-third of Forest Service office space falls below the 60% utilization standard established by the federal USE IT Act. In practical terms, the agency is paying to maintain and lease a large amount of office space that may be partially vacant, underused, deteriorating, or no longer necessary for the way employees perform their work.
Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Stephen Vaden described the issue as one of spending too much money on underutilized square footage rather than putting those resources directly toward employees and agency work. That distinction is important. The stated purpose of this restructuring is to reduce spending on buildings and redirect more funding toward staff, research, and mission delivery.
When the Forest Service announced the restructuring process in March 2026, it initially identified 20 Research and Development facilities for retention and 57 for further evaluation. As the review progressed, a total of 64 locations were evaluated. Following that review, the Forest Service determined that 41 additional facilities would remain open, while 23 facilities were identified for closure or consolidation.
According to the agency, the locations selected for closure generally had little to no staffing. That is an important detail because the Forest Service says employees assigned to affected locations will not simply disappear with the buildings. Instead, employees will transition to other Forest Service facilities within their local commuting areas.
Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz has stated that the consolidations will result in no forced staff reductions associated with these facility decisions and that the agency intends for the affected work to continue without interruption.
The Forest Service estimates that the consolidation will produce more than $8.8 million in annual lease savings and more than $8 million in deferred maintenance savings. Together, the agency identifies more than $16 million in cost savings connected to these decisions.
The larger goal is to put more agency funding toward what the Forest Service calls "mission delivery" rather than maintaining buildings it no longer needs. From CORVA's perspective, that could be a positive development if those savings actually translate into greater resources for work in the field.
California's National Forests need trail crews, recreation specialists, engineers, planners, biologists, hydrologists, wildfire recovery teams, law enforcement personnel, permit administrators, volunteer coordinators, and researchers. Saving money on underutilized office space makes sense if those dollars strengthen those functions. The concern would arise if facilities consolidation eventually becomes a reduction in the agency's ability to actively manage public lands.
The Forest Service says the facilities being retained generally fall into several categories. Some will serve as future state offices or service centers under the Forest Service's developing state-based organizational model. Others provide primary space for the National Forest System, operate under zero-cost arrangements, contain important research laboratories or infrastructure, or are part of the Forest Service's Experimental Forest network.
The agency has specifically stated that the facilities decision is intended to address building and maintenance costs and does not eliminate the scientific work being conducted in the field, in laboratories, or through partnerships. The Forest Service says its place-based Research and Development programs will continue throughout the country.
That commitment will be particularly important for California, where land-management decisions are often driven by complex combinations of wildfire, drought, watershed conditions, recreation pressure, threatened and endangered species, forest health, and infrastructure concerns.
These facility decisions are part of a much broader Forest Service reorganization. The agency has indicated that it is beginning a transition toward a more state-based organizational model, with certain retained facilities eventually serving as state offices or service centers.
The Forest Service is also moving forward with previously announced changes involving regional offices in Atlanta, Milwaukee, and Portland. Employees affected by those changes are also expected to continue working from other local Forest Service locations.
For California, the development of a state-based structure could eventually become more significant than the closure of individual research buildings. If properly implemented, having decision-making and technical resources organized closer to the states and landscapes they serve could improve coordination with local governments, recreation organizations, rural communities, volunteers, permittees, and other stakeholders.
However, the effectiveness of that model will depend on whether authority and resources actually move closer to the forests or simply become concentrated in fewer administrative offices.
When most people hear "Forest Service research," they may picture scientists studying trees, wildlife, insects, wildfire, or water quality. All of those subjects can eventually influence public-land management.
Forest Service scientific research can contribute to wildfire recovery planning, forest restoration, erosion and watershed analysis, wildlife and habitat evaluations, threatened and endangered species consultation, fuel-reduction projects, environmental assessments, environmental impact statements, forest plans, road and trail management, and recreation planning.
Researchers generally are not the people deciding whether an OHV trail stays open or closes. However, scientific studies and technical information can become part of the administrative record used by Forest Supervisors, District Rangers, interdisciplinary teams, and other decision-makers.
