[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 201 (Thursday, October 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61600-61647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24193]



[[Page 61599]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part VI





Department of Agriculture





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Forest Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



National Trail Classification System, FSM 2350 and FSH 2309.18; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / 
Notices  

[[Page 61600]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

RIN 0596-AC47


National Trail Classification System, FSM 2350 and FSH 2309.18

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of interim final directives and public 
comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is issuing these interim final directives 
as an amendment to Forest Service Manual 2350, Trail, River, and 
Similar Recreation Opportunities, and Forest Service Handbook 2309.18, 
the Trail Management Handbook, to incorporate revisions to the agency's 
national trail classification system (TCS), consisting of the Trail 
Classes and Design Parameters. Chapters 30 and 40 in the Trail 
Management Handbook have not been included in these interim final 
directives because these chapters do not relate directly to the TCS and 
Design Parameters and because the agency plans to update them 
significantly. The comments on these chapters will be addressed in 
preparation of final directives. The agency is providing a 60-day 
public comment period on these interim final directives and will review 
timely comments in developing final directives.
    Trail Classes are general categories reflecting trail development 
scale, arranged along a continuum. Managed Uses are the modes of travel 
that are actively managed and appropriate on a trail, based on its 
design and management. Designed Use is the Managed Use of a trail that 
requires the most demanding design, construction, and maintenance 
parameters and that, in conjunction with the applicable Trail Class, 
determines which Design Parameters will apply to a trail. The Design 
Parameters are technical guidelines for the survey, design, 
construction, maintenance, and assessment of a trail, based on its 
Designed Use and Trail Class.

DATES: These interim final directives are effective October 16, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The interim final directives and this Federal Register 
notice are available electronically on the World Wide Web at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/. The record for these interim final 
directives is available for inspection and copying at the office of the 
Director, Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer Resources Staff, USDA 
Forest Service, 4th Floor Central, Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, 
1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Those wishing to inspect 
the record are encouraged to call Jonathan Stephens at (202) 205-1701 
beforehand to facilitate access into the building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Stephens, Recreation, 
Heritage, and Volunteer Resources Staff, USDA Forest Service, (202) 
205-1701.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

1. Background and Need for the Interim Final Directives
2. Public Comments on the Proposed Directives and Agency Response
     Overview of Comments
     Response to General Comments
     Response to Specific Comments by Section
    [cir] FSM 2350
    [cir] FSH 2309.18
     Response to Comments on Regulatory Certifications in 
the Proposed Directives
     Comments Beyond the Scope of the Proposed Directives
3. Comparison of the Pack and Saddle Trail Guides and the Pack and 
Saddle Design Parameters
4. Summary of Revisions to the Trail Class Matrix and Design 
Parameters
5. Regulatory Certifications for the Interim Final Directives
     Environmental Impact
     Regulatory Impact
     No Taking Implications
     Civil Justice Reform
     Federalism and Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
     Energy Effects
     Unfunded Mandates
     Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
6. Access to the Interim Final Directives

1. Background and Need for the Interim Final Directives

    The Forest Service is responsible for managing 193 million acres of 
National Forest System (NFS) lands. On these lands, approximately 
144,000 miles of NFS trails are managed by the Forest Service. An NFS 
trail is a forest trail other than a trail which has been authorized by 
a legally documented right-of-way held by a State, county, or other 
local public road authority (36 CFR 212.1). A forest trail is a trail 
wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the NFS that the 
Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, 
administration, and utilization of the NFS and the use and development 
of its resources (36 CFR 212.1). Design, construction, operation, and 
maintenance of NFS trails fall under the authority of Forest and 
Grassland Supervisors.
    Since at least 1991, the directives have included three categories 
for classifying NFS trails based on their difficulty level. These 
categories, which are enumerated in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH), 
are most difficult, more difficult, and easiest. In addition, since 
1991, the FSH has contained technical guidelines, called trail guides, 
for specific types of uses, including hiking and pack and saddle use. 
For each of the three difficulty levels, each trail guide contains 
design, construction, and maintenance guidelines for the physical 
characteristics of trails. The physical characteristics include maximum 
pitch grade and length, clearing width and height, tread width, and 
surface. The difficulty levels in the trail guides encompass trails 
ranging from the least developed, which are typically steep or narrow, 
to the most highly developed, which are typically wide with minimal 
grades.
    Trail management and use were (and still are) based on the 
management intent for the trail, as determined by the applicable land 
management plan, applicable travel management decisions, trail-specific 
decisions, and other related direction. When local managers identified 
a trail's management and use, they identified the applicable difficulty 
level. Once managers determined the applicable trail management and use 
and difficulty level, applicable technical guidelines from the 
appropriate trail guide could be identified.
    In 1994, the Forest Service implemented a trails database module 
that included numerous trail attributes, including the three difficulty 
levels of most difficult, more difficult, and easiest, and the three 
trail classes of way, secondary, and, mainline. However, the classes of 
way, secondary, and mainline incorporated into the database did not 
correlate directly with the difficulty levels in the FSH.
    In 1998, the Forest Service determined that a more uniform and 
integrated national trail classification system would improve inventory 
and on-the-ground management. Consequently, in 1999 the Forest Service 
transitioned from the three trail classes of way, secondary, and 
mainline to the five Trail Classes in effect today. The five Trail 
Classes are keyed more precisely to the physical characteristics of NFS 
trails and more accurately stratify them for various purposes, 
including database inventory, development of land management planning 
objectives, visitor information, and assessment of costs. In general, 
the five Trail Classes encompass many of the attributes and 
characteristics of the

[[Page 61601]]

previous way, secondary, and mainline trail categories.
    In 2000, the Forest Service launched a national effort to enhance 
its trail program, including improving inventory, tracking of trail 
condition and needs, and accuracy and accountability of costs; 
minimizing confusion and inconsistency in terminology and 
interpretation of guidance; and improving the communication, quality, 
and utility of trail data. As a result, the agency refined five 
concepts that are now collectively known as the ``Trail Fundamentals,'' 
including Trail Type, Trail Class, Managed Use, Designed Use, and 
Design Parameters. The Trail Fundamentals provide an updated and more 
effective means for consistently recording and communicating the 
guidelines for trail design, construction, maintenance, survey, and 
assessment.
    The Trail Fundamentals integrate the five Trail Classes with 
technical guidelines, called Design Parameters, for the design, 
construction, maintenance, survey, and assessment of NFS trails. The 
Design Parameters, which were implemented in 2004, superseded the 
technical parameters in the Trail Guides in the FSH. When the agency 
shifted from the Trail Guides to the Design Parameters, the design, 
construction, and maintenance guidelines changed in minor, technical 
ways with no effect on how trails were managed on the ground.
    The following provides a description of Trail Class, Managed Use, 
and Designed Use, the three Trail Fundamentals that were most critical 
to development of the TCS and Design Parameters.

Trail Class

    The current Trail Classes range from Minimal/Undeveloped (Trail 
Class 1) to Fully Developed (Trail Class 5):
    Trail Class 1: Minimal/Undeveloped Trail
    Trail Class 2: Simple/Minor Development Trail
    Trail Class 3: Developed/Improved Trail
    Trail Class 4: Highly Developed Trail
    Trail Class 5: Fully Developed Trail
    Each Trail Class has descriptors for the physical characteristics 
of trails, including tread and traffic flow, obstacles, constructed 
features and tread elements, signs, and typical recreational 
environment and experience.

Managed Use

    A Managed Use is a mode of travel that is actively managed and 
appropriate on a trail, considering its design and management. There 
may be more than one Managed Use per trail or trail segment. As 
indicated by use of the word ``actively,'' the term ``Managed Use'' 
reflects a management decision or intent to accommodate a particular 
use through trail design, maintenance, and management. As with the 
previous classification system, the applicable Managed Uses of a trail 
are based on a trail's management intent. A trail's management intent 
is determined by the applicable land management plan, applicable travel 
management decisions, trail-specific decisions, and other related 
direction.
    The concepts of Trail Class and Managed Use are interdependent. 
Determining the desired development scale or Trail Class requires 
consideration of the Managed Uses of a trail. Likewise, determining the 
Managed Uses of a trail requires consideration of the development scale 
of the trail. Therefore, the applicable Trail Class is usually 
identified in conjunction with the Managed Uses of a trail.

Designed Use

    The Designed Use is the Managed Use of a trail that requires the 
most demanding design, construction, and maintenance parameters. The 
Designed Use, in conjunction with the applicable Trail Class, 
determines which Design Parameters will apply to a trail.
    While there may be more than one Managed Use, there can be only one 
Designed Use per trail or trail segment. For example, if a trail has a 
Managed Use of Hiker/Pedestrian and Pack and Saddle, Pack and Saddle 
would be the Designed Use or design driver because it requires more 
stringent trail design, construction, and maintenance parameters.
    Once the Trail Class, Managed Uses, and Designed Use are determined 
for a trail or trail segment, the corresponding set of technical 
guidelines or Design Parameters can be applied.

Design Parameters

    The Design Parameters are technical guidelines for the survey, 
design, construction, maintenance, and assessment of a trail, based on 
its Designed Use and Trail Class. They reflect the dominant physical 
criteria that most define the geometric shape of a trail, including 
tread width, surface, grade, cross slope, clearing width and height, 
and turning radius. In some instances, a specific value for these 
factors is identified in the Design Parameters, while in others, a 
range of values is identified. In the latter case, managers narrow the 
range, selecting the specific value that best reflects the management 
intent for the trail.
    The Design Parameters do not indicate the types of uses that can 
occur or are allowed on NFS trails, but rather establish general 
guidelines for the design, construction, maintenance, survey, and 
assessment of NFS trails, based on their physical characteristics and 
Designed Use, as determined by preexisting management decisions. All 
nonmotorized uses are allowed on any NFS trail unless specifically 
prohibited (motor vehicle use is covered by 36 CFR part 212, subpart 
B). In addition, local deviations from any Design Parameter may be 
established based on trail-specific conditions, topography, or other 
factors, provided that the deviations are consistent with the general 
intent of the applicable Trail Class.

2. Public Comments on the Proposed Directives and Agency Response

Overview of Comments

    On July 3, 2006, the Forest Service published the proposed 
revisions to the TCS, including Design Parameters, in the Federal 
Register (71 FR 127) for a 60-day public comment period. The proposed 
revisions were also posted on the Forest Service Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/.
    The Forest Service received 122 letters or electronic messages in 
response to the proposed revisions. Each respondent was grouped into 
one of the following categories:
    Trail Interests--118
    State Agencies--2
    Individuals (unaffiliated or unidentifiable)--2
No comments were received on any section of the directives that is not 
listed below.

Response to General Comments

The TCS
    Comment. One respondent stated that the Trail Fundamentals and 
revisions to the TCS appear to be ``well conceived and could provide 
useful guidance.'' Another respondent stated that the Design Parameters 
and Trail Classes seem reasonable and in tune with what is on the 
ground.
    Response. The agency agrees that the TCS is an effective trail 
management tool that provides valuable guidance for the planning, 
design, construction, maintenance, assessment, and management of NFS 
trails. The TCS is resulting in improved consistency, communication, 
and quality of trail inventory, prescription, condition, and cost data.
    Comment. Two respondents were pleased with the clear definition and 
application of Managed Use, which

[[Page 61602]]

recognize that there can be more than one Managed Use for a trail.
    Response. The Forest Service agrees that Managed Use is an 
important and very useful trail management concept and continues to 
strive for a clear understanding and consistent interpretation of this 
concept through issuance of these directives, training, and other 
reference material.
    Comment. Two respondents expressed support for the definition and 
application of Designed Use, based on the belief that this concept, in 
conjunction with the concept of Managed Use, promotes multiple trail 
uses on sufficiently designed, constructed, and maintained trails.
    Response. The agency agrees that Designed Use is an important trail 
management concept and that Designed Use, in conjunction with Managed 
Use, allows managers to communicate clearly the intended uses of a 
trail and to specify the design, construction, and maintenance 
parameters needed to accommodate those uses.
    Comment. One respondent believed that the TCS appears to take into 
account the impacts of nonpedestrian trail uses on resources and other 
trail users and to direct motorized and pedestrian use to trails that 
are capable of sustaining those uses.
    Response. The Forest Service agrees that the TCS and the interim 
final directives provide improved guidance regarding sustainable 
development, management, and use of NFS trails.
    Comment. One respondent asserted that application of the TCS should 
not result in a net reduction of trail miles on NFS lands and that 
trails closed for habitat protection should be rerouted.
    Response. The application of the TCS does not result in changes in 
availability or management on NFS trails. Rather, the TCS is a tool for 
improving consistency in tracking and summarizing trail inventory and 
communicating trail design, construction, and maintenance parameters. 
Decisions regarding adding or removing NFS trails from the forest 
transportation system are subject to applicable land management plan 
direction, travel management planning, and trail-specific planning and 
are beyond the scope of these directives.
    Comment. Two respondents asserted that there should be full funding 
for periodic, scheduled trail maintenance. One respondent recommended 
that any new standards or guidelines focus on appropriate scheduling of 
reconstruction, repair, and maintenance, as well as development of 
alternative funding sources to maximize trail appropriations and to 
fully fund trail work.
    Response. The Forest Service recognizes that there is a need for 
adequate funding for trail maintenance. Consequently, the agency has an 
even greater need for effective approaches for assessing and tracking 
NFS trail inventory, conditions, and maintenance needs and prioritizing 
needed trail maintenance. Implementation of the TCS is a key step in 
agency efforts to improve efficiency, consistency, and credibility in 
the identification and reporting of maintenance needs agency-wide and 
in the prioritization and implementation of maintenance work to be 
completed with limited resources. The TCS also facilitates 
identification, communication, and implementation of trail repair and 
maintenance conducted by contractors, Forest Service crews, and 
thousands of volunteers across the country.
    The interim final directives provide general guidance in FSH 
2309.18, section 18, exhibit 01, for determining appropriate schedules 
for recurring and other trail work. However, the determination of 
trail-specific maintenance schedules depends on a variety of factors, 
including current management priorities and available resources. While 
the agency strives to increase contributions from volunteers and to 
leverage funding for trail work, these activities are beyond the scope 
of these directives.
    Comment. One respondent stated that the proposed directives fail to 
provide context by not including guidance regarding the mission, 
vision, and goals of the TCS.
    Response. The interim final directives contain statements regarding 
the goals of the TCS in FSM 2353.02, paragraph 1, and 2353.12, as well 
as FSH 2309.18, section 20.2, paragraph 1.
    Comment. One respondent requested that the agency simplify the text 
of the proposed directives on the grounds that it is too bureaucratic, 
arcane, and difficult to understand.
    Response. The primary intended audience for this direction is 
Forest Service employees charged with administering the agency's trails 
program. The agency acknowledges that some of the TCS materials are 
technical and therefore require a certain level of technical training 
and expertise to understand. To facilitate clear communication and 
consistent interpretation, the agency is incorporating revisions 
throughout the interim final directives to improve clarity to the 
extent possible, including several new or revised definitions.
    Comment. Two respondents questioned the need for directives on the 
TCS and expressed concern that the Forest Service is spending time on 
paper and process, rather than accomplishing trail work in the field.
    Response. The Forest Service believes that sufficient and credible 
information for trail inventory and prescriptions is essential for 
effective management of the agency's trail program, including the 
determination of needed field work and efficient application of limited 
resources to accomplish that work. This information is used annually to 
report to Congress regarding annual accomplishments, the work needed to 
meet the National Quality Standards for Trails, and the cost of that 
work.
Multi-Use Trails
    Comment. Some respondents stated that identification of one 
Designed Use per trail or trail segment would be too limiting and would 
not accommodate multiple uses on a trail. These respondents expressed 
concern that identification of a single Designed Use would be based on 
the most intensive use on a trail, even if that use represented only a 
small percentage of use occurring on the trail. These respondents 
contended that this approach to Designed Use could result in the 
displacement or exclusion of trail uses. Some respondents stated that 
there needs to be a mixed-use trail category that would permit trails 
to remain available for multiple uses. Two respondents contended that 
in most cases there is no single Designed Use and that the TCS should 
include a single multi-use nonmotorized Designed Use for these 
situations.
    Response. The majority of NFS trails are managed for multiple modes 
of travel, including various combinations of Managed Uses. 
Implementation of the TCS does not change this approach to trail 
management. For example, many NFS trails are managed for hiker/
pedestrian, bicycle, and pack and saddle use, and many others are 
managed for all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and motorcycle use, with numerous 
other uses allowed on these trails.
    The TCS does not determine the Managed Uses of NFS trails. Rather, 
local trail managers determine the Managed Uses for each NFS trail, 
based on applicable land management plan direction, applicable travel 
management decisions, trail-specific decisions, and other related 
direction. This direction is based on consideration of current trail 
uses and their volume, relative levels, and seasons of use; potential 
or existing use conflicts; desired distances and challenge levels; 
topography; estimated

[[Page 61603]]

development and maintenance costs; and other factors.
    Identification of the Designed Use from among the Managed Uses of a 
trail helps managers to ensure that the design, construction, and 
maintenance parameters for the trail are adequate to accommodate all 
the Managed Uses of that trail. To clarify this point, the interim 
final directives state that when determining the Designed Use from 
among the Managed Uses identified for a trail, managers should assess 
any essential or limiting geometry for the Managed Uses of the trail or 
trail segment to determine whether any trail-specific adjustments are 
necessary to the applicable Design Parameters (FSH 2309.18, sec. 14.4, 
para. 3).
    Comment. One respondent expressed concern that the requirement to 
identify one Designed Use per trail or trail segment does not apply to 
multi-season trails.
    Response. Many NFS trails have varying combinations of Managed Uses 
during different seasons of the year. Implementation of the Design 
Parameters does not change these determinations. To the contrary, both 
the proposed directives (FSH 2309.18, section 2.03) and the interim 
final directives (FSH 2309.18, section 14.4) state that when 
determining the Designed Use and Design Parameters of an NFS trail or 
trail segment, local managers should ``consider all Managed Uses that 
occur during all seasons of use of the trail or trail segment.'' 
Determination of the appropriate Designed Use from among the Managed 
Uses of a trail helps managers to ensure that the design, construction, 
and maintenance parameters for the trail are adequate to accommodate 
all of its Managed Uses during all of its seasons of use and on various 
Trail Types (such as when a Standard Terra Trail overlaps a Snow 
Trail).
    Comment. One respondent recommended developing Trail Management 
Objectives (TMOs) specific to multi-use trails that would allow less 
intensive nonmotorized uses, as well as more intensive motorized uses.
    Response. TMOs are developed at the local level, are trail-
specific, are based on applicable management direction, and include the 
identification of several factors, including the applicable Trail 
Class, Managed Uses, the Designed Use, and corresponding Design 
Parameters for the trail or trail segment. The TCS provides guidance 
for development of trail-specific TMOs for all NFS trails, including 
those with various combinations of motorized and nonmotorized Managed 
Uses. The development of trail-specific TMOs helps managers to identify 
the Managed Uses, including motorized and nonmotorized uses, and the 
corresponding intensity of use for a particular trail or trail segment.
Concerns Regarding Unnecessary Improvement and Maintenance
    Comment. Several respondents expressed concern that implementation 
of the TCS would lead to unnecessary improvement and maintenance of 
trails to a higher standard, resulting in wider, more urban trails and 
detracting from the rugged, challenging, natural quality of the trail 
experience on NFS lands. Two respondents expressed concern that 
implementation of the proposed Design Parameters would be elaborate, 
excessive, and costly, resulting in trails that would no longer have 
the wild, rugged character that many seek. Several respondents 
expressed concern that adoption of the proposed Design Parameters would 
result in mixed-use trails that look more like highly developed 
suburban trails.
    Response. Implementation of the TCS and Design Parameters will not 
cause any changes in trail prescriptions or on-the-ground management of 
trails. The TCS and Design Parameters are applied by local managers 
based on applicable land management plan direction, applicable travel 
management decisions, trail-specific decisions, and other related 
direction to develop trail-specific TMOs and trail prescriptions. 
Managers strive to provide a variety of trail opportunities for 
experiencing diverse environments and modes of travel, ranging from 
primitive and semiprimitive to roaded natural and urban, consistent 
with the role of recreation in the NFS and the capability of the land 
(FSM 2302, 2303, and 2350, sec. 03, para. 2).
    The national Trail Classes encompass a full spectrum of trail 
development, ranging from minimally developed, extremely rugged, and 
highly challenging trails in Trail Class 1 to fully developed, 
minimally challenging, and often accessible trails in Trail Class 5. 
The agency views each of the five Trail Classes as a valuable component 
of the range of NFS trail opportunities. In the interim final 
directives, the agency has included additional guidance on the Design 
Parameters regarding the level of challenge associated with various 
combinations of Trail Class and Designed Use, as shown in section 3 of 
this preamble, Table 7, ``Changes to the Trail Class Matrix,'' under 
Obstacles, and in Tables 8 through 14, under Design Surface Protrusions 
and Obstacles.
    Comment. One respondent expressed concern that trail maintenance 
and upgrades are determined by the use with the most impact, 
potentially resulting in undesired and costly development of higher-end 
trails.
    Response. The TCS does not dictate trail maintenance or upgrades. 
Under the TCS, trail prescriptions, including maintenance and 
improvement, are based on a trail's TMOs, which include identification 
of the intended Trail Class, Managed Uses, Designed Use, and Design 
Parameters for the trail or trail segment. Local managers are 
responsible for making these determinations based on the applicable 
land management plan direction, applicable travel management decisions, 
trail-specific decisions, and other related direction. This direction 
is based on consideration of current trail uses; their volume, relative 
levels, and seasons of use; potential or existing use conflicts; 
desired distances and challenge levels; topography; estimated 
development and maintenance costs; and other factors. Under the TCS, 
management intent drives the level of development of a trail, as 
reflected in the applicable Trail Class and Design Parameters, rather 
than the allowed uses of a trail. Therefore, the level of trail 
development under the TCS is desired and appropriate.
Nonmotorized Use
    Comment. Some respondents strongly supported the open-unless-closed 
Forest Service trails policy regarding nonmotorized use of NFS trails 
and believed that the following statement should remain in the TCS 
directives: ``All nonmotorized uses are allowed on any NFS trail unless 
specifically prohibited.''
    Response. All trail uses, not just nonmotorized uses, are allowed 
on NFS trails unless specifically prohibited. Therefore, the agency is 
retaining the following statement in the final interim directives: 
``The Managed Uses for a trail are usually a small subset of all the 
allowed uses on the trail, that is, uses that are allowed unless 
specifically prohibited.'' (FSH 2309.18, sec. 14.3, para. 4).
    Comment. Some respondents expressed concern regarding potential 
displacement of nonmotorized trail use by motorized trail use as a 
result of implementation of the TCS. Many of these respondents 
expressed concern that the Designed Use and subsequent maintenance 
parameters would be determined by the most intensive or motorized use, 
which would encourage more of the Designed Use and displace less 
intensive, nonmotorized uses.