That makes accurate, timely, and locally relevant research important to recreational access.
California contains some of the most complicated National Forest management challenges in the country. Forests including the Sierra, Sequoia, Stanislaus, Eldorado, Tahoe, Plumas, Lassen, Angeles, San Bernardino, Cleveland, and Los Padres National Forests must manage a combination of intense recreation, wildfire, drought, watershed concerns, wildlife habitat, hazardous trees, damaged infrastructure, fuels accumulation, erosion, and rapidly changing post-fire landscapes.
Consider what happens after a major wildfire. Roads may be damaged, culverts can fail, signs and barriers can burn, hillsides can become unstable, thousands of fire-damaged trees may become hazards, and watersheds may face increased erosion. Recreation infrastructure may need repair or complete replacement.
Before roads and trails can safely reopen, the Forest Service needs people with the expertise to evaluate those conditions and develop solutions. That may involve hydrologists, engineers, geologists, biologists, researchers, recreation specialists, and environmental planners.
The science behind those decisions can help determine whether a trail needs to remain temporarily closed or whether repairs, drainage improvements, hazard-tree removal, rerouting, stabilization, or other mitigation can restore access. For the OHV community, that distinction can mean the difference between a temporary closure and one that lasts for years.
California recreationists know firsthand what happens after catastrophic wildfire. Emergency closures are often necessary immediately following a fire, and CORVA understands and supports legitimate temporary closures where an immediate threat to public safety exists.
But those closures should not become permanent simply because the agency lacks the staff, funding, technical expertise, or administrative capacity necessary to evaluate and repair an area. That is why this restructuring matters.
If consolidating facilities frees up money that can be redirected toward wildfire recovery, engineering, trail maintenance, environmental review, and field personnel, California recreation could benefit. If consolidation ultimately reduces local expertise or slows the agency's ability to evaluate damaged areas, recreation access could suffer.
The issue, therefore, is not simply how many buildings the Forest Service owns. The real issue is whether the agency retains the people necessary to get the work done.
One issue CORVA will continue to watch is preservation of local institutional knowledge. California's National Forests are not interchangeable.
Someone who has spent years working on the Sierra National Forest may understand its watersheds, soils, wildfire history, OHV trail systems, recreation patterns, volunteer organizations, resource concerns, and previous management decisions in ways that cannot simply be recreated from a centralized office hundreds of miles away.
That same principle applies throughout California. Moving an employee from one building to another within the same commuting area probably does little to diminish that knowledge. But as the Forest Service transitions toward a new organizational structure, it will be important to ensure that consolidation does not gradually disconnect specialists and decision-makers from the individual forests they serve.
Science and environmental analysis are sometimes viewed by recreationists only as tools used to justify restrictions. They can also protect access.
Good site-specific science can demonstrate that responsible motorized recreation and conservation can coexist. It can identify drainage improvements instead of route closures, support trail restoration rather than abandonment, and identify an appropriate reroute instead of eliminating an entire trail.
It can also distinguish measurable environmental impacts from assumptions and demonstrate when education, enforcement, seasonal restrictions, engineering, restoration, or other mitigation measures can solve a resource problem without permanently eliminating recreation.
CORVA supports sound, transparent, defensible science because public-land decisions should be based on measurable conditions and legitimate resource concerns. Management should be the first solution, not closure.
CORVA members should also understand that this restructuring is separate from two other major Forest Service issues currently attracting attention.
It is not the proposed revision of the 2005 Travel Management Rule. The Travel Management Rule governs motorized vehicle use on National Forest System roads, trails, and areas and can have a direct effect on OHV access.
It is also not the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Those are separate policy and regulatory processes.
The closure of a Forest Service research facility does not automatically close an OHV trail, change a Motor Vehicle Use Map, eliminate a designated route, or change the legal status of land. That distinction is extremely important.
The Forest Service has also stated that this round of decisions is not necessarily the end of its broader facilities review. The agency is continuing to evaluate other buildings and facilities associated with the National Forest System and other Forest Service operations.