[[Page 61604]]

Several respondents expressed concern that adoption of higher trail 
standards would encourage motorized use, shifting the emphasis from 
nonmotorized to motorized use and promoting the exclusion of 
nonmotorized uses. Specifically, these respondents were concerned that 
all trails where motorcycles are not prohibited would be designed and 
maintained for motorcycle use, even if 95 percent of the use of these 
trails were nonmotorized.
    Response. The TCS does not cause a shift in the Managed Uses or in 
the balance of motorized and nonmotorized uses of NFS trails, nor will 
the implementation of the TCS result in adoption of higher trail 
standards. Trail managers are responsible for applying the TCS to 
reflect the management intent for each NFS trail, which derives from 
applicable land management plan direction, applicable travel management 
decisions, trail-specific decisions, and other related direction. This 
direction is based on consideration of current trail uses; their 
volume, relative levels, and seasons of use; potential or existing use 
conflicts; desired distances and challenge levels; topography; 
estimated development and maintenance costs; and other factors.
    The agency is sensitive to potential displacement of trail uses as 
use patterns and technology change. The agency believes that the TCS 
enhances managers' ability to implement the management intent for NFS 
trails and to provide desired trail opportunities, experiences, and 
challenge levels for nonmotorized and motorized uses, individually or 
in combination.
Coordination With Travel Management
    Comment. One respondent requested clarification of how the TCS 
integrates with travel management, in particular, with designation of 
routes for motor vehicle use.
    Response. Once a trail is designated for motor vehicle use, the 
trail's TMOs should reflect that designation. Directives are being 
finalized for implementation of the travel management rule at 36 CFR 
part 212, subpart B. The proposed travel management directives state 
that TMOs should reflect applicable travel management decisions. In 
addition, a trail's TMOs include identification of the applicable Trail 
Class, Managed Uses, Designed Use, and Design Parameters.
    Comment. Several respondents expressed concern that the proposed 
revisions to the TCS were not coordinated with, are inconsistent with, 
and do not reflect the subtleties of the Forest Service's new travel 
management rule. Some respondents recommended that the TCS be reviewed 
by travel management program coordinators and be made consistent with 
the travel management rule with respect to designation of trail loops, 
establishment of trail cutoffs, and conversion of closed roads to 
trails
    Response. The Forest Service is working on final travel management 
directives to implement the travel management rule, which requires each 
administrative unit or Ranger District to designate those NFS roads, 
NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands that are open to motor vehicle use 
by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of year. The managers of 
the national trail program and travel management program have consulted 
extensively in the development of their directives to ensure 
consistency in terminology and appropriate program integration. 
Designation of trails for motor vehicle use and consideration of 
conversion of NFS roads to NFS trails are within the scope of the 
travel management directives and beyond the scope of the TCS 
directives.
    Comment. Two respondents expressed concern about the cost of new 
federal requirements to upgrade trails and recommended that the 
upgrading be postponed until after the travel management directives are 
finalized.
    Response. The TCS does not require any specific actions with regard 
to design, construction, and maintenance of NFS trails, including 
upgrading their condition. Rather, the TCS is a tool used by trail 
managers to improve consistency in tracking and summarizing inventory 
and communicating design, construction, and maintenance parameters for 
NFS trails. Therefore, issuance of the interim final directives will 
not affect the cost of trail maintenance.
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
    Comment. Some respondents commented that the proposed directives 
treat NFS trails solely as recreational facilities, with Design 
Parameters and maintenance cycles linked to classes in the Recreation 
Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) or Wilderness ROS, rather than as multi-
function transportation facilities with no linkage to ROS or Wilderness 
ROS classes.
    Response. The objectives in FSM 2353.02 for management of NFS 
trails remain largely unchanged. These objectives include the provision 
of ``trail-related recreation opportunities that serve public needs and 
meet land management and recreation policy objectives,'' the provision 
of ``trail recreation opportunities that emphasize the natural setting 
of national forests and grasslands and are consistent with land 
capability,'' and the provision of ``trail access for resource 
management and protection.'' The agency believes that implementation of 
the TCS furthers all three of these objectives because it is based on 
the scale of trail development and applied, along with the Design 
Parameters, so as to reflect the management intent for each NFS trail.
    ROS and Wilderness ROS classes are used by the agency to identify 
social, physical, and managerial settings in the NFS and to ensure NFS 
trails offer a suitable diversity of outdoor recreation opportunities 
(FSM 2353.13). There is no direct correlation between the five Trail 
Classes and ROS and Wilderness ROS classes, although some combinations 
occur more commonly than others. To clarify the lack of a direct 
correlation in the interim final directions, the agency has added a 
footnote to the Trail Class Matrix that states: ``The Trail Class 
Matrix shows combinations of Trail Class and Recreation Opportunity 
Spectrum (ROS) or Wilderness Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (WROS) 
settings that commonly occur, although trails in all Trail Classes may 
and do occur in all settings'' (FSH 2309.18, sec. 14.2, ex. 01). 
Managed Uses reflect various modes of travel, each of which may occur 
on trails managed for recreational use, on trails managed for 
recreational and nonrecreational use, or both. The TCS enhances 
managers' ability to develop prescriptions for the design, 
construction, and maintenance needed to accommodate the Managed Uses of 
each NFS trail.
National Scenic and National Historic Trails
    Comment. Some respondents said that it is unclear how National 
Historic and National Scenic Trails fit into the proposed TCS. These 
respondents expressed concern that none of the proposed Trail Classes 
includes guidelines for preserving National Historic Trails and that a 
one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate for these trails.
    Response. The TCS applies to all NFS trails, including National 
Historic and National Scenic Trails. The TCS does not provide guidance 
on preservation of National Historic Trails. Rather, with regard to 
trail maintenance, the purpose of the TCS is to provide managers with a 
tool for consistently and effectively inventorying NFS trails and 
identifying and communicating their condition and the work needed to 
maintain them to their prescribed standard.

[[Page 61605]]

    Comment. One respondent expressed concern that the proposed Trail 
Classes vary with regard to the standards for trail marking and that 
signing and marking (even in wilderness areas) for National Historic 
and National Scenic Trails need to be consistent.
    Response. The Trail Class Matrix provides general guidelines 
regarding the appropriate level and type of signage by Trail Class. The 
agency has incorporated several clarifications regarding signing at 
junctions and route markers into the Trail Class Matrix (FSH 2309.18, 
sec. 14.2, ex. 01), as shown in Table 7, ``Changes to the Trail Class 
Matrix,'' in section 4 of this preamble. See ``Sign and Poster 
Guidelines for the Forest Service'' (EM-7100-15) for guidance on trail 
signing and marking, including sign design and placement for various 
modes of travel and at various locations, including wilderness areas 
and NFS trails.
    Comment. One respondent stated that the proposed Trail Classes must 
not change the intended or allowed recreational uses on National Scenic 
and National Historic Trails.
    Response. The Trail Classes do not dictate the intended or allowed 
uses of NFS trails. Trail Classes reflect the development scale of NFS 
trails and are applied, along with their applicable Design Parameters, 
so as to reflect the management intent for each NFS trail. 
Determination of a trail's management intent is based on applicable 
land management plan direction, applicable travel management decisions, 
trail-specific decisions, and other related direction. Decisions about 
which modes of travel are allowed on NFS trails, including National 
Scenic and National Historic Trails, are made by the responsible 
official at the local level, consistent with applicable law, including 
the National Trails System Act.
    Comment. One respondent expressed concern that application of the 
TCS could unintentionally alter well-established practices for 
construction, maintenance, and management of the Appalachian National 
Scenic Trail and its facilities. This respondent assumed that the 
stewardship manual for the Appalachian National Scenic Trail would 
continue to provide guidance with respect to polices applicable to that 
trail. This respondent expressed hope that the TCS would reduce, rather 
than increase, misunderstandings regarding appropriate development of 
the trail, its side trails, and its facilities.
    Response. Implementation of the TCS will not change on-the-ground 
management of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. The TCS gives 
managers a standardized tool for inventorying trails, identifying and 
communicating the condition of trails, and identifying the work needed 
to maintain them to their prescribed standard. The TCS will not 
supersede the stewardship manual for the Appalachian National Scenic 
Trail. The agency believes that implementation of the TCS will improve 
communication between the Forest Service and its trail partners, 
including those who work on the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.
Management of Trails Based on Their Current Condition
    Comment. Two respondents asserted that Forest Service personnel 
surveying trails for the proposed TCS were instructed to determine the 
applicable Trail Class based on a trail's current condition and 
expressed concern about this practice. One respondent contended that 
this practice has resulted in reduction of the Trail Class for many 
trails that have had minimal or no maintenance over the past 30 years. 
The other respondent contended that in many cases a trail's inventoried 
condition differs considerably from its TMOs and that this discrepancy 
needs to be rectified.
    In addition, this respondent expressed concern that management of 
trails based on their current condition is inappropriate in wilderness 
areas and provided recommendations for assessing a trail's current 
condition in terms of whether the trail meets its desired condition. 
This respondent stated that establishment of trail objectives should be 
guided by the intent and purposes of the Wilderness Act, scientifically 
sound data on the capability of the ecosystem to withstand various 
types and varying intensity of use, and the need to preserve 
opportunities for primitive travel experiences and solitude, including 
transport by pack and saddle.
    This respondent also believed that trails in wilderness areas 
should maximize opportunities for primitive travel and camping, 
solitude, and aesthetic experiences unique to wilderness areas. This 
respondent contended that the agency should track the degree to which 
the condition of trails in wilderness areas reflects their management 
intent, as follows: (a) Meeting their management intent; (b) if they do 
not meet their management intent, being improved to meet it, if funding 
permits; (c) if funding does not permit improving them to meet their 
management intent, maintaining their current condition; or (d) 
continuing to deteriorate and further deviate from their management 
intent.
    Response. Forest Service trail managers are not instructed to 
classify NFS trails in accordance with their current condition. Forest 
Service training and reference materials instruct trail managers to 
identify the applicable Trail Class, Managed Uses, and Design 
Parameters for each NFS trail based on applicable land management plan 
direction, applicable travel management decisions, trail-specific 
decisions, and other related direction. Trail managers are instructed 
to document the applicable Trail Class, Managed Uses, and applicable 
Design Parameters in TMOs, which are defined in the interim final 
directives as ``documentation of the intended purpose and management of 
an NFS trail based on management direction, including access 
objectives'' (FSM 2353.05 and FSH 2309.18, sec. 05). When determining 
the applicable Trail Class, managers are instructed to ``choose the one 
that most closely reflects the management intent of the trail,'' as 
stated in the introductory paragraph to the Trail Class Matrix (FSH 
2309.18, sec. 14.2, ex. 01). For further clarification, the agency has 
revised the interim final directives at FSH 2309.18, section 14.2, 
paragraph 7, to state: ``Apply the Trail Class that most closely 
reflects the management intent for the trail or trail segment, which 
may or may not reflect the current condition of the trail.''
    Managers are instructed to apply the same management approach to 
NFS trails inside and outside wilderness areas. In wilderness areas, 
management intent for NFS trails is also contained in the applicable 
enabling legislation and wilderness management plan. Application of 
this management approach, which is based on the management intent for 
NFS trails, will not result in reduction of the Trail Class for NFS 
trails that have not received the desired level of maintenance.
Training
    Comment. One respondent recommended that the Forest Service 
consider some form of internal and external educational outreach to 
explain the TCS, as well as the Interagency Trail Data Standards 
(ITDS), the Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines (FSTAG), and 
the Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines 
(FSORAG).
    Response. The Forest Service presents numerous training sessions 
each year on these topics. While the majority of these training 
sessions are for Forest Service employees at the national, regional, 
and local levels, the agency has also provided dozens of related 
training sessions for participants from other

[[Page 61606]]

federal agencies, state and local agencies, and many trail 
organizations. With the increasing need for budget efficiency, the 
agency is also providing expanded opportunities for online training for 
Forest Service employees on these topics. The agency also continues to 
improve and disseminate its related reference and training materials 
and is planning to make them available via an external Web site, which 
is currently under development.
Need for Change
    Comment. Several respondents questioned the need for revision of 
the TCS and contended that the agency insufficiently explained and 
supported the need for the changes in the proposed directives. Some 
respondents requested that the Forest Service's trail classification 
system and Trail Guides remain the same as they are in the current 
directives.
    Response. As explained in the preamble to the proposed and interim 
final directives, the Forest Service's trail classes of way, secondary, 
and mainline did not correlate directly with the difficulty levels in 
FSH 2309.18, section 2.32c, exhibit 01. The five Trail Classes, in 
contrast, are keyed more precisely to the physical characteristics of 
NFS trails and more accurately stratify NFS trails for purposes of 
inventory, land management planning, visitor information, and 
assessment of maintenance and construction costs. The five Trail 
Classes are also incorporated into each set of Design Parameters.
    The Design Parameters, which superseded the technical parameters in 
the Trail Guides in the FSH, incorporate the design, construction, and 
maintenance guidelines in the Trail Guides, with only minor, technical 
changes that have no effect on how trails are managed on the ground. In 
some cases, the Design Parameters expand the range of values in a 
category. In contrast to the Trail Guides, each set of Design 
Parameters includes a standardized set of factors (e.g., Design Tread 
Width, Target Grade, and Short Pitch Maximum). These factors are 
defined in the interim final directives to enhance consistency in their 
application (FSM 2353.05 and FSH 2309.18, sec. 05).
    The Forest Service transitioned to the five Trail Classes in 1999 
and began using the Design Parameters in 2004. These inventory and 
trail management tools have been integrated throughout the agency's 
trail database, TMOs, and related management tools. The TCS and Design 
Parameters have resulted in improved consistency and quality of trail 
inventory, condition assessments, prescriptions reflecting the work 
needed to meet the National Quality Standards for Trails, and 
corresponding cost estimates. Therefore, it would not be cost-effective 
or productive to return to the earlier system.
2353.05--Definitions
    Comment. Some respondents supported a clearer distinction between 
nonmotorized bicycles and motor vehicles such as motorcycles.
    Response. The Forest Service agrees and in the interim final 
directives has added a definition that defines a bicycle as ``a pedal-
driven, human-powered device with two wheels attached to a frame, one 
behind the other.'' In addition, the agency has removed the definition 
for ``trail vehicle,'' defined as ``vehicles designed for trail use, 
such as bicycles, snowmobiles, trail bikes, trail scooters, and all 
terrain vehicles (ATV).''
    Comment. One respondent expressed concern that replacing the term 
``trail guides'' with ``Design Parameters'' lends the impression that 
they contain requirements, rather than guidelines, with little room for 
variance due to local situations. This respondent recommended using the 
term ``design parameter guidelines'' or revising FSH 2309.18, section 
14.5, paragraph 1, to state that the Design Parameters are only 
guidelines, not requirements.
    Response. The definition of Design Parameters included in FSM 
2353.05 and FSH 2309.18, section 05, and the introductory paragraph 
included with each set of Design Parameters state that the Design 
Parameters are technical guidelines. To clarify this point further, the 
agency has revised the introductory paragraph in each set of Design 
Parameters to state that the Design Parameters are technical guidelines 
for determining the parameters reflecting the management intent for 
each NFS trail. In addition, the agency has clarified the introductory 
paragraph in each set of Design Parameters to state that local 
deviations to any Design Parameter may be established based on specific 
trail conditions, topography, and other factors, provided that the 
deviations are consistent with the general intent of the applicable 
Trail Class.
    Comment. One respondent recommended changing the definition for 
Trail Class to ``a word description and numerical identifier of the 
trail development that represents the intended design and management 
standards of the trail.'' This respondent expressed concern that the 
definition in the proposed directives, ``The prescribed scale of trail 
development, representing the intended design and management standards 
of the trail,'' would give the impression that the Trail Class assigns 
the appropriate level of development, rather than reflecting its 
management intent.
    Response. The agency believes that the definition of Trail Class in 
the proposed directives is effective and succinct and is therefore not 
changing it in the interim final directives. After nearly 10 years of 
use, agency managers and technicians are familiar with this term as 
currently defined and, as a result, understand that determination of 
the appropriate Trail Class for each NFS trail or trail segment is 
based on the management intent for the trail as reflected in the 
applicable land management plan, applicable travel management 
decisions, trail-specific decisions, and other related direction, which 
may or may not reflect the current condition of the trail.
    Comment. One respondent recommended changing the definition for 
four-wheel drive way to ``a National Forest System Trail commonly used 
for four-wheel drive vehicles.''
    Response. In the interim final directives, the agency has replaced 
the term ``four-wheel drive way'' with the term ``four-wheel drive 
vehicle greater than 50 inches in width'' and its corresponding 
definition in FSM 2353.05 and FSH 2309.18, section 05. Defining the 
vehicle, rather than the type of trail used by the vehicle, is 
consistent with the concept of Managed Use, which is based on modes of 
travel, rather than trail categories defined by use type. Direction 
relating to four-wheel drive vehicles greater than 50 inches in width 
will be provided in the final travel management directives at FSM 2353, 
7700, and 7710 and FSH 7709.55. The agency has deleted FSM 2352, 
``Four-Wheel Drive Ways,'' from the interim final directives because 
the concept of four-wheel drive ways is no longer used by the agency.
    Comment. Two respondents recommended defining the term 
``trailheads'' to distinguish between a constructed parking area at a 
designated trailhead that has a hard surface and that is periodically 
maintained and a parking area with a natural or perhaps user-created 
surface. These respondents contended that this distinction is 
especially important when determining the applicability of the FSTAG 
between a trailhead and a trail.
    Response. The agency has revised the definition for ``trailhead'' 
in the interim final directives to include a related sub-definition of 
a trailhead for purposes of the FSTAG (FSM 2353.05).

[[Page 61607]]

2353.3--Difficulty Levels
    Comment. One respondent suggested requiring difficulty levels in 
FSM 2353.3 for pack and saddle and hiker/pedestrian uses that indicate 
the elevation and severity of a trail. This respondent stated that 
often when hikers share trails with equestrians, it can be dangerous 
for the riders and horses. This respondent recommended requiring 
posting of advice or warnings on trails with dangerous sections for 
inexperienced riders, such as a trail with rock bluffs and unsure 
footing and no areas in which to turn around.
    Response. The Forest Service does not believe that it would be 
appropriate to require posting of trail elevations, severity, or 
warnings on all NFS trails managed or designed to accommodate hiker/
pedestrian and pack and saddle use. This approach would not be 
consistent with management of NFS trails for other uses. Moreover, 
consistent with the FSTAG, the agency is no longer identifying 
difficulty levels for trails with a Designed Use of Hiker/Pedestrian. 
Instead, for trails in Trail Classes 4 and 5 with a Designed Use of 
Hiker/Pedestrian, the agency is requiring posting at trailheads the 
typical and maximum trail grade, typical and maximum cross slope, 
typical and minimum tread width, surface type and firmness, and 
obstacles. Managers have the discretion to post this information at 
trailheads for other Hiker/Pedestrian trails and NFS trails with other 
Managed or Designed Uses.

FSH 2309.18

Zero Code

05--Definitions
    The agency received the same comments on the definitions in FSM 
2353 and FSH 2309.18. Therefore, the agency is incorporating here by 
reference the response to comments on the definitions in FSM 2353.
FSH 2309.18, Chapter One (Recoded to Chapter 10 in the Interim Final 
Directives)
Section 1.2--Planning (Recoded to Section 12 in the Interim Final 
Directives)
    Comment. Two respondents supported field manager discretion in 
trail design and requested that this discretion be retained. Several 
respondents requested that the agency add flexibility to the proposed 
directives by basing Managed Uses and Design Parameters on practical 
concerns, instead of the proposed sets of overly rigorous Design 
Parameters. Several respondents requested that the agency give managers 
and resource specialists the discretion they need to design and 
maintain trails to retain their primitive and undeveloped character 
across all Trail Classes and Designed Uses. One respondent commented 
that the proposed directives should state that the determination of the 
appropriate Trail Class is not discretionary with the trail manager and 
should not reflect a trail's existing condition.
    Response. The agency believes that local managers need discretion 
to apply the TCS so as to reflect the management intent for NFS trails, 
which may or may not be consistent with their current condition. 
Accordingly, the proposed and interim final directives give local 
managers a considerable amount of discretion in identifying a trail's 
TMOs (including the applicable Trail Class, Managed Uses, Designed Use, 
and Design Parameters) based on the management intent for that trail. 
Flexibility is also built into the Design Parameters, providing a range 
for trail attributes such as tread width.
    Additionally, the Design Parameters allow for local deviations 
based on specific trail conditions, topography, and other factors, 
including desired setting, challenge levels, and experience 
opportunities, provided that the deviations are consistent with the 
general intent of the applicable Trail Class. To clarify this point, 
the agency has modified the Trail Class Matrix to reflect more clearly 
the range of ROS and WROS classes for each Trail Class (see Table 7 in 
section 4 of this preamble). In addition, the agency has added a 
footnote to the Trail Class Matrix stating that it displays commonly 
occurring combinations of Trail Class and ROS or WROS settings, 
although trails in all Trail Classes may and do occur in all settings 
(FSH 2309.18, sec. 14.2, ex. 01).
    Comment. Some respondents expressed concern that application of the 
TCS and Design Parameters would result in the closure or reduction of 
trails open to pack and saddle use and requested the opportunity to 
provide public input before any trails are reclassified, declassified, 
or closed. Several respondents stated that the agency should consider 
availability of funding, labor, materials, and time when making 
decisions about trail management and that lack of these factors should 
not result in reduction in the Trail Class.
    Response. The proposed and interim final directives do not provide 
for reduction in the Trail Class of any NFS trails, closure of any NFS 
trails, or removal of any NFS trails from the forest transportation 
system because of inability to maintain the trails to the applicable 
standard. To the contrary, the applicable Trail Class and Design 
Parameters of an NFS trail are based on its management intent, as 
reflected in applicable direction.
    In the interim final directives, the agency has revised FSH 
2309.18, sections 14.2 and 14.3, to state more clearly that 
determination of the Trail Class and Managed Uses of a trail is based 
on its management intent, as shown in the applicable land management 
plan, applicable travel management decisions, trail-specific decisions, 
and other related direction, which may or may not reflect the current 
condition of the trail.
    FSH 2309.18, section 18, identifies several factors to be 
considered when establishing priorities and requirements for trail 
management, including funding for labor and materials and scheduling of 
work. The directives include the National Quality Standards for Trails, 
which describe outcomes that trail users can expect to encounter and 
the level of quality the Forest Service plans to provide on NFS trails 
managed at a full-service level (FSH 2309.18, sec. 15). These standards 
establish the baseline for estimating the total cost of providing the 
quality opportunities visitors expect.
    Comment. Several respondents requested that the Forest Service 
develop a system for tracking consistency of TMOs with Forest Service 
planning documents that meet the requirements of NEPA and NFMA. One of 
these respondents stated that section 1.2, paragraph 2, of the proposed 
directives should clearly state that follow-up analysis needed to 
determine specific standards for a trail must comply with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Forest Management Act 
(NFMA) and be subject to appropriate public involvement. Another 
respondent believed that the proposed directives must include 
provisions for public input on determination of all trail 
classifications, maintenance needs, and design parameters.
    Response. TMOs must be consistent with the applicable land 
management plan, applicable travel management decisions, trail-specific 
decisions, and other related direction issued in compliance with NEPA. 
The agency believes that it is not necessary to establish a separate 
process for tracking consistency of TMOs with the applicable land 
management plan and other applicable direction.
    In addition, application of the TCS and Design Parameters does not 
trigger the public involvement requirements in

[[Page 61608]]

NEPA and NFMA. Application of the TCS and Design Parameters is based on 
a trail's management intent, as reflected in direction that has been 
issued in compliance with NEPA and NFMA. Therefore, further 
environmental analysis and public involvement are not required. See 
Back Country Horsemen of America v. Johanns, No. 05-0960 (D.D.C. Mar. 
29, 2006), slip op. at 15-20.
    During required public involvement for trail-related direction and 
in general, trail managers work with the public and trail groups to 
obtain their input regarding the status and management of trails they 
use. Changes in the management intent of NFS trails as reflected in the 
applicable land management plan, applicable travel management 
decisions, trail-specific decisions, and other related direction are 
subject to the direction in FSH 2309.18, section 11, including the 
direction regarding compliance with NEPA.
Section 1.42--Trail Classes (Recoded to Section 14.2 in the Interim 
Final Directives)
    Comment. One respondent disagreed that there is a direct 
relationship between Trail Class and Managed Uses, that is, that one 
cannot be determined without consideration of the other. This 
respondent acknowledged that they were related, but believed that the 
determination of Managed Uses is always made before the determination 
of the applicable Trail Class.
    Response. Generally, the determination of Managed Uses cannot be 
made before the determination of the applicable Trail Class and vice 
versa. Trail Class and Managed Uses are interdependent because the 
appropriate scale of development of a trail depends on the types of 
uses that are actively managed on the trail, and the reverse is also 
true. To clarify that this interdependence is not an absolute, the 
interim final directives state: ``There is a direct relationship 
between Managed Uses and Trail Class: generally, one cannot be 
determined without consideration of the other.''
Section 1.42, Exhibit 01--Trail Class Matrix (Recoded to Section 14.2, 
Exhibit 01, in the Interim Final Directives)
    Comment. Several respondents stated that the three previous trail 
classes of mainline (easy), secondary (more difficult), and way (most 
difficult) and the Pack and Saddle Trail Guide adequately accommodated 
pack and saddle use in all ROS and WROS classes. Some respondents 
requested that the proposed directives state that trails in Trail 
Classes 1 through 3 are appropriate in primitive and semiprimitive 
settings, both inside and outside wilderness areas. One respondent 
expressed concern that application of the TCS with regard to ROS and 
WROS classes would result in changes in management of wilderness areas 
and the uses that are accommodated in wilderness areas.
    Response. The agency believes that the Trail Classes and Design 
Parameters are better tools for managing NFS trails, including NFS 
trails with a Designed Use of Pack and Saddle in all ROS and WROS 
settings, than the previous three difficulty levels and Trail Guides. 
In comparison with the previous three categories, the five Trail 
Classes are keyed more precisely to the physical characteristics of NFS 
trails and more accurately stratify NFS trails for purposes of 
inventory, land management planning, visitor information, and 
establishment of maintenance and construction costs.
    When the agency shifted from the Trail Guides to the Design 
Parameters in 2004, the design, construction, and maintenance 
guidelines in the Trail Guides, including the Pack and Saddle Trail 
Guide, changed in only minor, technical ways with no effect on how 
trails are managed on the ground. In contrast to the Trail Guides, 
which did not correlate with the trail classes of mainline, secondary, 
and way in the agency's database, the Design Parameters track the five 
Trail Classes. In addition, the Design Parameters refine and clarify 
the categories and values in the Trail Guides.
    The agency does not believe it is appropriate to state 
categorically that trails in Trail Classes 1 through 3 are appropriate 
in primitive and semiprimitive settings, both inside and outside 
wilderness areas. However, the agency has clarified in a new footnote 3 
to the Trail Class Matrix (FSH 2309.18, section 14.2, exhibit 01, in 
the interim final directives) that the matrix shows commonly occurring 
combinations of Trail Class and ROS and WROS settings, but that trails 
in all Trail Classes may and do occur in all settings. The new footnote 
3 also refers managers to FSM 2310 and 2353 and FSH 2309.18 for 
guidance on application of the ROS and WROS.
    Application of the TCS does not change management of wilderness 
areas or the uses that are accommodated in wilderness areas. Land 
management planning establishes ROS and WROS classes. The TCS merely 
provides managers with a tool for more consistently and effectively 
inventorying trails and identifying and communicating trail conditions 
and the work needed to maintain trails to their prescribed standard.
    Comment. Several respondents requested that the proposed directives 
give local managers the discretion to use treated round or dimensional 
timber for the construction and maintenance of water bars, puncheon, 
turnpike, and bridge components in Trail Classes 1 through 3 where it 
will not detract from the desired experience of a typical user. These 
respondents also requested that the proposed directives give local 
managers the discretion to use laminated and steel components in the 
construction and maintenance of trail structures in Trail Class 3.
    One respondent objected to the guidance to use only native 
materials for the surface of trails in Trail Classes 1 and 2 and 
typically native materials for the surface of trails in Trail Class 3 
on the grounds that this guidance would impose unnecessary costs. This 
respondent recommended that use of treated materials not be precluded 
or discouraged for the surface of trails in Trail Classes 1 through 3 
when use of those materials would not detract from the desired user 
experience.
    Response. The Trail Class Matrix provides guidance, rather than 
direction, to local trail managers in identification of the applicable 
Trail Class based on applicable land management plan direction, 
applicable travel management decisions, trail-specific decisions, and 
other related direction. The Trail Class Matrix clearly states that 
local deviations from any Trail Class descriptor may be established 
based on trail-specific conditions, topography, or other factors, 
provided that the deviations are consistent with the general intent of 
the applicable Trail Class.
    To address these respondents' concerns and to enhance clarity, the 
agency has made several modifications to the Trail Class Matrix, as 
shown in Table 7 in section 4 of this preamble. Specifically, the 
agency has modified the Tread and Traffic Flow descriptors from 
``Native materials only'' to ``Predominantly native materials'' for 
Trail Class 1; from ``Native materials'' to ``Typically native 
materials'' for Trail Class 2; and from ``Typically native materials'' 
to ``Native or imported materials'' for Trail Class 3.
    The agency has modified the descriptors for Constructed Features 
and Trail Elements to remove references to the material type for 
structures, other than a reference to native materials for natural 
fords in Trail Class 1; a reference to native materials for structures 
and natural fords in Trail Class 2; and a

[[Page 61609]]

reference to structures being typically constructed of imported 
materials and a reference to constructed or natural fords in Trail 
Class 3. To minimize confusion, the agency has removed the reference in 
Trail Class 3 to generally native materials being used in wilderness 
areas.
    Comment. Several respondents requested that local managers be given 
the discretion to use a bridge to cross any stream that meets the 
criteria in proposed FSH 2309.18, section 2.31, paragraph b, regardless 
of Trail Class.
    Response. FSH 2309.18, section 2.31, paragraph b, in the proposed 
directives provided guidance on trail bridges constructed to 
accommodate pack and saddle use. The agency has retained this guidance, 
except for expanding the guidance regarding minimum bridge widths of 48 
inches to include minimum bridge railing heights and a reference to the 
corresponding guidance in FSH 7709.56b, section 7.69, exhibit 01, Trail 
Bridge Design Criteria. In addition, the agency has added guidance to 
the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters regarding the minimum width of 
bridges with and without handrails for each of the Trail Classes 
managed for pack and saddle use (Trail Classes 2 through 4), as shown 
in Table 9 in section 4 of this preamble.
    The Trail Class Matrix in the proposed directives provided guidance 
in Trail Classes 3 through 5 regarding use of bridges where they are 
determined to be needed and appropriate and, by allowing for 
deviations, provided the discretion to use bridges in Trail Classes 1 
through 2 where they are determined to be necessary. In the Trail Class 
Matrix in the interim final directives, the agency has removed ``no 
constructed bridges or foot crossings'' from the descriptors in Trail 
Class 1; replaced ``primitive foot crossings and fords'' with ``bridges 
as needed for resource protection and appropriate access'' in Trail 
Class 2; and made minor, nonsubstantive edits to the references to 
bridges in Trail Classes 3 through 5 (see Table 7 in section 4 of this 
preamble).
    Comment. Several respondents requested that the Trail Class Matrix 
provide for minimum signing at all NFS trail junctions and encourage 
marking along all NFS trails.
    Response. The agency agrees that the Trail Class Matrix needs to 
contain additional guidance on signing at NFS trail junctions and 
marking along NFS trails. Accordingly, the agency has modified the 
Trail Class Matrix, as shown in Table 7 in section 4 of this preamble, 
to include guidance regarding signing at trail junctions and route 
markers for all Trail Classes and has added a footnote referencing 
additional applicable guidance and direction in the Sign and Poster 
Guidelines for the Forest Service (EM-7100-15).
    Comment. One respondent believed that by specifying that trails in 
Trail Class 4 would rarely occur in wilderness areas, the agency would 
be relegating pack and saddle use in wilderness areas to the hazards or 
obstacles associated with the lower Trail Classes that were not 
encountered by long pack strings when the Wilderness Act was passed, 
thereby redefining the character of wilderness areas.
    Response. In the interim final directives, the agency has removed 
this language and replaced it with language stating that the WROS class 
typically includes WROS Transition or Portal classes. Trails that were 
previously classified as mainline now fall into Trail Class 2, Trail 
Class 3, or Trail Class 4. Trails in Trail Classes 2 and 3 are commonly 
found in wilderness areas, while trails in Trail Class 4 that occur in 
wilderness areas are typically limited to access routes and routes 
connecting wilderness to nonwilderness areas.
    Tables 1 through 6 in section 3 of this preamble show that the 
range of trails covered by the Pack and Saddle Trail Guide equates with 
the range of trails covered by the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters. 
The Design Parameters provide guidance, rather than direction, based on 
the management intent for a trail and its Trail Class. The Design 
Parameters state that local deviations from any Design Parameter may be 
established based on trail-specific conditions, topography, or other 
factors, provided that the deviations are consistent with the general 
intent of the applicable Trail Class. Therefore, the Design Parameters 
do not cause changes in on-the-ground management of NFS trails.
    Comment. Two respondents stated that four-wheel drive motor 
vehicles do not fit neatly into the paradigm established for all other 
trail uses outlined in section 1.42, Exhibit 01, of the proposed 
directives and that trails for four-wheel drive motor vehicles should 
be designed to provide a more challenging experience. These respondents 
provided a revised version of the Trail Class Matrix entitled, ``Trail 
Classes, Four-Wheel Drive Motor Vehicles Only.'' The proposed matrix 
included the five Trail Classes ranging from least developed to most 
developed, but reversed the corresponding level of challenge, so that 
trails in Trail Class 1 would be the least developed and least 
challenging, and trails in Trail Class 5 would be the most developed 
and most challenging. The respondents' proposed trail class matrix for 
four-wheel drive motor vehicles included descriptors for each trail 
class attribute.
    Response. The Forest Service does not believe that this proposed 
approach to four-wheel drive motor vehicles is appropriate. The five 
Trail Classes reflect the scale of development, arranged along a 
continuum, for all NFS trails, regardless of their Managed Uses, with 
the level of challenge decreasing with the level of development. The 
agency does not believe that it would be productive or appropriate to 
develop a set of Trail Classes specific to only one Managed Use. In 
addition, it would be counter-intuitive to reverse the level of 
challenge associated with the scale of development, since as trails 
become more developed, they become less challenging. The agency 
believes that trails that are managed for four-wheel drive motor 
vehicles are encompassed by the Trail Class Matrix. In addition, four-
wheel drive motor vehicles are covered by the chart addressing the 
potential appropriateness of the five Trail Classes for the Managed 
Uses of NFS trails and are addressed in their own set of Design 
Parameters in the interim final directives.
    Comment. One respondent expressed concern about removing the four 
sets of additional criteria included with the Trail Class Matrix. This 
respondent believed that this information serves a useful purpose and 
provides additional guidance. However, this respondent noted that 
removal of this information from the Trail Class Matrix would be 
acceptable if it were adequately covered elsewhere in the directives.
    Response. The agency has incorporated the information contained in 
the four sets of additional criteria included with the Trail Class 
Matrix into the corresponding sets of Design Parameters. Therefore, the 
agency believes that removal of the additional criteria from the Trail 
Class Matrix is appropriate.
Section 1.45--Design Parameters (Recoded to Section 14.5 in the Interim 
Final Directives)
    Comment. Several respondents expressed concern that the Design 
Parameters are overly rigorous and would be costly and impractical to 
implement.
    Response. The agency disagrees that the Design Parameters are 
overly rigorous or will be costly or impractical to implement. The 
Design Parameters are technical guidelines, rather than requirements, 
for trail survey, design, construction, maintenance, and assessment. 
Local deviations from any

[[Page 61610]]

Design Parameter may be established based on trail-specific conditions, 
topography, or other factors, provided that the deviations are 
consistent with the general intent of the applicable Trail Class. In 
addition, in contrast to the Trail Guides, the Design Parameters 
provide greater consistency and precision for all Managed Uses, which 
will enhance local managers' ability to effectively and efficiently 
develop trail prescriptions that reflect the management intent for each 
NFS trail.
Section 1.6, Exhibit 01--Trail Operation and Maintenance Considerations
    Comment. Two respondents proposed a set of ``Trail Operation and 
Maintenance Considerations for Four-Wheel Drive Motor Vehicle Trails 
Only,'' based on the respondents' proposed version of the Trail Class 
Matrix, where trails in Trail Class 1 would be the least developed and 
least challenging, and trails in Trail Class 5 would be the most 
developed and most challenging.
    Response. The agency does not believe that it is necessary to 
provide a set of Trail Operation and Maintenance Considerations 
specific to one Managed Use, nor does the agency believe that it is 
appropriate to reverse the level of challenge associated with the scale 
of development. In addition, trails managed for four-wheel drive motor 
vehicles are covered by the Trail Operation and Maintenance 
Considerations, which apply to all NFS trails.

Chapter 2--Trail Development (Recoded to Chapter 20 in the Interim 
Final Directives)

Section 2.23a--Trailhead Location (Recoded as Section 22.41 in the 
Interim Final Directives)
    Comment. Two respondents expressed concern that the statement in 
proposed section 2.23a, paragraph 1, regarding locating trailheads so 
as to allow access to the greatest number and types of trails could 
eliminate trailheads serving trails with only one type of use and could 
lead to use conflicts and illegal use of trails.
    Response. The agency has clarified this paragraph in the interim 
final directives at FSH 2309.18, section 22.41, to provide for locating 
trailheads so as to allow access to trails with the same Managed Use or 
with multiple Managed Uses, depending on the combination of uses, 
relative use levels, and potential for use conflicts. In addition, this 
provision states that the development scale and size of the trailhead 
facility should match the carrying capacity of the area and the Trail 
Classes of the trails to be served.
Section 2.23c--Pack and Saddle Trailheads (Recoded as Section 22.43 in 
the Interim Final Directives)
    Comment. One respondent believed that the section on pack and 
saddle trailheads had not yet been written and wanted to know when this 
section would be developed and how the respondent could comment on it.
    Response. FSH 2309.18, section 2.23c, in the current directives 
provides guidance regarding development and management of pack and 
saddle trailheads. The agency has not proposed any substantive changes 
to this section.
    Comment. One respondent requested that the Forest Service increase 
access for horsetrailers and trucks for horse camping and staging near 
NFS trails. One respondent wanted to use stock trailers and trucks on 
NFS lands to access trails and to engage in dispersed camping, without 
being confined to designated staging areas or designated access routes.
    Response. The interim final directives provide local managers with 
tools for more consistently and effectively inventorying trails and 
identifying and communicating trail conditions and the work needed to 
maintain trails to their prescribed standard. The interim final 
directives have no effect on motor vehicle access to NFS lands. 
Designation of routes for motor vehicle use by vehicle class, and if 
appropriate, by time of year is governed by 36 CFR part 212, subpart B. 
The agency is finalizing separate directives implementing 36 CFR part 
212, subpart B.
    The Forest Service recognizes the importance of providing adequate 
access for equestrians at trailheads accessing pack and saddle trails. 
The agency will continue to provide facilities for staging, loading, 
and unloading pack and saddle stock. The Forest Service is designating 
those NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands that are open to 
motor vehicle use pursuant to 36 CFR part 212, subpart B. In 
designating routes, responsible officials may include the limited use 
of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated 
routes for dispersed camping.
    Comment. One respondent questioned the adequacy of trailhead 
parking in Trail Class 3 for pack and saddle stock and cited design and 
location concerns with specific trailheads in the Southwestern Region. 
This respondent stressed the need for adequate space and visibility for 
parking stock trucks and trailers and proper directional orientation of 
parking lines. This respondent also raised safety concerns regarding 
placement of a step-over gate near a culvert that horses could step 
into, locating parking along a curve in a road, and the speed of 
traffic along roads paralleling access trails. This respondent also 
recommended drainage improvement and expansion of a particular 
trailhead.
    Response. The proposed directives identified general design 
considerations for pack and saddle trailheads. The interim final 
directives at FSH 2309.18, section 22.43, address some of the 
respondent's concerns by pointing out that the needs of pack and saddle 
trail users vary based on the type of vehicle used to transport pack 
and saddle stock. The respondent's concerns about a specific trailhead 
will be best addressed if they are brought to the attention of the 
appropriate District Ranger's or Forest or Grassland Supervisor's 
Office.
Section 2.24--Facilities and Associated Constructed Features Along 
Trails (Recoded as Section 22.5 in the Interim Final Directives)
Section 2.24, paragraph 2b--Trail Shelters or Lean-Tos With Three Walls 
in a GFA (Recoded as Section 22.5, Paragraph 2b, in the Interim Final 
Directives)
    Comment. One respondent noted that it is impossible to use a 
wheelchair at snowmobile warming and safety shelters in the State of 
Wyoming due to their remote location and requested clarification 
regarding accessibility requirements at snowmobile warming and safety 
shelters.
    Response. All people, including people with disabilities, can and 
do access remote areas by horse, sit-ski, snowmobile, or their own 
wheelchair. The Architectural Barriers Act requires facilities that are 
constructed, altered, or leased by, for, or on behalf of a federal 
agency to be in compliance with the accessibility guidelines in effect 
at the time of construction. Remote facilities such as three-sided 
shelters and pit toilets are changed very little by incorporation of 
applicable accessibility guidelines.
    For example, a door on a pit toilet must be at least 32 inches 
wide. If the pit toilet consists simply of a riser with no walls, the 
only requirement for accessibility is that the riser be 17 to 19 inches 
above the ground, with adjacent clear space. To be accessible, the open 
side of a three-sided shelter must have a floor that is no higher than 
17 to 19 inches above the ground to allow for transfer from a 
wheelchair. Each of these accessibility requirements is

[[Page 61611]]

reasonable and blends into the structure, ensuring that everyone can 
use the facility without changing its natural setting.
Section 2.25--Wilderness Considerations (Recoded as Section 22.6 in the 
Interim Final Directives)
    Comment. One respondent recommended that a different set of 
standards be developed for trails in wilderness areas. In support of 
this recommendation, this respondent stated that unlike trails in 
nonwilderness areas, trails in wilderness areas are not always designed 
for a variety of uses and that trails and related structures in 
wilderness areas are subject to a specific, narrower standard, i.e., 
the minimum required to protect wilderness.
    Response. The Trail Class Matrix and Design Parameters are national 
guidelines that are applied and adapted by local managers in wilderness 
areas to reflect the management intent of NFS trails, based on the 
applicable land management plan and wilderness management plan and 
consistent with wilderness management direction in FSM 2320. The Design 
Parameters provide a full range of values that can be applied in the 
development of trail-specific prescriptions that reflect the management 
intent for NFS trails in wilderness areas. All of the Design Parameters 
give local managers discretion to develop trail-specific prescriptions 
to meet applicable management direction and site-specific needs.
Section 2.3--Design Parameters (Recoded as Section 23 in the Interim 
Final Directives)
    Comment. One respondent believed that it would not be feasible to 
meet the guidelines for trail grades in the Rocky Mountain Region.
    Response. The agency believes that the range of trail grades in the 
Design Parameters reflects the topography of NFS lands nationwide and 
generally covers all NFS trails. There are thousands of miles of NFS 
trails in the Rocky Mountain Region with trail grades that match those 
in the Design Parameters. Moreover, as illustrated in Tables 5 and 6 in 
section 3 of this preamble, the trail grades included in the Design 
Parameters are generally consistent with the trail grades in the Trail 
Guides.
Section 2.31a--Hiker/Pedestrian Design Parameters (Recoded as Section 
23.11 in the Interim Final Directives)
    Comment. Some respondents recommended adding a set of Design 
Parameters for runners, on the grounds that runners have distinct needs 
and objectives that are different from and in some cases conflict with 
the needs and objectives of the uses covered by the existing Design 
Parameters.
    Response. Each set of Design Parameters is based on a mode of 
travel. The mode of travel for hikers, pedestrians, and runners is on 
foot. The Hiker/Pedestrian Design Parameters reflect a wide range of 
desired experience and challenge levels for runners. Local managers 
determine the Managed Uses, Designed Use, and Design Parameters of an 
NFS trail based on applicable land management plan direction, 
applicable travel management decisions, trail-specific decisions, and 
other related direction. This direction is based on consideration of 
current trail uses and their volume, relative levels, and seasons of 
use; potential or existing use conflicts; desired distances and 
challenge levels; topography; estimated development and maintenance 
costs; and other factors.
    Comment. Several respondents believed that the Hiker/Pedestrian 
Design Parameters should apply to trails that have not historically 
accommodated pack and saddle use or to trails on which pack and saddle 
use is prohibited.
    Response. The Hiker/Pedestrian Design Parameters were derived from 
the Hiker and Barrier-Free Trail Guides. Like hiker and barrier-free 
trails, NFS trails managed for hiker/pedestrian use span the widest 
range of development scale of any NFS trails, ranging from minimally 
developed, very rugged and challenging trails in Trail Class 1 to fully 
developed, minimally challenging, high-use, and often accessible trails 
in Trail Class 5 (see Tables 1 and 3 in section 3 of this preamble). 
This broad range of trails is a well-established and legitimate Managed 
Use on many NFS trails.
    Many NFS trails are actively managed for both hiker/pedestrian and 
pack and saddle use, in which case the Designed Use would be Pack and 
Saddle. There are other instances, however, where NFS trails are 
actively managed for hiker/pedestrian use and pack and saddle use, 
although allowed, is not actively managed. In these situations, the 
Hiker/Pedestrian Design Parameters would apply. Local managers 
determine the Managed Uses and Designed Use of a trail, based on 
applicable land management plan direction, applicable travel management 
decisions, trail-specific decisions, and other related direction.
    Comment. One respondent requested clarification of proposed section 
2.31a, paragraph 3, regarding measurement of tread width for structures 
across wet areas in the Hiker/Pedestrian Design Parameters. 
Specifically, this respondent asked whether the tread on a puncheon of 
two planks placed 2 to 4 inches apart is measured from the outer edge 
of one plank to the outer edge of the other, or whether the tread is 
measured as the width of each plank.
    Response. In the interim final directives, the agency has revised 
section 2.31a regarding trail crossings at wet areas or streams to 
track the guidelines in the Design Parameters regarding the minimum 
tread width for trail structures. Specifically, section 23.11, 
paragraph 3, in the interim final directives states that stepping 
stones generally should be at least 12 to 18 inches wide, depending on 
the Trail Class of the trail and its management intent, and should be 
set no more than 24 inches apart. Additionally, as shown in Table 8 in 
section 4 of this preamble, the agency has added the attribute of 
minimum width of trail structures to the Design Parameters to provide 
better guidance regarding the minimum usable tread width on trail 
structures such as puncheon, bridges, and turnpike.
    Comment. Another respondent recommended eliminating Design 
Parameters and guidance in the proposed directives that would undermine 
the primitive character of hiker/pedestrian trails. Specifically, the 
respondent suggested removing specific guidance in FSH 2309.18, section 
2.31b, paragraph 3, regarding location of turns and section 2.31a, 
paragraphs 2 and 4, regarding a minimum tread width on structures 
across wet areas, the maximum spacing between stepping stones, and 
adequate design of bridges.
    Response. The agency does not believe that any Design Parameters or 
guidance in the proposed directives needs to be removed to preserve the 
primitive character of hiker/pedestrian trails. The guidance 
recommended for removal is needed to design trails that can accommodate 
hiker/pedestrian use safely and adequately. Local managers and 
technicians have the discretion to determine the appropriate turn for 
specific locations, based on the interim final directives and their 
experience, training, and judgment.
    Section 2.31a, paragraph 4, of the proposed directives does not 
require installation of bridges, but rather provides useful guidance 
regarding adequate design once a determination has been made that a 
bridge is needed. Therefore, the agency has retained this guidance in 
the interim final directives.

[[Page 61612]]

2.31a, Exhibit 01--Hiker/Pedestrian Design Parameters (Recoded as 
Section 23.11, Exhibit 01, in the Interim Final Directives)
    Comment. One respondent assumed that most of the Appalachian 
National Scenic Trail would be classified as Trail Class 2 or 3 and 
only in limited circumstances as Trail Class 4 or 5, where the trail 
passes through developed areas. This respondent was unsure whether 
portions of the trail passing through a wilderness area would be 
classified as Trail Class 1. If so, the respondent was concerned that 
this classification would preclude historical camping practices, 
including installation of shelters and improved campsites. This 
respondent expressed appreciation for provisions in the Trail Class 
Matrix that would accommodate these practices.
    Response. Local managers determine the applicable Trail Class of a 
National Scenic Trail or trail segment based on the comprehensive plan 
for the trail, applicable land management plan direction, applicable 
travel management decisions, trail-specific decisions, and other 
related direction.
    The classification of an NFS trail does not determine whether 
improvements along the trail are appropriate. The applicable Trail 
Class represents the development scale of the trail itself. 
Improvements adjacent to the trail should be consistent with the 
applicable land management plan or other management direction for the 
trail and surrounding area.
Section 2.31b--Pack and Saddle Design Parameters (Recoded as Section 
23.12, Exhibit 01, in the Interim Final Directives)
    Comment. Some respondents expressed concern that the changes to the 
Design Parameters would discriminate against pack and saddle use and 
represent an attempt by the Forest Service to eliminate pack and saddle 
access to NFS trails. One respondent expressed concern that the 
proposed Pack and Saddle Design Parameters would prevent an older 
person with disabilities from accessing the backcountry on horseback. 
One respondent requested that there continue to be unlimited access for 
horses to all NFS lands.
    Two other respondents requested no reduction in the trail miles 
currently open to pack and saddle use. Some respondents expressed 
concern that implementation of the Design Parameters would result in 
NFS trails inside and outside wilderness areas being classified to a 
lower Trail Class, removed from the forest transportation system, or 
being no longer available for pack and saddle stock use. Several 
respondents expressed concern that the TCS reduces the spectrum of 
recreation opportunities and possibly the number of trails available 
for pack and saddle use in wilderness and nonwilderness areas. One 
respondent stated that there should be no reduction in the scope of 
existing trail classification or maintenance standards anywhere on NFS 
lands. Other respondents were concerned that implementation of the 
Design Parameters would result in camping areas no longer being 
available for pack and saddle use.
    Several respondents requested that recreational pack and saddle use 
be accommodated in each wilderness area and in each portion of a 
wilderness area that had a history of pack and saddle use when the area 
was designated, and that historical access to equestrian trails in 
wilderness areas be maintained, unless a subsequent decision has been 
made to the contrary to preserve the area's wilderness character. One 
respondent expressed concern that implementation of the Design 
Parameters would primarily affect wilderness areas and that restriction 
of wilderness access would have a broad impact on equestrian use and 
expressed particular interest in the effect of implementation of the 
TCS on equestrian access to wilderness areas in the Mark Twain National 
Forest.
    Response. The Design Parameters do not reduce the range of 
recreation opportunities or the number of trails available for pack and 
saddle use, including the miles of NFS trails available to riders for 
accessing the backcountry or wilderness areas. Application of the 
Design Parameters will not cause on-the-ground changes or preclude 
access to any trail users, nor will it cause reclassification of NFS 
trails, removal of NFS trails from the forest transportation system, or 
a reduction in NFS trails managed for any uses, including pack and 
saddle use.
    To the contrary, the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters encompass 
the full range of trails covered by the Pack and Saddle Trail Guide and 
in fact cover more trails in the upper end of Trail Class 4 than the 
Pack and Saddle Trail Guide (see Tables 5 and 6 in section 3 of this 
preamble). Moreover, the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters are either 
identical or functionally equivalent to the Pack and Saddle Trail Guide 
or reflect an expansion of a category (see Tables 5 and 6 in section 3 
of this preamble).
    Implementation of the Design Parameters will not affect on-the-
ground management of NFS trails, including pack and saddle trails, 
because local managers determine the applicable Design Parameters of a 
trail or trail segment based on applicable land management plan 
direction, applicable travel management decisions, trail-specific 
decisions, and other related direction. In addition, the Design 
Parameters give managers the flexibility to deviate from their 
guidelines based on specific trail conditions, topography, and other 
factors, provided that the deviations are consistent with the general 
intent of the applicable Trail Class.
    Determinations regarding continuation, addition, or reduction of 
trail access on NFS lands are subject to applicable land management 
plan direction, applicable travel management decisions, trail-specific 
decisions, and other related direction. Substantive changes in the 
management intent for NFS trails are subject to the direction in FSH 
2309.18, section 11, including the direction regarding compliance with 
NEPA.
    Local managers apply and adapt the Trail Class Matrix and Design 
Parameters in wilderness areas to reflect the management intent of NFS 
trails, based on the applicable land management plan and wilderness 
management plan and consistent with wilderness management direction in 
FSM 2320. All of the Design Parameters give local managers discretion 
to develop trail-specific prescriptions to meet applicable wilderness 
management direction.
    The Design Parameters do not apply to developed sites, such as 
campgrounds. Therefore, application of the Design Parameters will not 
affect the availability of developed sites, including campgrounds, for 
pack and saddle use.
    The Forest Service has long recognized and continues to recognize 
the value and role of pack and saddle use as a mode of travel and 
recreation opportunity on NFS trails. The interim final directives 
refine the agency's trail inventory, planning, and management tools, 
resulting in enhanced clarity, quality, and consistency in management 
of all uses of NFS trails, including pack and saddle use.
    Comment. Two respondents requested that the historical importance 
of pack and saddle use be considered in determining the appropriate 
level of trail maintenance for pack and saddle trails.
    Response. Consistent with the Forest Service's multiple-use mission 
under the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, 16 U.S.C. 528-531, the 
agency strives

[[Page 61613]]

not to elevate any use of the NFS above any other. The agency endeavors 
to manage the NFS for a variety of uses, including a variety of trail 
uses.
    The Design Parameters establish guidelines for maintenance of NFS 
trails. The Trail Operation and Maintenance Considerations provide 
additional guidance on maintenance of NFS trails. The Pack and Saddle 
Design Parameters and the portion of the Trail Operation and 
Maintenance Considerations that apply to the Designed Use of Pack and 
Saddle provide appropriate guidelines for maintenance of NFS trails 
with a Designed Use of Pack and Saddle. Specifically, the Pack and 
Saddle Design Parameters provide guidance regarding adequate tread 
width, grades, cross slope, clearing limits, and turning radius. In 
addition, the Trail Operation and Maintenance Considerations Matrix 
provides guidance regarding maintenance indicators and the frequency 
and intensity of routine maintenance.
    Comment. One respondent asked the agency to eliminate Design 
Parameters and guidance that would undermine the primitive character of 
pack and saddle trails and identified several specific items that 
should be removed on that basis.
    Response. The agency does not believe that application of any of 
the Design Parameters or guidelines in the proposed directives would 
undermine the primitive character of pack and saddle trails. The Pack 
and Saddle Design Parameters, including the items recommended for 
removal, are needed to design trails that can accommodate pack and 
saddle use safely and adequately. The agency believes that the 
requested changes would preclude pack and saddle use or would result in 
pack and saddle trails that are poorly designed, that are not 
sustainable, and that adversely affect the safety of equestrians. For 
example, section 23.12, paragraph 1, in the interim final directives 
distinguishes between day use and long-term use, which is important 
information to consider when identifying the applicable Design 
Parameters for clearing limits, including the need for pack clearances. 
Consequently, the agency has declined to adopt the respondent's 
recommendation regarding elimination of guidelines in the Pack and 
Saddle Design Parameters and the considerations for their application 
in the interim final directives.
    Comment. One respondent commented on the apparent inconsistency 
between the minimum turning radius of 5 feet for pack and saddle trails 
in section 2.31b, paragraph 3, of the current directives and the 
turning radius of 4 to 5 feet for Trail Class 2 in the Pack and Saddle 
Design Parameters in the proposed directives. This respondent stated 
that since the Forest Service is attempting to provide some diversity 
within Trail Classes, section 2.31b, paragraph 3, should be changed to 
reflect the 4-to-5-foot range for turning radius in the Design 
Parameters.
    Response. The Design Turn attribute in the Design Parameters refers 
to turns in general, including switchbacks and climbing turns, whereas 
the guidance regarding the 5-foot turning radius in section 2.31b, 
paragraph 3, in the current directives refers specifically to 
switchbacks. The 4-to-5-foot range in the Design Parameters is 
appropriate for turns in general.
    To enhance clarity, the agency has added a definition for ``Design 
Turn'' in FSH 2309.18, section 05, in the interim final directives. The 
agency has also modified section 2.31b, paragraph 3 in the proposed 
directives (section 23.12, paragraph 3, in the interim final 
directives), to provide specific guidance regarding a 4-foot minimum 
radius for climbing turns, in addition to the existing guidance 
regarding a 5-foot minimum radius for switchbacks. In addition, section 
23.12, paragraph 3, in the interim final directives provides for 
consideration of the applicable Trail Class and site-specific 
conditions when determining the appropriate radii for climbing turns 
and switchbacks.
    Comment. One respondent pointed out that the section pertaining to 
the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters in the proposed directives was 
improperly designated as section 2.31c, instead of section 2.3b.
    Response. The agency has correctly designated the section 
pertaining to the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters (section 23.12) in 
the interim final directives.
    Comment. One respondent observed that section 2.31b, paragraph 4, 
in the current directives provides guidance regarding measurement and 
provision of pack clearances, but that the Pack and Saddle Design 
Parameters in the proposed directives make no reference to this 
guidance.
    Response. The Forest Service appreciates this respondent's 
observation and has added guidance regarding pack clearances to the 
Pack and Saddle Design Parameters, as shown in Table 9 in section 4 of 
this preamble.
    Comment. One respondent commented that section 2.31b, paragraph 5, 
in the current directives mentions providing a clearance of 48 to 60 
inches along precipices, but that the accompanying Design Parameters in 
the proposed directives provide for a clearance of 60 inches along 
precipices for Trail Classes 3 and 4. This respondent recommended that 
the intent regarding the 60-inch clearance in the Design Parameters be 
more specifically enumerated or that the range for the corresponding 
clearance be deleted from section 2.31b, paragraph 5.
    Response. The guidance in the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters 
applies to trails designed for day use, equestrians with loaded pack 
strings, and combinations of both. Section 2.31b, paragraph 5, of the 
current directives provides additional guidance specific to trails 
managed for use by pack strings by referring to accommodation ``of pack 
clearance on trails cut through solid rock on steep sidehills'' and 
stating that ``along a precipice or other hazardous area, the trail 
base should be at least 48 inches to 60 inches wide to be safe for both 
animal and rider.''
    The Pack and Saddle Design Parameters in the proposed directives 
provide for tread widths of up to 48 inches at switchbacks, turnpikes, 
fords and steep side slopes for Trail Classes 2 through 4 and up to 60 
inches along precipices for Trail Classes 3 and 4. The statements for 
Design Tread Width in the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters of ``may be 
to 48 inches,'' rather than ``at least 48 inches,'' along steep side 
slopes and ``up to 60 inches,'' rather than ``at least 60 inches,'' 
along precipices, provides clear guidance while allowing for exercise 
of local managers' discretion in determining the appropriate tread 
width, including consideration of the topography and whether the trail 
is managed for day rides or loaded pack strings. This approach provides 
guidance to local managers without requiring application of a specific 
tread width that might be appropriate in some situations, but might 
result in unnecessary or undesirable overdevelopment in others.
    When the Design Parameters include a range of values or a minimum 
or maximum value for any given attribute, FSH 2309.18, section 14.5, 
paragraph 3, of the interim final directives instructs managers to 
identify a single value that reflects the management intent for the 
trail. Moreover, as the respondent noted, local deviations from any 
Design Parameter may be established based on trail-specific conditions, 
topography, or other factors, provided that the deviations are 
consistent with the general intent of the applicable Trail Class.

[[Page 61614]]

    However, the agency agrees that the guidance regarding tread widths 
in the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters could be clarified. 
Accordingly, the agency has clarified the text regarding tread widths 
along steep side slopes and precipices and has specified tread widths 
of 48 to 60 inches or greater along precipices in Trail Class 2. In 
addition, the agency has replaced the Design Tread Width for Trail 
Class 3 and Trail Class 4 of ``up to 60 inches along precipices'' with 
``48 to 60 inches or greater along precipices'' to clarify the minimum 
appropriate tread width and to state more clearly that tread widths 
greater than 60 inches may be appropriate when deemed necessary (see 
Table 9 in section 4 of this preamble).
2.31b, Exhibit 01--Pack and Saddle Design Parameters (Recoded as 
Section 23.12, Exhibit 01, in the Interim Final Directives)
    Comment. Several respondents requested that the agency incorporate 
into the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters for Trail Classes 1 through 
3 the continuum of trail opportunities provided by mainline (easiest), 
secondary (more difficult), and way (most difficult) trails and their 
corresponding standards in the Pack and Saddle Trail Guides.
    One respondent expressed concern that trails in Trail Class 2 would 
not be maintained for pack and saddle use. Another respondent believed 
that the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters for Trail Class 2 were 
inadequate to accommodate pack and saddle use.
    Several respondents expressed concern that trails in Trail Class 1 
would not be designed or maintained to accommodate pack and saddle use. 
Several respondents expressed concern that some trails where equestrian 
use is allowed, both inside and outside wilderness areas, would be 
classified as Trail Class 1 and would no longer be available for 
equestrian use, including equestrian use conducted by outfitters and 
guides.
    Response. In developing the TCS, the agency transitioned from three 
to five trail classes. Thus, the TCS is more refined than the previous 
trail classification system in terms of the development scale reflected 
in the Trail Classes and the technical guidelines in the Design 
Parameters.
    With respect to the Trail Class Matrix, the range of NFS trails 
managed for pack and saddle use falls within the broader range of NFS 
trails managed for hiker/pedestrian use, which encompasses the least 
developed and most developed NFS trails (see Tables 1 through 4 in 
section 3 of this preamble). The Forest Service has incorporated the 
full range of trail opportunities and corresponding standards from the 
Pack and Saddle Trail Guides into Trail Classes 2 through 4 of the Pack 
and Saddle Design Parameters. The agency believes that trails in Trail 
Classes 2 through 4, which range from moderately developed to highly 
developed, accurately reflect the development scale of NFS trails 
managed for pack and saddle use.
    Trails in Trail Class 1 are the least developed and most 
challenging and are typically very or extremely rugged and often very 
steep, with little or no defined tread or clearing and many or even 
continuous obstacles. Therefore, the agency does not believe that Trail 
Class 1, which includes the least developed NFS trails, is appropriate 
for pack and saddle use, which requires more development to provide 
adequate and safe clearance for riders and animals. This approach to 
the most challenging trails in the Trail Class Matrix is consistent 
with the approach to the most difficult trails in the Pack and Saddle 
Trail Guide, which stated: ``Assume pack animals normally are not 
accommodated on most difficult trails, so less clearing width is 
needed. Same holds true for day-use horse trails.'' (FSH 2309.18, sec. 
2.31b, ex. 01, footnote 1, in the current directives).
    The Pack and Saddle Design Parameters provide guidelines for 
survey, design, construction, maintenance, and assessment of pack and 
saddle trails, which span Trail Classes 2 through 4. The Pack and 
Saddle Design Parameters encompass the full range of trails covered by 
the Pack and Saddle Trail Guide and in fact cover more trails in the 
upper end of Trail Class 4 than the Pack and Saddle Trail Guide (see 
Tables 5 and 6 in section 3 of this preamble). Moreover, the Pack and 
Saddle Design Parameters are either identical or functionally 
equivalent to the Pack and Saddle Trail Guide or reflect an expansion 
of a category (see Tables 5 and 6 in section 3 of this preamble). The 
Design Parameters give managers the flexibility to deviate from their 
guidelines based on specific trail conditions, topography, and other 
factors, provided that the exceptions are consistent with the general 
intent of the applicable Trail Class. In addition, the agency has 
revised the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters to enhance clarity and 
accommodation of pack and saddle use (see Table 9 in section 4 of this 
preamble).
    Implementation of the Design Parameters will not affect on-the-
ground management of pack and saddle trails because local managers 
determine the applicable Design Parameters of a trail or trail segment 
based on applicable land management plan direction, applicable travel 
management decisions, trail-specific decisions, and other related 
direction. Moreover, where pack and saddle use is allowed on NFS 
trails, it may continue, even if it is not a Managed Use or the 
Designed Use of those trails.
    Comment. One respondent expressed concern about the Design Clearing 
Height of 6 feet and Design Clearing Width of potentially less than 24 
inches for Trail Class 1 in the proposed Pack and Saddle Design 
Parameters. This respondent recommended a Design Clearing Height of 10 
feet and a Design Clearing Width of 8 feet to accommodate riders and 
pack horses.
    One respondent stated that the 3- to 4-foot Design Clearing Width 
for Trail Class 2 in the proposed Pack and Saddle Design Parameters was 
adequate for bridle paths, but inadequate for pack and saddle access, 
and thus potentially limited the number of trails available for pack 
and saddle use. Another respondent expressed concern that 36 inches, 
the lowest value in the proposed range for Design Clearing Limits for 
Trail Classes 2 through 4, was insufficient to provide clearance for a 
pack animal. Instead of a range, this respondent recommended a Design 
Clearing Width of 96 inches, 48 inches on either side of the center 
line of a trail, for all pack and saddle trails.
    Response. It appears that the first of these respondents was 
inadvertently referring to the Design Clearing Height and Width for 
Trail Class 1 in the Hiker/Pedestrian Design Parameters. As shown in 
Tables 5 and 6 in section 3 of this preamble, the Pack and Saddle 
Design Parameters encompass the full range of trails covered by the 
Pack and Saddle Trail Guide. Moreover, the Design Clearing Widths in 
the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters match or encompass the clearing 
widths in the Pack and Saddle Trail Guide. For example, the clearing 
width is 3 to 4 feet for the most difficult trails in the Pack and 
Saddle Trail Guide and for Trail Class 2 in the Pack and Saddle Design 
Parameters. The clearing width is 8 feet for the easiest trails in the 
Pack and Saddle Trail Guide and 6 to 8 feet for Trail Class 4 in the 
Pack and Saddle Design Parameters.
    While a clearing width of 3 feet may barely provide clearance for 
an equestrian, a clearing width of 3 feet is generally insufficient for 
passage by pack and saddle stock and is clearly insufficient for 
passage by loaded pack and saddle stock. Therefore, in the

[[Page 61615]]

interim final directives, the agency has revised the Design Clearing 
Width in the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters to provide for a minimum 
of 6 feet for Trail Class 2 and a minimum of 8 feet for Trail Class 4. 
The agency has declined to accept the respondent's recommendation for 
an 8-foot Design Clearing Limit across Trail Classes 2 through 4, as 
this width may be too broad in some situations to reflect the desired 
range of experiences and challenge levels associated with these Trail 
Classes.
    Comment. Some respondents recommended that the guidelines for Trail 
Class 2 in the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters be adopted for Trail 
Class 1.
    Response. The agency does not believe it would be appropriate to 
adopt the same guidelines for Trail Classes 1 and 2 in the Pack and 
Saddle Design Parameters. The guidelines for each Trail Class in the 
Design Parameters need to be consistent with the development scale for 
that Trail Class. Therefore, the guidelines for Trail Classes 1 and 2 
need to vary to reflect their different levels of development.
    Comment. One respondent expressed concern that a trail segment 
classified as Trail Class 1 or Trail Class 2 could eliminate pack and 
saddle use on a trail that is generally classified as Trail Class 3 or 
Trail Class 4.
    Response. Local trail managers apply the Trail Classes and 
corresponding Design Parameters to an NFS trail or trail segment, based 
on the management intent of the trail. If consistent with the trail's 
management intent, a trail segment could be classified as Trail Class 1 
or Trail Class 2, and the remainder of the trail could be classified as 
Trail Class 3 or Trail Class 4. Trails in Trail Classes 2 through 4 are 
potentially appropriate for pack and saddle use. Therefore, 
classification of a trail segment as Trail Class 1 or Trail Class 2 
would not preclude pack and saddle use on the rest of the trail if it 
is classified as Trail Class 3 or Trail Class 4. In fact, pack and 
saddle use may be appropriate on the trail segment, if it is classified 
as Trail Class 2. Even if the trail segment is not managed for pack and 
saddle use, that use is allowed unless it is prohibited on the trail 
segment.
    Comment. Several respondents expressed concern that the Design 
Clearing Width of 5 to 6.5 feet for Trail Class 3 in the Pack and 
Saddle Design Parameters would not allow less-skilled riders to access 
wilderness areas and would increase the risk of accidents for riders 
with moderate skills. These respondents recommended a Design Clearing 
Width of 8 feet for Trail Class 3.
    Response. The agency agrees that additional clearing width is 
needed for Trail Class 3 in the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters and 
has increased the Design Clearing Width for Trail Class 3 in the Pack 
and Saddle Design Parameters from 5 to 6.5 feet to 6 to 8 feet.
    Comment. Several respondents contended that under the proposed TCS, 
standards associated with mainline pack and saddle trails (comparable, 
according to the respondents, to trails in Trail Class 4) would no 
longer or rarely be appropriate in wilderness areas.
    Response. Trails that were classified as mainline trails will now 
fall into Trail Class 2, Trail Class 3, or Trail Class 4. Trails in 
Trail Classes 2 and 3 are commonly found in wilderness areas. Trails in 
Trail Class 4 are less common but still occur in wilderness areas as 
access routes and routes connecting wilderness and nonwilderness areas.
    Comment. One respondent expressed concern that many trails are 
deteriorating and not adequately maintained for equestrian use. This 
respondent questioned whether the inadequate maintenance was due to 
insufficient funding, the poor quality of field work, reduced interest 
in and awareness of equestrian needs on the part of Forest Service 
employees and the public, or changes in design standards. This 
respondent believed that emphasis should be placed on adequate trail 
maintenance, rather than on reclassification of trails.
    Response. The agency acknowledges and is concerned about 
deterioration of all types of NFS trails, not just equestrian trails. 
Trail maintenance backlogs are due to funding and staffing constraints, 
rather than insufficient field work, reduced interest in and awareness 
of equestrian needs, or changes in design guidelines for trails. The 
TCS assists the agency with identifying the work needed to maintain 
trails to their intended condition and prioritizing that work. The TCS 
also helps the agency more accurately estimate and communicate the 
funding needed to complete the work. Thus, the TCS helps local managers 
prioritize limited resources.
    Comment. Several respondents requested that the Pack and Saddle 
Design Parameters provide discretion to use full bench construction, 
i.e., construction of the trail bed entirely on undisturbed material, 
on side slopes (both inside and outside wilderness areas) as necessary 
to protect trails and to provide safe passage for their intended uses. 
These respondents also recommended an increase in the Design Tread 
Width from 12 to 18 inches to 24 to 36 inches for Trails Class 3 and 
Trail Class 4 and from 12 to 18 inches to 12 to 24 inches for Trail 
Class 2 to accommodate benched construction where needed. These 
respondents stated that a Design Tread Width of 24 inches would obviate 
the need to use fill to compensate for narrowing of the trail bed 
during construction.
    Response. The Design Parameters generally do not dictate specific 
methods of construction, including whether full bench construction 
should be used on a trail segment. The Design Parameters provide 
technical guidance for determinations made by local trail technicians 
and managers regarding the most appropriate trail prescriptions and 
construction methods for particular trail segments. The Pack and Saddle 
Design Parameters do not preclude the use of full bench construction in 
any Trail Class, either inside or outside wilderness areas.
    The Design Parameters do not dictate tread widths, as the 
respondents suggest, but rather provide nationally standardized 
guidance to be applied in the determination of trail-specific 
prescriptions. These prescriptions may include deviations from the 
Design Parameters based on trail-specific conditions, topography, or 
other factors, provided that the deviations are consistent with the 
general intent of the applicable Trail Class. For further 
clarification, the agency has defined ``Design Tread Width'' in the 
interim final directives as ``the tread width determined to be 
appropriate for accommodating the Managed Uses of a trail'' (FSH 
2309.18, sec. 05).
    The proposed Pack and Saddle Design Parameters stated that the 
Design Tread Width in wilderness areas may be increased to 48 inches 
along steep side slopes for Trail Classes 2 through 4 and to 60 inches 
along precipices for Trail Classes 3 and 4. The Pack and Saddle Design 
Parameters in the interim final directives provide for a Tread Width of 
up to 60 inches along precipices for Trail Class 2. In addition, the 
agency has increased the Design Tread Width for single-lane trails in 
Trail Class 3 in wilderness areas from 12 to 24 inches to 18 to 24 
inches to reflect appropriate tread widths for pack and saddle stock on 
typical trails in Trail Class 3 (see Table 9 in section 4 of this 
preamble).
    The Design Tread Width for single-lane trails in Trail Class 4 in 
wilderness areas remains 24 inches. This width is consistent with the 
guidance for wilderness areas in both the current and interim final 
directives (FSH 2309.18, sec. 2.24, para. 8 (current), and sec. 22.6,

[[Page 61616]]

para. 2h (interim final)), which provides that trail treads should not 
exceed 24 inches in width in wilderness areas. The Design Tread Width 
for single-lane trails in Trail Class 2 trails in wilderness areas 
remains 6 to 18 inches, which the agency believes reflects an 
appropriate range of tread widths for pack and saddle stock on these 
typically more challenging, narrower, and less developed trails.
    Local deviations to any Design Parameter may be established based 
on trail-specific conditions, topography, and other factors, provided 
that the deviations are consistent with the general intent of the 
applicable Trail Class.
    Comment. Several respondents contended that the proposed cross 
slopes of 5 to 10 percent for Trail Class 2 and 5 percent for Trail 
Classes 3 and 4 in the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters were 
unrealistic in steep, mountainous areas of the west and requested that 
these guidelines be revised to meet the design criteria in place since 
at least 1935.
    Response. The Forest Service has modified the guidance regarding 
Design Cross Slope in the interim final directives to reflect more 
clearly appropriate cross slopes on trails managed for pack and saddle 
use (see Table 9 in section 4 of this preamble). The agency has revised 
the Target Cross Slope for Trail Class 3 from 5 percent to 3 to 5 
percent and the Target Cross Slope for Trail Class 4 from 5 percent to 
0 to 5 percent. The values identified for Trail Class 4 more aptly 
reflect Target Cross Slopes on more highly developed trails. These 
trails are often designed to accommodate higher levels of use and have 
smoother surfaces, where steeper cross slopes may not be as functional 
or appropriate and where other types of drainage probably need to be 
employed.
    In addition, the agency has decreased the Maximum Cross Slope in 
Trail Class 2 from natural ground to 10 percent, based on the 
recognition that continuous cross slopes of more than 10 percent can 
strain stock, to minimize trail tread expansion down slope due to pack 
and saddle stock traffic. The agency has reduced the Maximum Cross 
Slope for Trail Class 3 from 10 to 8 percent. In addition, the agency 
has decreased the Cross Slope for Trail Class 4 from 10 to 5 percent. 
Tread cross slopes greater than 5 percent tend to move trail tread down 
slope due to lateral erosion, especially on trails in Trail Class 4, 
which typically have higher levels of use and are smoother, with a less 
natural surface.
Section 2.31c--Bicycle Design Parameters [Reserved] (Recoded as Section 
23.13 in the Interim Final Directives)
    Comment. Some respondents offered assistance in developing FSH 
2309.18, section 2.31c, which was reserved for development of guidance 
regarding the Bicycle Design Parameters.
    Response. Development of the TCS, including guidance on the Design 
Parameters, is subject to public notice and comment requirements under 
NFMA. Back Country Horsemen of America v. Johanns, No. 05-0960 (D.D.C. 
Mar. 29, 2006), slip op. at 8-14. Pursuant to those requirements, the 
agency is requesting public comment on the proposed Bicycle Design 
Parameters, along with the rest of the interim final directives. The 
agency will consider timely comments in development of final 
directives.
    Comment. Some respondents requested guidance similar to that 
contained in FSH 2309.18, section 2.31a, paragraph 5, of the current 
directives, which helps differentiate between trails in Trail Class 1 
in the Hiker/Pedestrian Design Parameters and user-created routes, 
trails designed for mountain bicycle use, and bicycle motor-cross (BMX) 
routes with jumps and berms.
    Response. This suggestion will be considered when this section of 
the directives is developed.
2.31c, Exhibit 01--Bicycle Design Parameters (Recoded as Section 23.13, 
Exhibit 01, in the Interim Final Directives)
    Comment. Some respondents expressed their belief that the revised 
TCS fairly addresses management of mountain bicycle trails and 
expressed appreciation that mountain bicycling is categorized as 
nonmotorized, allowed in applicable Trail Classes, and distinct from 
motorized uses.
    Response. The Forest Service agrees with this comment.
    Comment. Two respondents commended the Forest Service for clearly 
managing mountain bicycle use separately from off-highway vehicle use. 
These respondents specifically supported the agency's treatment of 
mountain bicycles as a nonmotorized use, rather than as a motorized 
use.
    Response. The Forest Service recognizes that bicycles, including 
mountain bicycles, are a nonmotorized use that does not fall under the 
agency's definition of off-highway vehicles. The agency further 
recognizes that the design considerations for trails managed for 
bicycle use are different from the design considerations for trails 
managed for motorized uses and that trails managed for bicycle use 
therefore require a different set of Design Parameters. For clarity, 
the agency has included definitions for ``bicycle,'' ``motor vehicle,'' 
and ``off-highway vehicle'' and removed the definition for ``trail 
vehicle'' in the interim final directives.
    Comment. Some respondents supported identifying mountain bicycles 
as potentially appropriate in all five Trail Classes.
    Response. The Forest Service agrees that mountain bicycles are 
potentially appropriate in all five Trail Classes and has reflected 
that assessment in the chart showing the potential appropriateness of 
the Trail Classes for the Managed Uses of NFS trails.
    Comment. One respondent stated that all sets of Design Parameters, 
including the Bicycle Design Parameters, may not adequately provide for 
environmentally sustainable trails. However, this respondent believed 
that this issue should not be addressed unless all sets of Design 
Parameters, not just the Bicycle Design Parameters, were taken into 
account.
    Response. The concept of sustainability has long been incorporated 
into Forest Service trail design and construction guidance, 
publications, and training materials. The Design Parameters provide 
general guidelines for survey, assessment, design, construction, and 
maintenance of NFS trails. These national guidelines include minimum 
values, maximum values, or ranges of values for various trail 
attributes for each Trail Class. The Design Parameters serve as a 
general reference for development of trail-specific prescriptions at 
the local level, based on the management intent for each NFS trail. 
Local managers identify trail-specific Design Parameters based upon 
consideration of site-specific factors, including soils, hydrological 
conditions, use levels, erosion potential, and other factors 
contributing to surface stability and overall trail sustainability, as 
indicated in a footnote to each set of Design Parameters.
    For example, it may be possible to design a sustainable hiker/
pedestrian trail in Trail Class 2 across slick rock with a Target Grade 
of up to 15 percent and a Short Pitch Maximum of up to 25 percent (see 
FSH 2309.18, section 05, for a definition of ``Target Grade'' and 
``Short Pitch Maximum''), whereas a hiker/pedestrian trail in Trail 
Class 2 across fragile, organic soils may require a Target Grade of 
less than 8 percent and a Short Pitch Maximum of less than 15 percent.

[[Page 61617]]

    The agency has modified the footnote referenced above to 
communicate the concept of sustainability more clearly and has 
incorporated the concept of sustainability in FSH 2309.18, section 
20.2, paragraph 2. In addition, the agency has revised various 
descriptors, attribute values, and footnotes in all sets of Design 
Parameters to clarify the intended design, construction, and 
maintenance of sustainable trails (see Tables 8 through 14 in section 4 
of this preamble).
    Comment. Some respondents proposed several specific changes to the 
Bicycle Design Parameters in the proposed directives. These changes 
included increasing the range for Design Tread Width for one-lane 
trails in Trail Class 2 from 12 to 24 inches to 6 to 24 inches and for 
one-lane trails in Trail Class 3 from 18 to 30 inches to 18 to 36 
inches, and increasing the range for Design Tread Width for two-lane 
trails in Trail Class 3 from 48 to 60 inches to 36 to 48 inches and for 
two-lane trails in Trail Class 4 from 60 to 84 inches to 48 to 84 
inches.
    In addition, these respondents recommended changing the value for 
Obstacles for Trail Class 1 from a range of 6 to 12 inches to an upper 
limit of 24 inches; increasing the value for Obstacles for Trail Class 
2 from 6 to 12 inches; increasing the value for Obstacles for Trail 
Class 3 from 3 to 6 inches; and changing the range for Obstacles for 
Trail Class 4 from 1 to 2 inches to 2 to 3 inches.
    These respondents recommended increasing the range for Design 
Target Grade for Trail Class 1 from 15 to 18 percent to less than or 
equal to 18 percent; increasing the range for Design Target Grade for 
Trail Class 3 from less than or equal to 10 percent to less than or 
equal to 12 percent; and increasing the range for Design Target Grade 
for Trail Class 4 from less than or equal to 8 percent to less than or 
equal to 10 percent.
    These respondents also recommended changing the range for Design 
Clearing Width for Trail Class 2 from 36 to 48 inches to 24 to 36 
inches and providing in the descriptor for Design Clearing Width for 
Trail Class 3 and Trail Class 4 for clearing beyond the edge of the 
trail tread and removing trees when the trail tread is at least 24 
inches wide.
    Response. The Forest Service is revising the Bicycle Design 
Parameters as shown in Table 10 in section 4 of this preamble. The 
revisions incorporate the recommended adjustments to the values for 
Design Tread Width for one-lane trails in Trail Class 3 and for two-
lane trails in Trail Class 3 and Trail Class 4.
    However, the agency does not believe that the lower limit for the 
Design Tread Width for Trail Class 2 should be reduced from 12 inches 
to 6 inches. When combined with the most challenging values for the 
other attributes for Trail Class 2 in the Bicycle Design Parameters, 
the level of challenge would no longer be consistent with the 
development scale for Trail Class 2 and would more appropriately be 
covered under Trail Class 1. For example, a trail crossing steep side 
slopes with a sustained Trail Grade of 12 percent and a Tread Width of 
only 6 inches would generally exceed the level of challenge expected on 
trails in Trail Class 2 and would more appropriately fit under the 
parameters of Trail Class 1.
    Upon further review of the Design Tread Widths, the agency believes 
that it is appropriate to identify values for double-lane trails in 
Trail Class 1 and Trail Class 2 in the Bicycle Design Parameters and 
has incorporated those values, as shown in Table 10 in section 4 of 
this preamble.
    In addition, to enhance clarity, the agency has split Obstacles in 
each set of Design Parameters into two categories: Obstacles and 
Protrusions. The agency has also adjusted the tolerances under 
Obstacles and Protrusions in all sets of Design Parameters, as shown in 
Tables 8 through 14 in section 4 of this preamble.
    The agency has adjusted the values for Design Target Grade to 
identify a range for each Trail Class, as applicable. The agency 
believes that incorporation of a lower limit better reflects the 
minimum grade typically necessary to provide adequate drainage on 
sustainable trails. The agency has identified a lower or flatter 
minimum Design Target Grade for trails in Trail Class 4 and Trail Class 
5, which typically include compacted tread surfaces that can more 
readily provide adequate drainage on segments with flatter grades than 
trails with a rougher, native surface that are more often encountered 
in Trail Classes 1 through 3.
    The agency has not increased the Design Target Grade for Trail 
Class 3 and Trail Class 4, as suggested by the respondents, because 
these changes, combined with the most challenging values for the other 
attributes in those Trail Classes, would result in a level of challenge 
that is not consistent with the development scale for Trail Class 3 and 
Trail Class 4. Trail Class 3 is geared to accommodate mountain bicycle 
riders with intermediate skills. These trail users can generally ride 
sustained grades of 10 percent, but sustained grades of 12 percent 
frequently require dismounting and walking. The level of challenge 
proposed by the respondents for Trail Class 3 would more appropriately 
be covered under Trail Class 2. Similarly, the suggested change in the 
Design Target Grade for Trail Class 4 would make trails in this Trail 
Class too difficult for many beginner and lower intermediate riders.
    The agency has revised the ranges for Design Clearing Width to 
clarify the minimum clearing width and has added guidance regarding 
clearance of bicycle pedal bumpers under the new category of Shoulder 
Clearance.
    Mountain bicycle handlebars are generally 26 inches wide. The 
agency did not adopt the respondents' suggestion to reduce the minimum 
Design Clearing Width for Trail Class 2 to 24 inches because this level 
of challenge would not be consistent with the development scale for 
Trail Class 2 and would more appropriately be covered under Trail Class 
1. In the interim final directives, the lower limit in the range of 36 
to 48 inches for the Design Clearing Width in Trail Class 2 
accommodates typical handlebar widths, with approximately 6 inches on 
both sides of the bicycle frame. The range for the Design Clearing 
Width in Trail Class 1 remains 24 to 36 inches.
    Comment. Some respondents expressed concern that the proposed 
directives included Bicycle Design Parameters for Trail Class 1, even 
though bicycle use is prohibited in wilderness areas as a mechanized 
use. These respondents asserted that bicycle use is inconsistent with 
the Wilderness Act and that the TCS should not provide for bicycle use 
on trails in Trail Class 1, which occur in wilderness areas.
    Response. Application of the TCS does not affect whether certain 
modes of travel are allowed on a trail. The five Trail Classes 
represent the development scale of NFS trails. The Design Parameters 
are guidelines for survey, design, construction, maintenance, and 
assessment of NFS trails, based on their applicable Trail Class and 
management intent. From among the allowed uses of each NFS trail, local 
managers determine its Managed Uses and Designed Use, which in turn 
determines the applicable Design Parameters for that trail. The modes 
of travel allowed on a trail in a wilderness area must be consistent 
with the Wilderness Act, the authorizing statute for the wilderness 
area, and the applicable wilderness management plan.
    Comment. One respondent stated that trails in Trail Class 1 should 
not be actively managed for bicycle use unless they are subject to a 
special use permit.

[[Page 61618]]

Otherwise, this respondent believed that bicycle use should merely be 
allowed at the user's risk on trails in Trail Class 1. Another 
respondent questioned whether the agency really wants mountain bicycles 
on trails in Trail Class 1. Two respondents expressed interest in 
development of Design Parameters for BMX use with berms, jumps, and 
steep grades.
    Response. The agency believes that Trail Class 1, which reflects 
the most challenging and minimally developed NFS trails, can be 
actively managed for bicycle use. Trails in Trail Class 1 are typically 
extremely rugged and often very steep, with narrow tread and clearing 
limits and many or continuous obstacles. The Forest Service believes 
that in certain locations and situations, trails in Trail Class 1 can 
be and are developed and managed to provide appropriately challenging, 
enjoyable, and sustainable mountain bicycle opportunities.
    The agency understands that there is increasing interest in 
challenge courses for mountain bicycling. The agency provides NFS 
trails for a wide variety of users with various skill levels. In 
general, the Forest Service does not design challenge courses, which 
may raise safety and sustainability concerns. The agency works with 
trail groups to provide an appropriate range of NFS trails managed for 
bicycle use, including incorporation of natural obstacles, as deemed 
appropriate, to provide challenging trail opportunities. The Forest 
Service encourages those interested in development of mountain bicycle 
challenge courses to work with members of the private sector regarding 
provision of these types of recreation opportunities, which may be more 
appropriate on nonNFS lands.
Section 2.32--Standard/Terra Motorized Trails (Recoded as Section 23.2 
in the Interim Final Directives)
    Comment. One respondent recommended modifying all sections of the 
FSM and FSH regarding motorized use of trails to include language 
similar to the provisions in proposed section 2.35b, paragraph 4, 
regarding avoidance of sensitive wildlife and habitat and the 
inappropriateness of motorized use in wilderness study areas, 
inventoried roadless areas, and habitat protection areas unless they 
can be adequately protected.
    Response. The travel management rule at 36 CFR part 212, subpart B, 
requires each administrative unit or Ranger District of the Forest 
Service to designate those NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS 
lands that are open to motor vehicle use by vehicle class and, if 
appropriate, by time of year. The travel management rule requires the 
responsible official to consider the effects of designating NFS trails 
for motor vehicle use on various resources, with the objective of 
minimizing those effects. These effects include (1) damage to soil, 
watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources and (2) harassment of 
wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats. The travel 
management rule also requires consideration of general criteria in 
designating trails for motor vehicle use, including effects on natural 
and cultural resources. The agency is finalizing directives 
implementing the travel management rule that also address these 
criteria. The agency does not believe that it is necessary to duplicate 
these requirements in the TCS directives.
Section 2.32a--Motorcycle Design Parameters (Recoded as Section 23.21 
in the Interim Final Directives)
    Comment. Some respondents supported the proposed change in the 
title of these Design Parameters from ``Bike Design Parameters'' to 
``Motorcycle Design Parameters'' to distinguish clearly between bicycle 
and motorcycle uses.
    Response. The Forest Service agrees with this comment and has 
created the Bicycle Design Parameters and the Motorcycle Design 
Parameters.
    Comment. Several respondents expressed concern regarding the 
direction in proposed FSH 2309.18, section 2.32a, paragraph 3, to 
designate suitable closed roads as NFS trails open to motorcycle use 
and requested that this provision be removed from the directives, 
rather than shifted to the All-Terrain Vehicle or Four-Wheel Drive 
Design Parameters.
    Response. The agency has removed the provision in proposed section 
2.32a, paragraph 3, regarding designation of suitable closed roads as 
NFS trails open to motorcycle use entirely from the interim final 
directives. Designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle 
use is conducted pursuant to the travel management rule at 36 CFR part 
212, subpart B, and its implementing directives, not the TCS 
directives.
    Comment. One respondent expressed concern about the reference in 
proposed section 2.32a, paragraph 6, to user needs and variety of 
distances and recommended removing this language from the interim final 
directives. If this language is not removed from this section, the 
respondent requested that comparable language be added to the guidance 
regarding application of each set of Design Parameters.
    Response. The agency has revised this provision in the interim 
final directives to state that a variety of distances and recreation 
experiences may be provided by designing cutoffs for less experienced 
riders within a system of loop trails; that an experienced rider can 
ride approximately 50 miles in an average day; and that some riders can 
cover over 100 miles in a day. The agency believes that the revised 
language provides useful guidance for the design and management of 
trails managed for motorcycle use.
    Comment. One respondent stated that when trails are managed for 
multiple uses that include motorcycle use, the objective should be to 
decrease the speed of motorcycles. This respondent suggested striking 
in its entirety proposed section 2.32a, paragraph 9, regarding turns 
and switchback radii for motorcycle use. This respondent requested 
removal of guidance to use concrete blocks and cement to harden corners 
on multi-use trails. This respondent also proposed requiring the 
posting of speed limits of 10 to 15 miles per hour on multi-use trails.
    Response. The Motorcycle Design Parameters are geared toward 
development and management of trails that offer an appropriate range of 
experience opportunities and levels of challenge for motorcyclists, 
while minimizing trail-related impacts on adjacent resources. The 
guidance in the Motorcycle Design Parameters regarding design turns 
(which include switchbacks, horizontal turns, and climbing turns) and 
in proposed section 2.32a regarding switchback radii will assist 
managers in meeting those objectives and has been retained.
    Rather than identifying as an objective the desire for slower 
speeds for motorcycles, the interim final directives identify a method 
for slowing motorcycles, where deemed necessary or appropriate, by 
decreasing the turning radius. Whether motorcycle speeds need to be 
slowed is best judged by the local trail manager.
    It is standard practice to use concrete blocks and cement to harden 
trails where deemed necessary to protect sensitive soils at switchbacks 
and climbing turns. Therefore, the agency has retained guidance 
regarding use of this practice in the interim final directives.
    The agency does not believe it is appropriate to require posting of 
speed limits of 10 to 15 miles per hour on multi-use trails.
    Comment. One respondent expressed concern that the narrative 
portion of proposed section 2.32a primarily focuses on the 
appropriateness of highly

[[Page 61619]]

developed trails in Trail Class 4 for motorcycles and recommended that 
this section be revised to reflect the appropriateness of trails in 
Trail Class 2 and Trail Class 3 for motorcycles.
    Response. The Forest Service believes that the interim final 
directives at FSH 2309.18, section 23.21, appropriately address 
motorcycle use of trails in Trail Classes 2 through 4, based on their 
development scale.
Section 2.32a, Exhibit 01--Motorcycle Design Parameters (Recoded as 
Section 23.21, Exhibit 01, in the Interim Final Directives)
    Comment. Some respondents recommended development of a set of 
Design Parameters for challenging motorcycle trails with sharp curves, 
steep grades, and other demanding characteristics.
    Response. The Forest Service does not believe that it is necessary 
to develop a set of Design Parameters for challenging motorcycle 
trails. The agency believes that the array of Trail Classes identified 
for motorcycle use in the Motorcycle Design Parameters provides an 
appropriate range of recreation opportunities and levels of challenge 
on NFS trails, consistent with the objectives identified in proposed 
FSH 2309.18, section 2.02.
    In the Motorcycle Design Parameters, Trail Class 2 provides the 
most challenging trail conditions for NFS trails managed for motorcycle 
use. Challenge is achieved by a combination of trail characteristics, 
including trail grade, alignment, clearing width, tread conditions, 
gain or loss of elevation, and other criteria outlined in the Design 
Parameters. The agency has revised the descriptors for Surface 
Obstacles and Protrusions in the Motorcycle Design Parameters to 
clarify consideration of these features as design elements in 
determining and prescribing the desired level of challenge (see Table 
11 in section 4 of this preamble). Also, as stated in footnote 2 to the 
Motorcycle Design Parameters, the determination of the trail-specific 
Design Grade, Design Surface, and other Design Parameter attributes 
should be based upon soils, hydrological conditions, use levels, 
erosion potential, and other factors contributing to surface stability 
and overall sustainability of the trail.
    The agency understands that there is increasing interest in the 
design of challenge courses. The agency manages NFS trails for a wide 
variety of uses and skill levels. In general, the Forest Service does 
not design challenge courses, which may raise safety concerns. The 
agency works with trail groups to provide an appropriate range of NFS 
trails managed for motorcycle use, including incorporation of natural 
obstacles as deemed appropriate to provide challenging trail 
opportunities. The Forest Service encourages trail users interested in 
development of motorcycle challenge courses to work with members of the 
private sector regarding provision of these types of recreation 
opportunities, which may be more appropriate on non NFS lands.
    Comment. Two respondents recommended splitting the Motorcycle 
Design Parameters into different levels of difficulty. These 
respondents believed that providing motorcycle trails with a higher 
level of challenge that would be less likely to appeal to hikers and 
equestrians would be the best way to avoid use conflicts between hiking 
and horseback riding and motorcycle use.
    Response. The agency does not believe it is necessary to create 
additional trail classes in the Motorcycle Design Parameters. The Trail 
Classes and each set of Design Parameters incorporating them reflect 
the development scale of NFS trails and corresponding levels of 
difficulty. Local managers determine the Managed Use or Uses, Designed 
Use, and corresponding trail-specific Design Parameters based on the 
applicable Trail Class and the management intent for each NFS trail. 
Each set of Design Parameters encompasses a wide range of recreation 
experiences and levels of challenge, which gives managers the 
flexibility to develop trail-specific prescriptions based on the 
Managed Uses of a trail, site-specific resource considerations, and 
other factors. To clarify this intent, the agency has added guidance in 
section 14.4, paragraph 3, of the interim final directives regarding 
identification of the Designed Use and Design Parameters for trails 
with more than one Managed Use.
Section 2.32b--All-Terrain Vehicle Design Parameters (Recoded as 
Section 23.22 in the Interim Final Directives)
Section 2.32b, Exhibit 01--All-Terrain Vehicle Design Parameters 
(Recoded as Section 23.22, Exhibit 01, in the Interim Final Directives)
    Comment. One respondent stated that the proposed Design Tread Width 
in the All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Design Parameters contradicts federal 
policy to limit ATV trails to 50 inches or less in width.
    Response. The policy referenced by the respondent applies to ATVs, 
not to the width of trails managed for ATV use. ATV is defined at FSM 
2353.05 as a type of off-highway vehicle that travels on three or more 
low-pressure tires; has handle-bar steering; is less than or equal to 
50 inches in width; and has a seat designed to be straddled by the 
operator. This definition refers to the total external width of the 
vehicle, including fenders, rather than to the wheelbase, which is 
typically narrower than the total width of the vehicle. The Design 
Tread Widths for single-lane trails in the ATV Design Parameters vary 
from a minimum of 48 inches for Trail Class 2 to 72 inches for Trail 
Class 4. This range of Design Tread Widths provides adequate clearance 
for the range of ATVs used on NFS trails.
New Section 23.23--Design Parameters for Four-Wheel Drive Vehicle 
Greater Than 50 Inches in Width
    Comment. Two respondents recommended adding Design Parameters and 
corresponding guidance for four-wheel drive motor vehicles.
    Response. The agency agrees with this suggestion and has added 
Design Parameters and corresponding guidance regarding four-wheel drive 
vehicles greater than 50 inches in width in the interim final 
directives. The agency did not include the word ``motor'' in the 
heading for this subsection because it falls under the section heading 
``Standard Terra Trails: Motorized.'' Inclusion of the word ``motor'' 
in the heading for this subsection would therefore be redundant and 
inconsistent with the two other subsection headings, ``All-Terrain 
Vehicle'' and ``Motorcycle,'' neither of which includes the word 
``motor.''
    Comment. Two respondents made 11 specific recommendations regarding 
application of the Design Parameters for Four-Wheel Drive Vehicle 
Greater Than 50 Inches in Width. Each recommendation is listed below, 
followed by the agency's response.
    Recommendation 1. State that generally four-wheel drive motor 
vehicle use on NFS lands can be either trail-based or road-based, 
depending on the availability of high-clearance NFS roads, the Road 
Management Objectives of those roads, the availability of trails 
suitable and open for four-wheel drive motor vehicles or other vehicles 
exceeding 50 inches in width, the TMOs of those trails, and the Managed 
Uses and Designed Use of those trails.
    Response. Although different wording was used, the intent of this 
suggestion with respect to trail use is reflected in the interim final 
directives at FSH 2309.18, section 14.3. The suggestions dealing with 
management of motor vehicle use on roads are beyond the scope of these 
directives.

[[Page 61620]]

    Recommendation 2. Designate suitable closed roads as NFS trails 
open to four-wheel drive motor vehicles.
    Response. The agency has removed a provision regarding opening 
closed roads to motorcycle use and does not believe it is appropriate 
to add a similar provision for other uses, including four-wheel drive 
vehicles greater than 50 inches in width. Designation of roads, trails, 
and areas is made at the local level pursuant to the travel management 
rule and its implementing directives, rather than the TCS directives.
    Recommendation 3. State that four-wheel drive motor vehicle trails 
generally should be classified as Trail Class 1 or Trail Class 2 and 
modified to create a greater degree of difficulty for the driver. The 
respondents based the latter recommendation on application of a revised 
Trail Class Matrix proposed by the respondents, with the least 
developed trails correlating to the least level of difficulty.
    Response. Trails in Trail Class 1 are generally inappropriate for 
four-wheel drive vehicles greater than 50 inches in width. Trails in 
Trail Class 1 are the least developed and most challenging and are 
typically extremely rugged and often very steep, with little or no 
defined tread or clearing and many or continuous obstacles. 
Nevertheless, the Design Parameters allow for deviations based on 
trail-specific considerations, provided that the deviations are 
consistent with the general intent of the applicable Trail Class.
    The agency believes that trails in Trail Class 2 are appropriate 
for four-wheel drive vehicles greater than 50 inches in width, as shown 
in their Design Parameters and the chart regarding appropriateness of 
the Trail Classes for the Managed Uses of NFS trails.
    The agency does not believe it is appropriate to establish a 
direct, rather than an inverse, correlation between development scale 
and level of difficulty in the Trail Class Matrix. Since less developed 
trails in the lower Trail Classes such as Trail Class 2 are more 
challenging, there is no need to enhance the level of difficulty for 
trails in Trail Class 2 in the Design Parameters for four-wheel drive 
vehicles greater than 50 inches in width.
    Recommendation 4. State that the higher the Trail Class, the higher 
the degree of difficulty of the trail.
    Response. As stated above, the agency believes that the level of 
challenge provided by a trail inversely correlates with its development 
scale. The less developed trails are, the more challenging they are, 
and vice versa.
    Recommendation 5. State that user needs for different distances and 
experiences can be accommodated by providing trunk trails offering a 
lower level of difficulty than secondary trails leading off trunk 
trails. State that the degree of difficulty of a trail affects its 
length: The more difficult the trail, the shorter the length necessary 
for a desired recreation experience; conversely, the less difficult the 
trail, the longer the length necessary for a desired recreation 
experience. State that the shorter the trail length and the smaller the 
area, the more difficult the trail experience should be.
    Response. The agency believes that the length of a trail relates to 
its level of difficulty, in that users with less skill may need shorter 
trails. Accordingly, the agency has added section 23.23, paragraph 2c, 
to state that a variety of distances and recreation experiences may be 
provided by designing cutoffs for less experienced riders within a 
system of loop trails.
    Recommendation 6. Encourage drainage dips, especially those that 
are close together, over water bars to enhance the level of challenge 
provided by a trail and to mitigate adverse impacts associated with 
sustained grades.
    Response. The agency agrees that drainage dips on trails for four-
wheel drive vehicles greater than 50 inches in width can provide more 
challenge and can mitigate adverse impacts on the trails. Accordingly, 
the agency has added guidance to the interim final directives 
encouraging drainage dips over water bars on trails managed for use by 
four-wheel drive vehicles greater than 50 inches in width. However, the 
agency has not provided for drainage dips to be within close proximity 
to one another because appropriate spacing of drainage dips is site-
specific and determined at the local level.
    Recommendation 7. Encourage the use of climbing turns and 
discourage the use of switchbacks whenever possible. State that 
implementation of rolling dips should be considered before and after 
climbing turns for side slopes with a grade exceeding 30 percent.
    Response. The agency has added guidance recommending the use of 
climbing turns rather than switchbacks in section 23.23 of the interim 
final directives. Guidance regarding incorporation of dips in 
conjunction with switchbacks belongs in the Forest Service's Standard 
Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Trails (EM 7720-103) 
and has not been included in the interim final directives.
    Recommendation 8. State that turning radii should vary depending on 
the difficulty level of the trail. State that decreasing the turning 
radius can offer a greater level of challenge.
    Response. The Design Parameters for Four Wheel Drive Vehicles 
Greater Than 50 Inches in Width provide guidance on turning radii that 
corresponds with the level of challenge in each Trail Class. The agency 
has provided additional guidance in section 23.23 of the interim final 
directives regarding the relationship of the turning radius to the 
level of challenge of a curve.
    Recommendation 9. State that trail junctions should be located so 
that no more than two trails intersect at one point.
    Response. The agency has included this recommendation in section 
23.22 in the interim final directives for the Motorcycle Design 
Parameters and the ATV Design Parameters, but does not believe that it 
is necessary to include this recommendation for four-wheel drive 
vehicles greater than 50 inches in width because these vehicles 
generally travel at slower speeds on trails than motorcycles and ATVs.
    Recommendation 10. State that varying degrees of horizontal and 
vertical alignments should be provided, with a tread surface that can 
accommodate an average speed of 2 to 4 miles per hour.
    Response. The agency has included this recommendation in section 
23.23, paragraph 2b, of the interim final directives.
    Recommendation 11. State that improvements and modifications of 
four-wheel drive motor vehicle trails should enhance the degree of 
difficulty for the driver: the more developed the trail, the more 
difficult the trail should be.
    Response. The Forest Service does not believe that the degree of 
difficulty of a trail increases with its development scale. Rather, the 
agency believes that the level of challenge of a trail inversely 
correlates to its development scale. The more developed a trails is, 
the less challenging it is, and vice versa.
    The primary purposes of constructed features on NFS trails are to 
protect resources and to provide for user convenience, based on the 
applicable Trail Class and management intent for each trail. Design 
elements influencing the degree of challenge provided by an NFS trail 
include trail grade, alignment, clearing width, trail tread, surface 
obstacles and protrusions, and gain or loss of elevation. The interim 
final directives are not intended to provide guidance regarding 
development of ATV challenge courses or increasing the level of 
challenge through installation of constructed features.

[[Page 61621]]

New Section 23.23, Exhibit 01--Design Parameters for Four-Wheel Drive 
Vehicles Greater Than 50 Inches in Width
    Comment. Two respondents proposed a set of Four-Wheel Drive Motor 
Vehicle Design Parameters.
    Response. Trails in Trail Class 1 and Trail Class 5 are not 
typically designed or actively managed for four-wheel drive vehicle 
use. Therefore, in contrast to the respondents' proposed Design 
Parameters, which included a range for tread widths of 72 to 216 
inches, the range for Design Tread Widths in the Design Parameters for 
Four-Wheel Drive Vehicle Greater Than 50 Inches in Width in the interim 
final directives is 72 to 120 inches, with the lower numbers in the 
range correlated with the lower Trail Classes.
    The Forest Service has incorporated the respondents' suggestion for 
a 16-foot Design Tread Width for Trail Class 2. It would be 
inconsistent with the purpose of the Design Parameters not to specify 
Tread Width for Trail Class 3 and Trail Class 4. Accordingly, the 
agency has identified a minimum Design Tread Width of 16 feet for these 
Trail Classes.
    In addition, the agency has included guidance regarding the Design 
Surface Type, including the use of native or imported surface material, 
grading, tread roughness, and tread stability, and guidance regarding 
the Surface Obstacles and Protrusions for each Trail Class. The 
descriptor for Surface Obstacles and Protrusions includes guidance to 
consider these elements as design features influencing the degree of 
challenge provided by a trail. The agency has also included a range of 
grades and cross slopes similar to those proposed by the respondents 
for each Trail Class. Some of the Design Clearing Limits in the Design 
Parameters for Four-Wheel Drive Vehicle Greater Than 50 Inches in Width 
in the interim final directives, such as those for Trail Classes 2 
through 4, are similar to those suggested by the respondents.
    The Design Parameters for Four-Wheel Drive Vehicles Greater Than 50 
Inches in Width in the interim final directives incorporate a range of 
Design Turns for the Trail Classes that is similar to the range of 
Design Turns suggested by the respondents. For example, the respondents 
proposed a range of design turn radii from 10 to 25 feet, and the 
Design Parameters identify a range of design turn radii of 10 to 30 
feet.
    The agency has not included the three additional trail attributes 
(``Non-Defined Foot Print,'' ``Obstacles--Rock,'' and ``Obstacles--
Desert'') proposed by the respondents in the Design Parameters for 
Four-Wheel Drive Vehicle Greater Than 50 Inches in Width. These 
additional attributes do not appear in any other set of Design 
Parameters and would create unnecessary inconsistency in the Design 
Parameters.
New Section 23.32--Snowshoe Design Parameters
New Section 23.32, Exhibit 01--Snowshoe Design Parameters
    Comment. Two respondents recommended developing a set of Snowshoe 
Design Parameters.
    Response. The agency agrees with these respondents and has included 
a set of Snowshoe Design Parameters in the interim final directives.
2.33c--Snowmobile Design Parameters (Recoded as Section 23.33 in the 
Interim Final Directives)
2.33c, Exhibit 01--Snowmobile Design Parameters (Recoded as Section 
23.33, Exhibit 01, in the Interim Final Directives)
    Comment. One respondent expressed concern that the Snowmobile 
Design Parameters do not seem to take into account a trail that is used 
for multiple purposes, such as snowmobiles, cross-country skiing, 
snowshoeing, and dog sledding. This respondent expressed particular 
concern regarding identification of the appropriate trail grade for 
trails with multiple uses.
    Response. The TCS addresses the common situation where an NFS trail 
is actively managed for more than one use. A trail may have multiple 
Managed Uses, such as snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, 
and dog sledding, but can have only one Designed Use. The Designed Use 
of a trail is the design driver because it is the Managed Use that 
requires the most demanding design, construction, and maintenance 
parameters. When determining the Designed Use and corresponding Design 
Parameters for a trail, managers are instructed to assess any essential 
or limiting geometry for the Managed Uses of the trail or trail segment 
to determine whether any trail-specific adjustments are necessary to 
the applicable Design Parameters, including the Design Trail Grade.
    Comment. One respondent stated that the Design Clearing Limits for 
snowmobiles are insufficient to provide adequate snowfall or visibility 
around turns on snowmobile trails and recommended that these Design 
Clearing Limits be increased.
    Response. The Design Clearing Limits in the Snowmobile Design 
Parameters have been verified in the field and have been determined to 
be generally applicable and appropriate, including around turns. Trail-
specific deviations may be established based on trail-specific 
conditions, topography, and other factors, provided that the deviations 
are consistent with the general intent of the applicable Trail Class.
Response to Comments on the Regulatory Certifications in the Proposed 
Directives Environmental Impact
    Comment. Several respondents stated that the agency has not 
considered and documented environmental impacts and impacts on trail 
users and pack and saddle use associated with implementation of the 
TCS. One respondent expressed concern that environmental analysis was 
not conducted on the proposed TCS. One respondent expressed concern 
that the proposed TCS would be adopted pursuant to a categorical 
exclusion from documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) 
or environmental assessment (EA) without addressing potential effects 
associated with trails developed and maintained for motorized use.
    Several respondents disagreed with the agency's conclusion that the 
proposed TCS does not require preparation of an EA or EIS and requested 
that the agency complete an environmental analysis addressing potential 
economic impacts on the agency and adverse impacts on natural resources 
from implementation of the proposed TCS. One respondent stated that the 
proposed TCS represents a significant departure from previous policy 
and requested that a programmatic EIS be prepared for the proposed TCS. 
One respondent requested that the agency provide data on economic 
impacts associated with implementation of the TCS and stated that many 
equestrians in the State of Missouri travel to the western states to 
trail ride and to hunt and that to be denied this opportunity would be 
disturbing to equestrians and also damaging to the local economies of 
those western states.
    Response. The management intent for a trail is reflected in the 
applicable land management plan, applicable travel management 
decisions, trail-specific decisions, and other related direction. 
Management direction for NFS trails is developed with public 
involvement and appropriate environmental documentation pursuant to 
NEPA and NFMA. Substantive changes in the management intent for NFS 
trails are subject to the direction in FSH 2309.18,

[[Page 61622]]

section 11, including the direction regarding compliance with NEPA.
    In contrast, implementation of the TCS does not affect on-the-
ground management of NFS trails. The TCS is merely a tool for 
classifying NFS trails for purposes of survey, design, construction, 
maintenance, and assessment. Local trail managers identify the 
applicable Trail Class, Managed Uses, Designed Use, and corresponding 
Design Parameters for an NFS trail based on its management intent. 
Therefore, implementation of the TCS falls within the Forest Service's 
categorical exclusion for ``rules, regulations, or policies to 
establish Servicewide administrative procedures, program processes, or 
instructions,'' and preparation of an EA or EIS is not required. See 
Back Country Horsemen of America v. Johanns, No. 05-0960 (D.D.C. Mar. 
29, 2006), slip op. at 15-20.
Regulatory Impact
    Comment. Two respondents stated that the proposed TCS incorporates 
without justification several major policy changes, including changing 
the basis for trail design, construction, and maintenance from 
transportation to recreational use and providing less stringent trail 
standards in wilderness areas.
    Two respondents disagreed with the agency's assertion that the 
proposed revisions to the TCS are non-significant and therefore do not 
require review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
Executive Order 12866.
    Response. The agency has provided ample justification in the 
preambles to the proposed and interim final directives for the changes 
made to the TCS. Implementation of the TCS does not affect on-the-
ground management of NFS trails, which continue to be surveyed, 
designed, constructed, maintained, and assessed in accordance with 
their management intent.
    OMB has the responsibility in the Executive Branch to determine 
whether regulations and policies are significant for purposes of the 
criteria in Executive Order 12866. The interim final directives will 
establish guidelines for trail survey, design, construction, 
maintenance, and assessment that will apply internally to the Forest 
Service. Applying the criteria in Executive Order 12866, OMB has 
determined that these interim final directives cannot and may not 
reasonably be anticipated to lead to an annual effect of $100 million 
or more on or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector 
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 
public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities; create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
an action taken or planned by another agency; raise novel legal or 
policy issues; or materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or 
obligations of beneficiaries of those programs. Therefore, OMB has 
determined that the proposed and interim final directives are non-
significant.
Unfunded Mandates
    Comment. One respondent stated that the proposed directives were an 
unfunded mandate.
    Response. The interim final directives do not constitute an 
unfunded mandate for purposes of 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 because the interim 
final directives will not compel the expenditure of $100 million or 
more by any State, local, or Tribal government or anyone in the private 
sector. Rather, the interim final directives will establish internal 
agency guidelines for survey, design, construction, maintenance, and 
assessment of NFS trails.
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
    Comment. Two respondents contended that the Paperwork Reduction Act 
applies and that the agency's assertion to the contrary is incorrect.
    Response. The interim final directives do not contain any public 
recordkeeping or reporting requirements or other information collection 
requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320. Rather, the interim final 
directives contain only internal agency recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements for purposes of inventorying and managing NFS trails. This 
information is currently incorporated into the agency's national trail 
database.
Comments Beyond the Scope of the Directives
    Comments. One respondent expressed concern about the effects on 
energy use resulting from encouraging motorized trails.
    Response. The interim final directives do not encourage any 
particular type of trail use. The TCS is applied based on the 
development scale of NFS trails and their management intent. Energy 
consumption by trail users is beyond the scope of these interim final 
directives.
    Comment. One respondent objected to prohibiting mechanized methods 
for trail maintenance in wilderness areas. This respondent stated that 
mechanized methods for trail maintenance would cut the cost of keeping 
these types of trails open. One respondent requested that the Forest 
Service set aside a two-week period in the spring to allow trail crews 
to use chainsaws in the Sawtooth and Paysayten Wilderness areas.
    Response. The propriety of the use of mechanical transport and 
motorized tools in wilderness areas is beyond the scope of these 
directives, which establish guidelines for trail survey, design, 
construction, maintenance, and assessment that will apply internally to 
the Forest Service.
    Comment. One respondent wondered why the TCS does not include 
mapping guidelines by Trail Class and wondered if the different Trail 
Classes would be displayed on Forest Service maps that are available to 
the public. This respondent stated that historically trails in Trail 
Classes 3 through 5 have appeared on maps and assumed that trails in 
Trail Class 2 would also sometimes appear on Forest Service maps, 
depending on local factors. This respondent did not expect that trails 
in Class 1 would generally apear on maps and assumed that they would 
more likely be known only to users who come across them.
    Response. Requirements for Forest Service visitor maps are found in 
FSM 7140 and FSH 7109.13a, chapter 10, which are beyond the scope of 
these directives.
    Comments. Several respondents expressed concern and made requests 
regarding management of specific NFS trails.
    Response. Implementation of the TCS does not result in changes in 
on-the-ground management of NFS trails. The TCS does not identify 
specific trails, their Managed Uses or Designed Use, or corresponding 
Design Parameters. These determinations are made by managers at the 
local level based on applicable land management plan direction, 
applicable travel management decisions, trail-specific decisions, and 
other related direction. Trail-specific situations should be addressed 
at the local level in consulation with the local trail manager.

3. Comparison of the Pack and Saddle Trail Guides and the Pack and 
Saddle Design Parameters

    Tables 1 through 6 compare the Pack and Saddle Trail Guides in the 
current directives with the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters in the 
interim final directives. The correlation between the two sets of 
tables is approximate, rather than exact, and the trail classifications 
shown are not to scale due to limitations of the size of the page. Only 
factors common to the Trail Guides and Design

[[Page 61623]]

Parameters are included in these examples.
    Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 demonstrate that the technical guidelines for 
pack and saddle trails have never applied to the full range of NFS 
trails. Specifically, these tables show that the guidelines in both the 
Pack and Saddle Trail Guide and the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters 
apply to trails that fall in between the least developed and the most 
developed NFS trails.

The Hiker and Barrier-Free Trail Guides Versus The Pack and Saddle 
Trail Guide

Table 1: The Hiker and Barrier-Free Trail Guides
    Hiker/pedestrian use encompasses the widest range of trail 
development scale in the NFS. Accordingly, Table 1 shows a broad range 
of trails ranging from the lowest level of development in the Hiker 
Trail Guide and the highest level of development in the Barrier-Free 
Trail Guide. The combined range includes extremely challenging and 
minimally developed trails in the Most Difficult Category in the Hiker 
Trail Guide, with maximum pitch grades exceeding 30 percent, tread 
widths of 1 foot, and clearing widths of 3 feet, to the least 
challenging, most highly developed, and fully accessible trails in the 
Easiest Category in the Barrier-Free Trail Guide, with grades of 1 to 3 
percent, tread widths of 8 feet, and clearing widths free of underbrush 
for 1 foot on both sides of the trail.
Table 2: The Pack and Saddle Trail Guide
    The basic elements of the Pack and Saddle Trail Guide are included 
in Table 2, which encompasses trails ranging from Most Difficult, with 
tread widths not indicated, maximum pitch grades exceeding 30 percent, 
and clearing widths of 3 to 4 feet, to Easiest, with tread widths of 24 
inches, maximum pitch grades of 15 percent, and clearing widths of 8 
feet. In the current directives, the Most Difficult Category in the 
Pack and Saddle Trail Guide is referenced by a footnote that states: 
``Assume pack animals normally are not accommodated on most difficult 
trails, so less clearing width is needed. Same holds true for day-use 
horse trails.''
Table 1 Versus Table 2
    Despite differences in scale, Tables 1 and 2 show that the spectrum 
of pack and saddle trails falls somewhere within the range of the Most 
Difficult trails in the Hiker Trail Guide and the Easiest trails in the 
Barrier-Free Trail Guide.

The Hiker/Pedestrian Versus The Pack and Saddle Design Parameters

Table 3: The Hiker/Pedestrian Design Parameters
    The excerpt from the Hiker/Pedestrian Design Parameters shown in 
Table 3 includes only those factors that were also listed in the 
corresponding Trail Guides.
    Table 3 shows that the agency created the Hiker/Pedestrian Design 
Parameters by combining the Hiker and Barrier-Free Trail Guides: the 
Hiker/Pedestrian Design Parameters encompass the full range of trail 
development scale included in the corresponding Hiker and Barrier-Free 
Trail Guides, from the Most Difficult level for hiking trails to the 
Easiest level for barrier-free trails.
Table 4: The Pack and Saddle Design Parameters
    The excerpt from the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters shown in 
Table 4 includes only those factors that were also included in the Pack 
and Saddle Trail Guide (tread width, surface, maximum pitch grade or 
short pitch maximum grade, clearing height, and clearing width).
    Table 4 shows that the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters encompass 
trails ranging from Trail Class 2, with tread widths of 12 to 18 inches 
in wilderness and 12 to 24 inches outside of wilderness, short pitch 
maximum grades of 30%, and clearing widths of 6 feet, to Trail Class 4, 
with tread widths of 24 in wilderness and 24 to 120 inches outside of 
wilderness, short pitch maximum grades of 15%, and clearing widths of 8 
feet.
Table 3 Versus Table 4
    Despite differences in scale, Tables 3 and 4 show that the NFS 
trails encompassed by the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters do not 
encompass the full range of NFS trails, but rather fall within the 
range of NFS trails encompassed by the Hiker/Pedestrian Design 
Parameters.

The Pack and Saddle Trail Guide Versus The Pack and Saddle Design 
Parameters

    Tables 5 and 6 demonstrate that the guidelines in the Pack and 
Saddle Design Parameters are either identical or functionally 
equivalent to the guidelines in the Pack and Saddle Trail Guide or that 
the guidelines in the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters are more 
precise or even more expansive than the guidelines in the Pack and 
Saddle Trail Guide.
Table 5: The Pack and Saddle Trail Guide
    The excerpt from the Pack and Saddle Trail Guide shown in Table 5 
is the same as the one shown in Table 2.
Table 6: The Pack and Saddle Design Parameters
    The excerpt from the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters shown in 
Table 6 is the same as the one shown in Table 4.
Table 5 Versus Table 6
    Despite differences in scale, Tables 5 and 6 show that the Pack and 
Saddle Design Parameters incorporate the guidelines from the Pack and 
Saddle Trail Guide and are based on the assumption in the footnote to 
that trail guide, which states: ``Assume pack and saddle animals 
normally are not accommodated on most difficult trails, so less 
clearing width is needed. Same holds true for day-use trails.'' The 
Pack and Saddle Design Parameters thus encompass the full range of 
trail development scale included in the Pack and Saddle Trail Guide.
    The Pack and Saddle Design Parameters cover a broad spectrum of 
equestrian trails, ranging from narrow, highly challenging trails in 
Trail Class 2 that are often very rugged and steep, with defined but 
narrow tread, and relatively narrow clearing limits, to wide, minimally 
challenging bridle trails in Trail Class 4 that typically present 
moderate-to-minimal levels of challenge and are wider, with well-
established tread and wide clearing limits.
    To enhance consistency in application, the Pack and Saddle Design 
Parameters more clearly identify the lower range of the development 
scale of NFS trails designed and managed to accommodate pack and saddle 
use by identifying values for the minimum Design Tread Width, Design 
Target Grade, and Short Pitch Maximum. Similarly, the Pack and Saddle 
Design Parameters more clearly identify the upper range of the spectrum 
of NFS trails designed and managed for equestrian use by identifying 
values for the Design Target Grade and identifying an expanded range of 
values for the Design Tread Width for single-lane and double-lane 
trails outside wilderness areas in Trail Class 4. In addition, the Pack 
and Saddle Design Parameters, like all Design Parameters, explicitly 
provide for local deviations based on specific trail conditions, 
topography, and other factors, provided that the deviations are 
consistent with the general intent of the applicable Trail Class.
    Moreover, based on comments received on the proposed directives, 
the

[[Page 61624]]

agency has revised the Pack and Saddle Design Parameters, as shown in 
Tables 4 and 6. Specifically, the agency has:
     Increased the range for Design Tread Width for single-lane 
trails in wilderness areas in Trail Class 3 from 12 to 24 inches to 18 
to 24 inches.
     Increased the Design Clearing Width for Trail Class 2 from 
a range of 3 to 4 feet (which matched the clearing width for Most 
Difficult trails in the Pack and Saddle Trail Guide) to a Design 
Clearing Width of 6 feet.
     Increased the range for the Design Clearing Width for 
Trail Class 3 from 5 to 6.5 feet to 6 to 8 feet.
     Increased the Design Clearing Width for Trail Class 4 from 
a range of 6 to 8 feet to 8 feet.
     Added pack clearances for Trail Class 3 and Trail Class 4, 
consistent with the clearances identified in the Pack and Saddle Trail 
Guide.
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P

[[Page 61625]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.001


[[Page 61626]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.002


[[Page 61627]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.003


[[Page 61628]]



4. Summary of Revisions to the Trail Class Matrix and Design Parameters

    The following section provides a summary of the substantive changes 
the agency has made to the Trail Class Matrix and Design Parameters in 
the interim final directives. These changes will not require a change 
in any existing TMOs, trail-specific prescriptions, or corresponding 
data recorded in the Forest Service's national database.
a. Changes to the Trail Class Matrix
    For clarity, in the interim final directives, the agency has 
changed the captions for the five Trail Classes to read:
    Trail Class 1: Minimally Developed
    Trail Class 2: Moderately Developed
    Trail Class 3: Developed
    Trail Class 4: Highly Developed
    Trail Class 5: Fully Developed
    The 2001 Trail Class Matrix included three sets of additional 
criteria specific to particular types of uses (motorized, snowmobile, 
and water uses), which were applied in addition to the general criteria 
in the five Trail Classes. In 2005, a fourth set of additional criteria 
was added to the Trail Class Matrix for pack and saddle use. The 
primary intent of the original sets of additional criteria was to 
address considerations specific to those uses that were not addressed 
by the general criteria. A secondary intent was to indicate the 
applicability of each Trail Class to types of Managed Uses. The agency 
is removing the four sets of additional criteria because they duplicate 
the use-specific guidance in the Design Parameters. The agency is 
including a new chart in the FSH that shows the potential 
appropriateness of each Trail Class for each of the Managed Uses of NFS 
trails.
    In addition, attached to the 2001 Trail Class Matrix is a chart 
entitled, ``Trail Operation and Maintenance Considerations.'' While 
these considerations are a useful tool for trail managers, they are not 
part of the Trail Class Matrix or Design Parameters. Rather, they are 
provided to assist field managers in the development of trail 
prescriptions, program management, and trail operation and maintenance. 
The considerations provide a starting point and likely will be adapted 
locally to reflect site-specific financial limitations and applicable 
district, forest, and regional circumstances. To clarify this 
distinction, the agency is severing this chart from the Trail Class 
Matrix and addressing its context and purpose in FSM 2353 and FSH 
2309.18.
    Table 7 shows the substantive revisions and clarifications made to 
the Trail Class Matrix. New text is shown in italicized font, and 
deleted text is shown with strikeout. The following summarizes the key 
substantive changes.

Tread and Traffic Flow

    The agency has added guidance regarding single and constructed 
passing allowances for trails in Trail Class 1 and Trail Class 2 and 
revised the corresponding guidance for trails in Trail Class 3 and 
Trail Class 4 for consistency. The agency has modified the qualifiers 
(for example, ``predominantly'' and ``typically'' are now used) for 
native and imported tread material types for trails in Trail Class 1, 
Trail Class 2, and Trail Class 3.

Obstacles

    The Trail Class Matrix now provides guidance on obstacles for each 
Trail Class and takes into account the effect of obstacles on the level 
of challenge provided by a trail.

Constructed Features and Trail Elements

    The agency has modified the discussion of this attribute for all 
Trail Classes to include guidance regarding the use of native or 
imported materials for trail structures, to provide clearer guidance 
regarding drainage for trails in Trail Class 1, to provide clearer 
guidance for trails in Trail Classes 1 through 4, and to provide or 
revise guidance regarding bridges for all Trail Classes.

Signs

    The agency has revised the discussion of this attribute to provide 
improved clarity and consistency in guidance regarding signs and 
markers for trails in all Trail Classes.

[[Page 61629]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.004


[[Page 61630]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.038


[[Page 61631]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.005


[[Page 61632]]


b. Changes to the Design Parameters
    The Forest Service is replacing the trail guides in the FSH with 
the Design Parameters. These interim final directives include Design 
Parameters for Hiker/Pedestrian, Pack and Saddle, Bicycle, ATV, 
Motorcycle, Cross-Country Ski, and Snowmobile. The Barrier-Free Trail 
Guide has additionally been made obsolete by adoption of the FTAG. To 
enhance consistency, the agency has defined the factors in the Design 
Parameters, including Design Tread Width, Design Surface, Design Grade, 
Design Cross Slope, Design Clearing Width and Height, and Design Turns 
(FSH 2309.18, sec. 05).
    The Forest Service has made several revisions to the Design 
Parameters in the interim final directives, as shown in Tables 8 
through 14. Tables 8 through 14 do not include the Design Parameters 
for Four-Wheel Drive Vehicle Greater Than 50 Inches in Width or the 
Design Parameters for Snowshoe, which are both new sets of Design 
Parameters and are included in the interim final directives under FSH 
2309.18, sections 23.23, exhibit 01, and 23.32, exhibit 01. The 
following summarizes the key substantive changes common to each set of 
Design Parameters. New text in Tables 8 through 14 is shown in 
italicized font, and deleted text is shown with strikeout.

Design Tread Width

    To provide improved guidance for trails where it is determined that 
a double-lane tread width is needed, the agency has validated, revised, 
or identified double-lane tread widths for each set of Design 
Parameters. These double-lane tread widths reflect the desired level of 
challenge and recreation experience for each Trail Class. In addition, 
the double-lane tread widths provide for unhindered passage for the 
Designed Use without special maneuvering when passing or traveling side 
by side.
    The agency has added a subcategory for Design Tread Width called, 
``Structures (Minimum Width),'' to each set of Design Parameters to 
provide better guidance regarding the minimum usable tread width on 
trail structures such as bridges, puncheon, and turnpike.

Design Surface

    The agency has revised the discussion of Design Surface Type to 
provide guidance for all Trail Classes regarding when to construct the 
design surface of native or imported material and regarding the 
roughness of the trail surface.
    Under Design Surface, the row previously labeled ``Obstacles'' 
included guidance on surface obstacles and protrusions. In the interim 
final directives, the agency has split this row into two rows labeled, 
``Protrusions'' and ``Obstacles (Maximum Height),'' to provide 
increased design flexibility and enhance clarity and consistency in 
application of the guidelines regarding protrusions and obstacles. The 
guidance regarding protrusions includes a ``less than or equal to'' 
value for the height of surface protrusions and indicates whether they 
are common or continuous. The guidance regarding obstacles identifies a 
maximum height for surface obstacles.

Design Grade

    The agency has revised the values for Design Target Grade to 
present them as a range of values for all Trail Classes (rather than a 
range of values in some Design Parameters and a ``less than or equal 
to'' value in others). In addition, the agency has revised the values 
for Design Target Grade in most Trail Classes to identify a minimum 
percentage for the lower limit of the range, since trails with a 0 
percent grade typically do not provide adequate drainage. For trails in 
Trail Classes 4 and 5, the minimum value is 2 percent and 0 percent, 
respectively, because these Trail Classes typically have harder, more 
durable surfaces that can more readily provide adequate drainage on 
flatter grades than trails with a native surface, which is more 
typically encountered on trails in Trail Classes 1 through 3. The lower 
value in the range varies somewhat among uses because some are more 
likely to trigger erosion than others.
    In addition, the agency has increased the tolerances for Maximum 
Pitch Density to reflect more accurately the desired levels of 
challenge for each Trail Class and the actual maximum grade tolerances 
of many NFS trails. The upper limit for Maximum Pitch Density depends 
upon the applicable trail grade and factors concerning sustainability 
of the trail, as discussed in one of the footnotes to each set of 
Design Parameters.

Design Clearing

    The agency has revised the values for Design Clearing Width for 
each Trail Class to reflect the entire clearing width (that is, the 
tread width, plus the distance from the edge of the trail tread needed 
to accommodate the Designed Use), rather than the entire clearing width 
for some Trail Classes and merely the distance from the edge of the 
trail tread for others, as in the proposed directives. This standard 
approach to Design Clearing Width is consistent with the revised 
definition for that term and improves clarity and consistency in 
application of the Design Parameters. In addition, the agency has 
verified the Design Clearing Limits across each set of Design 
Parameters against a hypothetical doorway to ensure that the minimum 
clearing widths provide adequate clearance for the Designed Use in each 
Trail Class.
    The agency has added a new category called ``Shoulder Clearance,'' 
defined as ``the minimum horizontal and vertical clearance of 
obstructions (for example, removal of bicycle pedal or motorcycle peg 
bumpers) immediately adjacent to the trail tread that is determined to 
be appropriate for accommodating the Manages Uses of the trail'' (FSH 
2309.18, sec. 05). This attribute will provide useful guidance and 
latitude in situations where a manager determines it is appropriate or 
necessary to leave logs or other obstacles on the ground within the 
design clearing limits for the trail (e.g., to keep users on the trail 
tread or to keep other users off the trail).

Design Turn

    In the interim final directives, the agency has defined ``Design 
Turn Radius'' as ``the minimum horizontal radius required for a Managed 
Use to negotiate a curve (e.g., a switchback, climbing turn, or 
horizontal turn) in a single maneuver'' (FSH 2309.18, sec. 05).
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P

[[Page 61633]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.006


[[Page 61634]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.007


[[Page 61635]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.008


[[Page 61636]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.009


[[Page 61637]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.010


[[Page 61638]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.011


[[Page 61639]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.012


[[Page 61640]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.013


[[Page 61641]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.014


[[Page 61642]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.015


[[Page 61643]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.016


[[Page 61644]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.017


[[Page 61645]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.018


[[Page 61646]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC08.019


[[Page 61647]]



5. Regulatory Certifications

Environmental Impact

    Section 31.12, paragraph 2, of FSH 1909.15 (67 FR 54622, August 23, 
2002) excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement ``rules, regulations, or policies to 
establish Servicewide administrative procedures, program processes, or 
instructions.'' The agency has concluded that the interim final 
directives fall within this category of actions and that no 
extraordinary circumstances exist which would require preparation of an 
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement (see Back 
Country Horsemen of America v. Johanns, No. 05-0960 (ESH) (D.D.C. Mar. 
29, 2006), slip op. at 15-20).

Regulatory Impact

    These interim final directives have been reviewed under USDA 
procedures and Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 
13422, on regulatory planning and review. The Office of Management and 
Budget has determined that these are not significant directives. These 
interim final directives cannot and may not reasonably be anticipated 
to lead to an annual effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect 
in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local, or Tribal governments or communities; create a serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by 
another agency; raise novel legal or policy issues; or materially alter 
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs or the rights or obligations of beneficiaries of those 
programs. Accordingly, these interim final directives are not subject 
to OMB review under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive 
Order 13422.
    These final interim directives have been considered in light of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602 et seq.). The agency has 
determined that these interim final directives will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
as defined by the act because the interim final directives will not 
impose recordkeeping requirements on them; will not affect their 
competitive position in relation to large entities; and will not affect 
their cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market. The 
interim final directives will establish guidelines for trail survey, 
design, construction, maintenance, and assessment that will apply 
internally to the Forest Service and that will have no direct effect on 
small businesses.

No Taking Implications

    The interim final directives have been analyzed in accordance with 
the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630. It has 
been determined that these directives will not pose the risk of a 
taking of private property.

Civil Justice Reform

    The interim final directives have been reviewed under Executive 
Order 12988 on civil justice reform. After adoption of the interim 
final directives, (1) all State and local laws and regulations that 
conflict with the interim final directives or that impede their full 
implementation will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be 
given to the interim final directives; and (3) administrative 
proceedings will not be required before parties can file suit in court 
challenging their provisions.

Unfunded Mandates

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 
1995, the agency has assessed the effects of the interim final 
directives on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private 
sector. The interim final directives will not compel the expenditure of 
$100 million or more by any State, local, or Tribal government or 
anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 
of the act is not required.

Federalism and Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    The agency has considered the interim final directives under the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 on federalism and has determined 
that these directives conform with the federalism principles set out in 
this Executive Order; will not impose any compliance costs on the 
States; and will not have substantial direct effects on the States, the 
relationship between the Federal government and the States, or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Therefore, the agency has determined that no further 
assessment of federalism implications is necessary.
    Moreover, the interim final directives will not have Tribal 
implications as defined by Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,'' and therefore advance 
consultation with Tribes is not required.

Energy Effects

    The interim final directives have been reviewed under Executive 
Order 13211 of May 18, 2001, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.'' The agency 
has determined that the interim final directives will not constitute a 
significant energy action as defined in the Executive order.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    The interim final directives do not contain any recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as 
defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not 
already approved for use. Accordingly, the review provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and its 
implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.

6. Access to the Interim Final Directives

    The Forest Service organizes its directive system by alphanumeric 
codes and subject headings. The intended audience for this direction is 
Forest Service employees charged with trail management and construction 
of NFS trails. The full text of FSM 2350 and FSH 2309.18 is available 
electronically on the World Wide Web at http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/. The interim final directives (that is, excerpts from FSM 
2350 and FSH 2309.18) and this Federal Register notice are available 
electronically on the World Wide Web at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/.

    Dated: October 7, 2008.
Sally D. Collins,
Associate Chief.
 [FR Doc. E8-24193 Filed 10-7-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P