That means additional facility decisions could still occur. CORVA will need to watch those future decisions more closely when they involve Ranger District offices, visitor facilities, maintenance compounds, recreation operations, engineering resources, or other facilities directly connected with on-the-ground management.
Closing an underutilized research office is very different from eliminating the operational capacity of a Ranger District.
CORVA does not oppose government efficiency. If the Forest Service can eliminate unnecessary leases, consolidate nearly empty offices, reduce deferred-maintenance obligations, and put those savings toward employees and work on the ground, that is a reasonable objective.
But CORVA will be watching what happens next. The measure of success should not simply be whether the Forest Service saves more than $16 million on buildings. The real test will be whether California's National Forests have the personnel and resources necessary to maintain roads and trails, complete environmental reviews, recover from wildfire, repair damaged infrastructure, coordinate volunteer programs, process recreation projects, conduct sound scientific analysis, and reopen public lands as quickly as conditions reasonably allow.
Closing an unnecessary office can save money. Losing the people and expertise necessary to manage public lands costs everyone.
California's National Forests need active management. They need scientists, engineers, recreation specialists, trail crews, local expertise, and partnerships with organizations and volunteers. They also need an agency capable of solving problems rather than simply locking gates when problems become difficult.
CORVA's position remains straightforward: Public lands should be actively managed, not managed by closure.
If this Forest Service restructuring reduces unnecessary overhead, preserves employees, strengthens science, moves decision-making closer to Western public lands, and puts more resources into California's forests, it could ultimately be beneficial.
If it results in fewer people on the ground, slower wildfire recovery, delayed environmental reviews, reduced recreation management, or a loss of local expertise, California off-roaders could feel those consequences for years.
CORVA will continue monitoring the Forest Service reorganization as it is implemented and will evaluate future changes based on what matters most to our members: responsible recreation, effective land management, and continued public access.
Because protecting access means more than keeping a gate open today. It means making sure the Forest Service has the people, science, funding, and resources necessary to keep that gate open tomorrow.
CORVA — Protecting Public Lands FOR the People, Not FROM the People.
The California Off-Road Vehicle Association is calling on our members, clubs, business partners, and the entire OHV community to participate in an important federal public-comment period that could influence how millions of acres of National Forest lands are managed in the future.
The U.S. Forest Service has formally proposed rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, commonly known as the Roadless Rule. The proposal was published in the Federal Register on August 20, 2026, under Docket FS-2025-0001. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and supporting materials are also available for public review. CORVA strongly encourages every member who cares about responsible motorized access, healthy forests, wildfire prevention, and multiple-use recreation to submit a comment.
Public comments are due September 21, 2026.
The Roadless Rule was adopted nationally in 2001 and generally restricts road construction, road reconstruction, and certain timber activities within designated Inventoried Roadless Areas of the National Forest System.
The Forest Service is now proposing to rescind the national rule in its entirety. More than 44 million acres remain subject to the national Roadless Rule, making this a significant federal land-management decision. The proposal does not apply to the separate state-specific Roadless Rules governing Idaho and Colorado.
For California, where National Forest lands provide enormous opportunities for OHV recreation, camping, hunting, fishing, dispersed recreation, and access to remote public lands, CORVA believes our community needs to be part of this discussion.
This distinction is extremely important.
The 2001 Roadless Rule remains in effect today.
The Forest Service has proposed rescinding it. The agency must complete the federal rulemaking process and consider public comments before making a final decision. Rescission also would not automatically reopen closed OHV trails, change Motor Vehicle Use Maps, authorize cross-country travel, or approve construction of new roads.
Existing Forest Plans, route designations, MVUMs, Wilderness designations, environmental laws, and other applicable requirements would continue to govern activities on National Forest lands. Instead, the significance of the proposal is what could happen over time.
Removing the nationwide Roadless Rule could provide individual National Forests with greater flexibility when considering future decisions involving roads, wildfire mitigation, fuels reduction, forest management, emergency access, recreation, and other multiple uses.
California's National Forests are not all the same.
The Sierra Nevada, Southern California forests, North Coast, Cascades, and eastern California forests face very different conditions involving wildfire, vegetation, terrain, recreation demand, existing transportation systems, and surrounding communities.
CORVA believes these decisions should be based on current conditions, sound science, site-specific analysis, and meaningful involvement from the people and communities who actually use these lands.
California has also experienced devastating wildfires. Roads and motorized routes can serve purposes far beyond recreation. Depending on location, they can provide access for firefighters, fuels-reduction projects, prescribed fire, search and rescue, emergency response, forest restoration, maintenance, and post-fire recovery. Responsible public access and conservation do not have to be opposing objectives.
Good management can accomplish both.
This rulemaking presents an opportunity for the OHV community to make an important point:
Responsible motorized recreation is a legitimate use of our National Forests and must be considered when future land-management decisions are made.
Motorized routes provide access not only for motorcycles, ATVs, side-by-sides, Jeeps, and four-wheel-drive vehicles, but also for camping, hunting, fishing, sightseeing, volunteer stewardship, and people who otherwise could not reasonably reach remote areas of their public lands.
CORVA wants the Forest Service to recognize the importance of existing legal routes, recreational connectivity, emergency access, and multiple-use recreation as future forest-level decisions are made. Where environmental concerns exist, land managers should consider responsible management solutions—including rerouting, seasonal restrictions, maintenance, trail hardening, education, signage, and enforcement—before resorting to permanent closure.
This is where CORVA members can make a difference.
Federal agencies need to hear directly from the people who actually recreate on National Forest lands.
A comment does not need to be lengthy or written by an attorney. In fact, a personalized comment explaining where you recreate and why the issue matters to you can provide valuable information for the administrative record.
Tell the Forest Service which National Forest you use. Explain whether you ride motorcycles, drive a Jeep or 4x4, use a side-by-side, camp, hunt, fish, volunteer, or explore backcountry roads. If you have experienced lost route connectivity, wildfire closures, deteriorating forest conditions, lack of emergency access, or successful examples of responsible motorized management, tell them about it.
CORVA particularly encourages members to ask the Forest Service to:
CORVA is launching an advocacy effort to help our members understand the issue, personalize a comment letter, and make their voices heard.
We strongly encourage you to personalize the provided letter. Two or three sentences about the National Forest or riding area you personally use can make your submission substantially more meaningful.
The official federal proceeding is:
Docket: FS-2025-0001 RIN: 0596-AD66 Federal Register: 91 FR 53827 Federal Deadline: September 21, 2026
One important deadline clarification for California members: the federal portal currently identifies the closing time as 11:59 p.m. Eastern on September 21, which is 8:59 p.m. Pacific. CORVA recommends submitting your comment well before the final day rather than waiting until the deadline.
Public access is protected by participation.
CORVA can meet with agencies, review environmental documents, submit organizational comments, and advocate at the state and federal levels—but there is tremendous value when individual recreationists stand beside us and put their own experiences into the public record.
Don't assume someone else will submit the comment for you.
Take a few minutes. Personalize your letter. Tell the Forest Service where you recreate and why responsible motorized access matters to you.
MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD. PROTECT RESPONSIBLE OHV ACCESS.
California Off-Road Vehicle Association
Protecting Public Lands FOR the People — Not FROM the People!
Thank you to everyone who took the time to share your thoughts on AB 1613. Your feedback has been invaluable, and I'm pleased to let you know that CORVA has formally submitted recommendations to Assemblymember Lori Wilson based directly on the concerns expressed by our membership.
While CORVA supports the goals of improving OHV safety, education, and responsible stewardship, we also believe the legislation must be fair, practical, and workable for California's diverse off-road community.
Based on your feedback, CORVA recommended the following changes:
This process is far from over. AB 1613 will continue moving through the Senate, and there will be additional opportunities for discussion and amendments before the bill reaches the Governor's desk.
CORVA remains committed to representing our members every step of the way. We appreciate everyone who participated in our survey, emailed us, called us, and shared thoughtful feedback. Your voices have shaped our recommendations, and we will continue advocating for legislation that improves safety while protecting responsible recreation and access to California's public lands.
Thank you for your continued support.
Mike McGarity President, CORVA
Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy
