[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74689-74703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-29041]



[[Page 74689]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

RIN 0596-AC39


Travel Management Directives; Forest Service Manual 2350, 7700, 
and 7710 and Forest Service Handbook 7709.55

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final directives.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is amending internal directives regarding 
travel management to make them consistent with and to facilitate 
implementation of the agency's final travel management rule. The travel 
management rule requires each Forest Service administrative unit or 
ranger district to designate those National Forest System (NFS) roads, 
NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands that are open to motor vehicle use.
    Changes to existing travel management directives are needed to 
provide guidance on implementation of the travel management rule, to 
conform terminology to the rule, to provide consistent direction on the 
process of designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use, 
and to provide direction on travel analysis.
    These final directives consolidate direction for travel planning 
for both NFS roads and NFS trails in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7710 
and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.55. The final directives rename 
roads analysis ``travel analysis'' and streamline some of its 
procedural requirements. In addition, for purposes of designating 
roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use, the final directives 
expand the scope of travel analysis to encompass trails and areas being 
considered for designation. Definitions and delegations of authority 
for the travel management directives are found in FSM 7700. Direction 
for trail management remains in FSM 2350.

DATES: Effective Date: The final directives are effective January 7, 
2009.

ADDRESSES: The record for these 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 or copy these 
documents are encouraged to call Deidre St. Louis at (202) 205-0931 to 
facilitate entry into the building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deidre St. Louis, Recreation, 
Heritage, and Volunteer Resources Staff, (202) 205-0931.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published the travel 
management rule, governing use of motor vehicles on NFS lands. The 
travel management rule (36 CFR part 212, subpart B) 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 travel 
management rule also requires designated roads, trails, and areas to be 
identified on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM). After designated roads, 
trails, and areas have been identified on an MVUM, motor vehicle use 
inconsistent with those designations is prohibited under 36 CFR 261.13.
    The travel management rule combines regulations governing 
administration of the forest transportation system and regulations 
governing use of motor vehicles off NFS roads into part 212, Travel 
Management, covering the use of motor vehicles on NFS lands. The travel 
management rule implements Executive Order (E.O.) 11644 (February 8, 
1972), ``Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands,'' as amended by 
E.O. 11989 (May 24, 1977).
    Nationally, the Forest Service manages approximately 280,000 miles 
of NFS roads and 47,000 miles of NFS trails that are open to motor 
vehicle use. Other NFS roads and NFS trails are managed for non-
motorized uses or are closed to all public use. Motor vehicle routes in 
the forest transportation system range from paved roads designed for 
all vehicle types, including standard passenger cars, to single-track 
trails used by motorcycles. Many roads designed for high-clearance 
vehicles (such as logging trucks and sport utility vehicles) are also 
used by all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and other off-highway vehicles 
(OHVs) not normally found on city streets. Almost all NFS trails serve 
non-motorized users such as hikers, bicyclists, and equestrians, alone 
or in combination with motorized users. NFS roads accept non-motorized 
use as well.
    In addition to this managed system of NFS roads and NFS trails, 
many national forests contain user-created roads and trails. These 
routes are usually in areas where cross-country travel by motor 
vehicles has been allowed and sometimes include dense, braided networks 
of criss-crossing trail. There has been no comprehensive national 
inventory of user-created routes (and continuing proliferation of these 
routes has made a definitive inventory difficult), but they are 
estimated to number in the tens of thousands of miles.
    Wilderness areas are closed to motor vehicles by statute, unless 
the applicable enabling legislation authorizes motor vehicle use. On 
some national forests and portions of others, motor vehicle use is 
restricted by order to designated routes and areas. On other national 
forests, motor vehicle use is not restricted to designated routes and 
areas.

Need for Final Directives

    The Forest Service provides internal direction to field units 
through its directive system, consisting of the Forest Service manuals 
and Forest Service handbooks. Directives provide guidance to field 
units in implementing programs established by statute and regulation. 
Forest Service directives establish agency policy for delegations of 
authority, consistent definitions of terms, clear and consistent 
interpretation of regulatory language, and standard processes.
    The travel management rule is being implemented on administrative 
units and ranger districts, each of which will complete the designation 
process and publish an MVUM identifying those NFS roads, NFS trails, 
and areas on NFS lands open to motor vehicle use. The Forest Service 
plans to complete that task on all units of the NFS within 4 years of 
publication of the final rule.
    Current policy in the Forest Service directive system was written 
prior to the travel management rule and reflects previous travel 
management direction and terminology. For example, current directives 
use the terms ``classified road'' and ``unclassified road,'' which were 
removed by the travel management rule. Until this policy is updated, 
inconsistent terminology may result in confusion and inconsistent 
application of the travel management rule. The final directives are 
also needed to provide a procedural approach to implementing the travel 
management rule in conformance with agency policy on land management 
planning, environmental analysis, roads analysis, and other 
requirements of law and policy.
    Some comments on the proposed travel management rule requested an 
opportunity for public input in development of Agency directives 
implementing the travel management rule.

[[Page 74690]]

Summary of Comments on the Proposed Directives

    The Forest Service published the proposed travel management 
directives in the Federal Register for public notice and comment on 
March 9, 2007 (72 FR 10632). The agency received 33 comments from 
organizations and individuals. Most comments were submitted by 
organizations or their representatives.
    Many comments were editorial, suggesting minor word changes, 
referencing errors, or identifying inconsistencies between policy 
statements. The Forest Service accepted many of these suggestions in 
developing the final directives.
    The following iterates the substantive comments and the agency's 
Response.

General Comments and Responses

    Comment. Some respondents suggested adding additional citations and 
direction related to laws, regulations, E.O.s, and directives to the 
authority and policy sections in the final directives. Suggested 
additions included references to the National Historic Preservation 
Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and the Data Quality Act, 
and statements addressing the protection of cultural resources and 
threatened and endangered species and prevention of the introduction of 
invasive species.
    Response. The Forest Service does not believe that additional 
references in the final directives to governing laws, regulations, 
E.O.s, or directives are necessary. There are numerous laws, 
regulations, E.O.s, and directives that govern the Forest Service's 
programs. The purpose of FSM 2353.01, 7701, and 7710.01 and FSH 
7709.55, sections 10.03, 20.03, and 30.03, is to reference those 
authorities that directly pertain to travel management and planning. 
The Forest Service believes that the final directives accomplish this 
purpose.
    Comment. Some respondents commented that some of the sections in 
the proposed directives were redundant, making them difficult to read 
and understand.
    Response. The agency agrees that there was redundancy in the 
proposed directives and has striven to reduce it by consolidating 
definitions and text in the final directives. For example, the agency 
has removed most redundant information on MVUMs in FSM 7711.3 and FSH 
7709.55, section 15 and has consolidated direction on MVUMs in FSM 
7711.3 and FSH 7709.55, section 15.1.
    Comment. Some respondents asked the agency to provide definitions 
for the following terms in the directives: Sustainable, sustainable 
access (FSM 7702), fiscally responsible (FSM 7702), considerable 
adverse effects (36 CFR 212.52(b)(2)), appropriate consideration (FSH 
7709.55, sec. 12.1), collaborative learning (FSH 7709.55, sec. 12.2), 
and use conflict (7710.2, para. 6).
    Some respondents requested modification of the definitions for 
``travel management atlas,'' ``forest transportation atlas,'' 
``route,'' ``road decommissioning,'' ``road,'' ``trail,'' and 
``unauthorized road.''
    Response. The travel management rule provides a consistent national 
framework for making travel management decisions at the local level. 
The final directives provide national direction for implementing the 
travel management rule. Both the travel management rule and the travel 
management directives give the responsible official discretion to make 
appropriate decisions at the local level. Consistent with this 
approach, the terms ``sustainable'' and ``sustainable access'' (FSM 
7702), ``fiscally responsible'' (FSM 7702), ``appropriate 
consideration'' (FSH 7709.55, sec. 12.1), ``collaborative learning'' 
(FSH 7709.55, sec. 12, para. 2), and ``use conflict'' are terms of art 
designed to provide a general context for implementing the final 
directives, while leaving discretion to the responsible official to 
work with the public, other Federal agencies, and State, local, and 
tribal governments to discern what each term means for that official's 
administrative unit or ranger district in light of local social and 
environmental issues. Accordingly, the Forest Service does not believe 
it is necessary or appropriate to define these terms in the final 
directives.
    The phrase ``considerable adverse effects'' (E.O. 11644, 36 CFR 
212.52(b)(2), and 36 CFR 261.51) is a requirement for establishing a 
temporary emergency closure of a route to motor vehicle use under 36 
CFR 212.52(b)(2). The responsible official has the discretion to make 
this determination based on local, social, and environmental 
conditions. Therefore, the Forest Service does not believe it is 
necessary or appropriate to define ``considerable adverse effects'' in 
the final directives.
    ``Forest transportation atlas,'' ``travel management atlas,'' 
``road,'' ``road decommissioning,'' ``trail,'' and ``unauthorized 
road'' are defined in regulations at 36 CFR 212.1, and redefining them 
is beyond the scope of these directives. ``Route'' is defined in FSM 
7705 as ``a road or trail,'' which is a sufficient definition for 
purposes of these directives.
    Comment. Some respondents believed that travel planning should be 
accomplished as part of land management plan revisions. Other 
respondents believed that the Forest Service should have separate 
planning processes for recreation and general access routes and 
suggested how the planning process for recreation routes should be 
structured.
    Response. The agency has developed the travel planning process in 
FSM 7710 and FSH 7709.55, chapter 10, based on past experience with 
transportation and recreation travel planning. The Forest Service 
believes that it would not be appropriate to have separate planning 
processes for recreation and general access routes for implementing the 
travel management rule, which regulates motor vehicle use by vehicle 
class and time of year, rather than by type of use. In addition, the 
agency has clarified or added direction on travel planning in the final 
directives based on the agency's experience in implementing the travel 
management rule during the past 3 years.
    Comment. Some respondents believed that the agency should not 
restrict motor vehicle use to a designated system of NFS roads, NFS 
trails, and areas on NFS lands, but if the agency created a designated 
system for motor vehicle use, the agency should provide broad 
exemptions for specific activities like big game retrieval and grazing.
    One respondent expressed concern about not being able to use a 
motor vehicle to engage in dispersed camping or big game retrieval off 
a public road that is not under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. 
Other respondents believed that limiting designations for dispersed 
camping and big game retrieval to ``within a specified distance of 
certain forest roads and trails'' was too restrictive, would preclude 
day use, and would give preference to one group over others. Some 
respondents commented that the directives should not limit responsible 
officials' ability to make designations for dispersed camping and big 
game retrieval. Some respondents believed that additional limitations, 
such as a maximum length, should be placed on designations for 
dispersed camping and big game retrieval.
    Response. Unregulated cross-country motor vehicle use may have been 
appropriate on some national forests when these vehicles were less 
numerous, less powerful, and less capable of cross-country travel. 
Today, however, the proliferation of user-created routes is a major 
challenge on many national forests, and examples of significant 
environmental damage,

[[Page 74691]]

safety issues, and use conflicts are well-established. The Forest 
Service believes that a well-planned, well-designed system of 
designated roads, trails, and areas, developed in coordination with 
Federal, State, local, and tribal governments and with public 
involvement, offers better opportunities for sustainable long-term 
recreational motor vehicle use and better economic opportunities for 
local residents and communities. Consistent with these determinations, 
the agency promulgated the travel management rule, which requires each 
administrative unit or ranger district to establish a designated system 
of routes and areas for motor vehicle use. These final directives 
implement that regulation. The final rule and the final directives do 
not prohibit day use of NFS lands for such purposes as picnicking or 
fishing. Rather, the final rule and final directives regulate motor 
vehicle use.
    The travel management rule and the final directives enumerate eight 
exemptions from designations for motor vehicle use, including motor 
vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written 
authorization, such as a grazing permit (36 CFR 212.51(a)). In 
addition, the travel management rule provides for including in a 
designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified 
distance of certain designated routes, and if appropriate within 
specified time periods, solely for the purposes of dispersed camping or 
big game retrieval (36 CFR 212.51(b)).
    In many places in the NFS, visitors use motor vehicles for 
dispersed camping or big game retrieval within a limited distance of 
State or county roads or trails, which are not under the jurisdiction 
of the Forest Service and cannot be designated for motor vehicle use 
(36 CFR 212.1, 212.50(a), and 212.51(a)). Consequently, the proposed 
directives at FSM 7710 contained language that would allow the 
responsible official to include in a designation the limited use of 
motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain forest routes, 
rather than designated routes, solely for the purposes of dispersed 
camping and big game retrieval. Forest roads and trails include State 
and county roads and trails in the NFS, as well as NFS roads and NFS 
trails (36 CFR 212.1).
    The agency has retained the proposed language in FSM 7715.74 of the 
final directives. In addition, the agency has included the phrase, 
``where motor vehicle use is allowed'' after ``certain forest roads and 
forest trails,'' since not all forest roads and trails are open to 
motor vehicle use. In a separate notice in the same issue of the 
Federal Register, the agency is revising the travel management rule at 
36 CFR 212.51(b) to make it consistent with FSM 7715.74 in the final 
directives. Since the proposed language regarding dispersed camping and 
big game retrieval was subjected to full public notice and comment 
under the Administrative Procedure Act, further public notice and 
comment are unnecessary (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)).
    The Forest Service expects responsible officials to apply 36 CFR 
212.51(b) and FSM 7715.74 sparingly to avoid undermining the purposes 
of the travel management rule and to promote consistency in its 
implementation. Determination of the specified distance for limited 
motor vehicle use off a forest road or trail is a local decision 
dependent on site- and route-specific circumstances. Therefore, the 
travel management rule and final directives give the responsible 
official some discretion in making this determination.
    Nothing in the travel management rule or final directives requires 
addressing either dispersed camping or big game retrieval in a 
designation or reconsideration of any decision prohibiting motor 
vehicle use while engaging in these activities.
    Comment. Some respondents suggested adding provisions to the 
directives requiring responsible officials to coordinate with local 
governmental entities, including local law enforcement agencies and 
emergency service providers, during the travel planning process and 
prior to making travel management decisions.
    Response. The travel management rule (36 CFR 212.53) and its 
implementing directives (FSM 7702, para. 5, and 7715.3) require the 
responsible official to coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, 
county, and other local governmental entities, which may include local 
law enforcement agencies and emergency service providers, as well as 
tribal governments in designating routes and areas for motor vehicle 
use.
    Comment. Some respondents believed that the proposed directives 
should require a complete inventory of user-created routes and 
consideration of that inventory in travel planning, since many of these 
routes were created when cross-country travel was allowed, are well-
located, and provide the type of experiences motorized recreationists 
are seeking. Some respondents believed that the proposed directives 
should provide for accepting inventories of user-created routes 
collected by volunteers. Other respondents believed that the proposed 
directives would discourage responsible officials from considering 
user-created routes in travel planning. Other respondents believed that 
a complete inventory was needed for resource protection and restoration 
and that the requirement to conduct a complete inventory currently in 
FSM 7710 should be retained.
    Other respondents believed that the proposed directives should 
prohibit inventory of user-created routes and should direct responsible 
officials not to consider them in travel planning. Some of these 
respondents believed that the proposed directives were biased toward 
adding user-created routes to the forest transportation system and 
designating them for motor vehicle use.
    Response. A complete inventory of user-created routes is not 
required to complete the designation process pursuant to the travel 
management rule. Therefore, the current directives do not require a 
complete inventory of user-created routes in conducting travel 
planning. In some cases, however, an administrative unit or ranger 
district may determine that a complete inventory of user-created routes 
is necessary to conduct effective travel planning. To clarify this 
intent, the final directives state that a complete inventory of user-
created routes is not required, rather than a complete inventory is not 
necessary.
    As a practical matter, in areas where there are no restrictions on 
motor vehicle use, there is no way to conduct a complete inventory of 
user-created routes, since users of motor vehicles can create new 
routes while the inventory is underway. Furthermore, to the extent a 
comprehensive inventory of user-created routes is feasible, conducting 
such an inventory would be very time-consuming and expensive, delaying 
completion of route and area designation. Advance planning based on 
public involvement, effective design, and appropriate environmental 
analysis provides the best hope for a system of motor vehicle routes 
and areas that addresses users' needs and safety with minimal 
environmental impacts.
    User-created routes in most cases were developed without agency 
authorization, environmental analysis, or public involvement and do not 
have the same status as NFS roads and NFS trails in the forest 
transportation system. Nevertheless, some user-created routes are well-
sited, provide excellent opportunities for outdoor recreation by 
motorized and non-motorized users alike, engender less environmental 
impact than unrestricted cross-country motor vehicle use, and would 
enhance the system of designated routes and areas. Other user-created 
routes are

[[Page 74692]]

poorly located and cause unacceptable environmental impacts.
    The evaluation of user-created routes is best handled at the local 
level by officials who have first-hand knowledge of the particular 
circumstances, uses, and environmental impacts involved and who can 
work closely with local governments, users, and other members of the 
public.
    Comment. Some respondents asked the agency to define ``user-created 
route'' in the proposed directives and to explain the difference 
between that term and the term ``unauthorized road.''
    Response. FSM 7703.21, paragraph 1, addresses user-created routes. 
FSM 7715.78, paragraph 2, in the final directives addresses 
unauthorized roads and trails. `` Unauthorized road or trail,'' which 
is defined in the travel management rule as ``a road or trail that is 
not a forest road or trail or a temporary road or trail and that is not 
included in a forest transportation atlas'' (36 CFR 212.1), is the 
preferred term. Therefore, a definition for and additional direction on 
user-created routes is not needed in the final directives.
    Comment. Some respondents believed that responsible officials 
should be required to identify the minimum trail system, as well as the 
minimum road system, needed for safe and efficient travel and for 
administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands. Other 
respondents believed that the requirement to identify the minimum road 
system would result in reducing opportunities for motorized recreation.
    Response. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1) 
establish the requirement to identify the minimum road system on each 
administrative unit of the NFS, and Forest Service directives at FSM 
7703.12 implement that requirement. Agency regulations and directives 
do not establish a requirement to identify the minimum trail system on 
NFS lands.
    Moreover, identification of the minimum road system needed for safe 
and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and 
protection of NFS lands under 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1) is separate from 
designation of routes and areas under 36 CFR 212.51. The requirement to 
identify the minimum road system was established in regulations (the 
roads rule) and directives (the roads policy) published on January 12, 
2001 (66 FR 3216), before promulgation of the travel management rule in 
November 2005. Identification of the minimum road system focuses on the 
need for roads in the forest transportation system, rather than on 
appropriate motor vehicle use on routes in the forest transportation 
system and in areas on NFS lands. Therefore, the designation process, 
rather than identification of the minimum road system, determines the 
scope of opportunities for motorized recreation.
    Although identification of the minimum road system pursuant to 36 
CFR 212.5(b)(1) and designation of routes and areas pursuant to 36 CFR 
212.51 are independent regulatory requirements, the Forest Service 
believes that travel analysis can and should be used for both. The 
agency has revised FSM 7712 to provide that travel analysis for 
purposes of 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1) and 36 CFR 212.51 may be conducted 
separately or simultaneously, and that any proposals resulting from 
travel analysis for either purpose may be addressed in the same or 
different environmental analyses.
    Comment. Some respondents wanted the agency to retain all or part 
of the current direction in FSM 7700 and 7710 regarding roads analysis. 
Some respondents believed that the proposed changes to roads analysis 
would weaken its environmental protection.
    Response. The agency has retained the essentials of roads analysis 
in the final directives and has not weakened its environmental 
protection. A key objective of the final directives is to describe a 
travel analysis process that can be used for the two separate purposes 
of identification of the minimum road system that incorporates a 
science-based roads analysis under 36 CFR 212.5(b) and designation of 
roads, trails, and areas under 36 CFR 212.51. The roads policy (current 
FSM 7700 and 7710) established Publication FS-643, Roads Analysis: 
Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation 
System (August 1999), as the science-based roads analysis to be 
followed when identifying the minimum road system. The Forest Service 
has moved the six-step roads analysis described in Publication FS-643 
to FSH 7709.55, chapter 20, and renamed it ``travel analysis'' to 
reflect its purpose of informing travel management decisions regarding 
motor vehicle use on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS 
lands, as well as identification of the minimum road system. In 
addition, the agency has streamlined travel analysis and has given 
responsible officials additional discretion in determining the scope 
and scale of travel analysis.
    By including travel analysis in the Forest Service directive 
system, the agency has made the process available to anyone with 
Internet access. Publication FS-643 was originally available only in 
hard copy, and while scanned versions are available on the Internet, 
they remain difficult to locate and, in contrast to Forest Service 
directives, do not meet the needs of the accessibility requirements of 
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794d).
    The Forest Service believes that additional clarification of the 
relationship between roads analysis and travel analysis is necessary 
and thus has modified the final directives to specify that travel 
analysis satisfies the requirement for use of a science-based road 
analysis when identifying the minimum road system per 36 CFR 
212.5(b)(1) (see FSM 7712.4, para. 1). In addition, the final 
directives clarify that travel analysis is not required to inform 
decisions related to the designation of roads, trails, and areas for 
those administrative units and ranger districts that have issued a 
proposed action as of the effective date of the final directives (FSM 
7712, para. 1).
    Since the approving official for FSM 7710 and FSH 7709.55 is the 
Deputy Chief for the National Forest System, issuance of the final 
directives will negate the need for the statement currently in FSM 
7710.41 regarding the authority of the Deputy Chief of the National 
Forest System to approve or rescind the roads analysis process for 
field use. Therefore, the agency has removed this statement from the 
final directives.
    Comment. Some respondents suggested that the agency require a 
complete review of the forest transportation system as part of travel 
planning and establish a schedule for subsequent comprehensive review 
of the system in the proposed directives.
    Response. The agency believes that it is not necessary or 
appropriate to require a comprehensive review of the forest 
transportation system when designating roads, trails, and areas for 
motor vehicle use per 36 CFR 212.51. Nothing in the travel management 
rule requires reconsideration of any previous administrative decisions 
that allow, restrict, or prohibit motor vehicle use on NFS roads and 
NFS trails or in areas on NFS lands and that were made under other 
authorities, including decisions made in land management plans and 
travel plans. To the contrary, the travel management rule provides that 
these decisions may be incorporated into designations for motor vehicle 
use (36 CFR 212.50(b)).
    All national forests have a system of NFS roads open to motor 
vehicle use, and many also have a system of NFS trails managed for 
motor vehicle use. Some national forests have long restricted motor 
vehicles to designated

[[Page 74693]]

routes under E.O. 11644, 36 CFR part 295, and FSM 2355. Other national 
forests have issued comprehensive travel management decisions that 
restrict motor vehicle use to designated routes and have issued orders 
that prohibit cross-country motor vehicle use. In these cases, the 
responsible official may, with public notice but no further analysis or 
decision-making, establish that decision or those decisions as the 
designation pursuant to 36 CFR 212.51, effective upon publication of an 
MVUM. In that situation, the only substantive change effected by the 
designation would be enforcement of the restrictions pursuant to the 
prohibition in 36 CFR 261.13, rather than pursuant to an order issued 
under 36 CFR part 261, subpart B. Alternatively, responsible officials 
may choose to reconsider past decisions, with public involvement, as 
necessary to achieve the purposes of the travel management rule.
    The travel management rule and final directives both recognize that 
designations of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use are not 
permanent. Unforeseen environmental impacts, changes in public demand, 
route construction, and monitoring conducted under Sec.  212.57 of the 
travel management rule may lead responsible officials to consider 
revising designations under Sec.  212.54 of the rule.
    Designations must be consistent with the applicable land management 
plan. If a responsible official proposes a designation that would be 
inconsistent with the applicable land management plan, a proposed 
amendment to the plan must be included with the proposed designation so 
that the designation decision will conform to the plan.
    The Forest Service supports the concept of adaptive management and 
agrees that monitoring and, if needed, revision of motor vehicle 
designations will be an ongoing part of travel management. Since the 
system of designated routes and areas will change over time, the Forest 
Service anticipates that responsible officials will publish MVUMs 
annually to provide notice that they are current, update them as 
necessary, and update signs as necessary or appropriate.
    Neither E.O. 11644 nor the travel management rule requires periodic 
review of designations. Accordingly, the Forest Service does not 
believe that it is necessary or appropriate to require periodic review 
of designations. Rather, the agency believes that responsible officials 
should have the discretion to conduct review of designations as needed.
    Comment. Some respondents objected to OHV use on NFS roads, on NFS 
trails, and in areas on NFS lands. Other respondents advocated 
designating every NFS road and NFS trail for motor vehicle use. Some 
respondents believed that the proposed directives favored motorized 
recreation, while other respondents believed that the proposed 
directives favored resource protection and non-motorized recreation. 
Some respondents requested that the proposed directives require 
responsible officials to give preference in travel planning to resource 
values such as wilderness values and minimizing or preventing 
introduction of invasive species; social values, and existing uses such 
as non-motorized and motorized recreation, rock climbing, grazing, 
mining, and other authorized uses. Some respondents suggested that the 
proposed directives include language reflecting the requirements in the 
Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act (MUSY) and that the proposed 
directives emphasize multiple use as a policy objective.
    Response. Designation of a road, trail, or area for motor vehicle 
use does not establish that use as the dominant or exclusive use of 
that road, trail, or area. Pursuant to MUSY (16 U.S.C. 528-531), the 
Forest Service manages NFS lands for multiple uses, including motorized 
and non-motorized and recreational and non-recreational uses, without 
favoring one use over another. The Forest Service believes that NFS 
lands should provide access for both motorized and non-motorized users 
in a manner that is environmentally sustainable over the long term. The 
NFS is not reserved for any particular use, nor must every use be 
accommodated on every acre of NFS lands. It is not uncommon for 
different areas in the NFS to provide different recreation 
opportunities. The Forest Service believes that assessment and 
determination of appropriate motorized recreation opportunities are 
best made at the local level, in coordination with Federal, State, and 
local governmental entities and tribal governments and with public 
involvement, including input from motorized and non-motorized users, as 
provided for in the travel management rule and final directives.
    The Forest Service does not believe that it is appropriate to cite 
MUSY as an authority for the final directives or to emphasize multiple 
use as one of their policy objectives. Like the travel management rule, 
the authorities for the final directives include the Bankhead-Jones 
Farm Tenant Act (16 U.S.C. 7 U.S.C. 1011(f)), regarding regulation of 
national grasslands; the agency's Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 551), 
regarding regulation of national forests; and E.O.s 11644 and 11989 
governing use of motor vehicles off roads (42 FR 26959). In addition, 
the final directives cite the travel management rule as an authority. 
Neither the travel management rule nor the final directives need to 
reference all the laws and regulations governing management of the NFS.
    MUSY defines ``multiple use'' in part as ``management of all the 
various renewable surface resources of the National Forests so that 
they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of 
the American people * * * '' (16 U.S.C. 531(a)). MUSY specifically 
provides ``that some land will be used for less than all of the 
resources'' (16 U.S.C. 531(a)). MUSY does not direct that all NFS lands 
be open to all uses. The policy established in the final directives is 
consistent with MUSY.
    Comment. Some respondents requested that the agency expand travel 
planning to include all recreation uses of roads and trails, both 
motorized and non-motorized. Specifically, these respondents wanted the 
agency to analyze the social and environmental effects associated with 
these uses and to make travel management decisions for both motorized 
and non-motorized uses.
    Response. The purpose of the travel management rule and final 
directives is to provide better and more consistent management of motor 
vehicle use on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands. 
Regulation of non-motorized use is beyond the scope of the travel 
management rule and final directives.
    In designating roads, trails, and areas, responsible officials must 
consider conflicts among uses of NFS lands (36 CFR 212.55(a)). In 
designating trails and areas, local agency officials must consider 
compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in 
populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other 
factors (36 CFR 212.55(b)(5)).
    While there is no requirement to regulate non-motorized recreation 
uses as part of travel planning, the final directives identify as one 
of the objectives of travel planning ``to provide for and manage a 
range of motorized and non-motorized recreational experiences, while 
minimizing conflicts among uses'' (FSM 7710.2). Responsible officials 
have the discretion to use travel analysis and planning to address non-
motorized recreation (FSM 7712, para. 6).
    Comment. Some respondents suggested that the proposed directives 
require consultation with counties to identify roads that could qualify 
as R.S. 2477 rights-of-way and that those roads

[[Page 74694]]

should remain open to motor vehicle use until they are adjudicated. 
Some respondents requested that the Forest Service establish a process 
outside the courts for adjudicating claims for R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. 
Other respondents requested that the agency limit its legal research 
and title searches so as not to appear to be conducting an informal 
adjudication of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way outside the courts. Several 
respondents commented that discussion of existing rights in FSM 7715.65 
should be expanded to include R.S. 2477 rights-of-way.
    Response. The Forest Service does not believe it is appropriate to 
include these suggestions in the final directives. Under the travel 
management rule, responsible officials may designate only NFS roads, 
NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands, that is, only roads, trails, and 
areas under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service (36 CFR 212.1, 
212.50(a), 212.51(a)). Adjudicated R.S. 2477 rights-of-way are not 
under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. The Forest Service does 
not have the authority to adjudicate R.S. 2477 rights-of-way.
    The Forest Service may, however, make a non-binding administrative 
determination (NBD) as to the potential validity of an R.S. 2477 right-
of-way claim for land use planning and management purposes. If the 
Forest Service identifies a potentially valid R.S. 2477 right-of-way 
claim through the NBD process, the agency will encourage the claimant 
to accept jurisdiction pursuant to an easement granted by the U.S. 
Department of Transportation (23 U.S.C. 317) or by the Forest Service 
under Section 2 of the National Forest Roads and Trails Act (FRTA) (16 
U.S.C. 533) or to adjudicate the claim pursuant to the Quiet Title Act 
(28 U.S.C. 2409a).
    In making designations for motor vehicle use, the responsible 
official must recognize valid existing rights (see 36 CFR 212.55(d)). 
FSM 7703.3 provides an administrative framework for meeting this 
requirement by providing guidance on documenting jurisdiction, 
transferring jurisdiction, and exercising jurisdiction over forest 
roads, based on factors such as the right of individuals and local 
public road authorities to own, operate, maintain, and use these roads. 
There is no need to repeat this guidance in FSM 7715.75 (recoded from 
FSM 7715.65 in the proposed directives).
    Comment. Some respondents were concerned that the agency would rely 
on lack of jurisdiction over road segments crossing private lands in 
deciding not to designate the NFS road segments on either side of those 
private lands. Other respondents did not want the agency to be 
dissuaded from designating routes where jurisdiction was uncertain, 
particularly if those routes are on NFS lands.
    Response. The Forest Service supports public access to Federal 
lands and supports the rights of private landowners to control access 
to their land. The agency generally will not consider designating an 
NFS road or NFS trail unless there is legal public access to that road 
or trail. Where access to NFS lands across private property is needed, 
the responsible official should seek a right-of-way from the landowner. 
FSM 7715.72 provides guidance regarding situations where access rights 
may have been acquired but are undocumented.
    The Forest Service supports cooperative road development, including 
construction, maintenance, and reciprocal rights-of-way, where public 
and private lands are intermingled. When the Forest Service needs 
access across private land and the private landowner needs access 
across NFS lands, the Forest Service generally will not grant an 
easement to the private landowner without a reciprocal easement from 
the private landowner.
    Comment. Some respondents objected to provisions in the proposed 
directives addressing transfer of jurisdiction over NFS roads to local 
public road authorities. Other respondents wanted the agency to retain 
some control over roads when transferring jurisdiction so as to 
influence environmental mitigation or prevent improvements.
    Response. The Forest Service may transfer jurisdiction over NFS 
roads to local public road authorities pursuant to FSM 7703.3, for 
example, when more than half the use is likely to be traffic that is 
not generated by the Forest Service; the road is necessary for mail 
delivery, access to a public school, or other local governmental 
purposes; or the road serves year-long residents within or adjacent to 
the NFS. In these cases, the Forest Service would transfer jurisdiction 
through issuance of an easement under Section 2 of FRTA (16 U.S.C. 
533). Consistent with the transfer of jurisdiction, these easements 
would assign full responsibility for road users' safety to the grantee.
    Comment. Some respondents suggested that when the Forest Service is 
unable to obtain a permanent right-of-way for an NFS road or NFS trail, 
the agency accept less than full permanent public access when 
landowners are willing to grant limited access.
    Response. Long-standing Forest Service policy in FSM 5460.3 
provides for acquiring rights-of-way in perpetuity to accommodate all 
types of traffic, unless the applicable land management plan indicates 
that full public access is not needed, and accepting temporary 
agreements, road use permits, or other road use arrangements only for 
immediate, temporary, limited access and when future needs of the 
United States do not justify the expense of providing a permanent road 
or trail.
    Comment. Some respondents suggested that the Forest Service improve 
maintenance of NFS roads and NFS trails and increase the number of NFS 
trails designated for motor vehicle use by leveraging all sources of 
funding and volunteer work, including spending State and Federal gas 
tax revenues generated by OHV users on road and trail maintenance. Some 
respondents were concerned that the agency would use the lack of funds 
to maintain NFS roads and NFS trails as a rationale for reducing 
motorized recreation opportunities, closing NFS roads, and converting 
NFS roads to NFS trails. Other respondents believed that the agency 
should not designate routes for motor vehicle use unless they could be 
maintained.
    Response. Funding for road and trail maintenance is beyond the 
scope of the final directives. Forest Service appropriations are 
authorized by Congress. The Forest Service is committed to using 
whatever funds are available to accomplish the purposes of the travel 
management rule in a targeted, efficient manner. The Agency makes 
appropriate use of all other sources of available funding and has many 
successful cooperative relationships. Volunteer agreements with user 
groups and others have proven successful in extending agency resources 
for trail construction, maintenance, monitoring, and mitigation. 
Regardless of the level of funding available, the Forest Service 
believes that the travel management rule and its implementing 
directives provide a better framework for management of motor vehicle 
use on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands.
    The Forest Service maintains NFS roads and NFS trails in accordance 
with their road or trail management objectives, design standards, 
quantity and types of traffic, and availability of funds. All roads and 
trails require maintenance. An extended lack of maintenance can lead to 
deterioration of an NFS road or NFS trail to the point where it will be 
closed by natural events such as precipitation, wind storms, or growth 
of vegetation. In other cases, while a route remains passable to some 
traffic, the Forest Service may have to close the route to address 
public safety concerns or to prevent severe

[[Page 74695]]

environmental damage. The Forest Service actively tries to avoid 
closures by encouraging volunteer agreements and cooperative 
relationships with user groups.
    The availability of resources is a consideration in designating 
routes for motor vehicle use. The travel management rule includes as a 
criterion for designation ``the need for maintenance and administration 
of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses under 
consideration are designated; and the availability of resources for 
that maintenance and administration'' (36 CFR 212.55(a)). The Forest 
Service believes, however, that these determinations involve the 
exercise of judgment and discretion on the part of the responsible 
official. The final directives clarify that the availability of 
resources for administration and maintenance of routes should not be 
the only consideration in developing travel management proposals (FSM 
7715.5, para. 1c). Volunteers and cooperators can supplement agency 
resources for maintenance and monitoring, and their contributions 
should be considered in assessing the availability of resources.
    To clarify that routes should not be added to the forest 
transportation system unless adequate resources are available to 
maintain them, the Forest Service has added the following to FSM 
7715.03, paragraph 7: ``Administrative units and ranger districts 
should avoid adding routes to the forest transportation system unless 
there is adequate provision for their maintenance.''
    In addition, in FSM 7703.27 in the final directives, the Agency has 
enumerated factors to consider when contemplating conversion of an NFS 
road to an NFS trail or when overlaying an NFS trail and an NFS road.
    Comment. Some respondents believed that the proposed directives 
should require development of area management objectives, similar to 
road management objectives (RMOs) and trail management objectives 
(TMOs).
    Response. The Forest Service agrees that areas designated for motor 
vehicle use should have management objectives and has added a 
requirement for area management objectives in FSM 7715.73 in the final 
directives.
    Comment. Some respondents suggested that the proposed directives 
establish criteria for analysis and public comment under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. Some 
respondents suggested that the proposed directives establish specific 
factors to consider in conducting cumulative effects analysis for 
travel management decisions, such as the effect of road closures on 
communities, the effect of wilderness designation, and the effect of 
the roadless rule (36 CFR part 294, subpart B) on the availability of 
motorized recreation opportunities.
    Some respondents stated that the proposed directives should modify 
the amount of public involvement in the travel planning process to 
reduce the burden on the commenting public. Other respondents wanted 
assurance that the public comment process would not be merely a voting 
process, that is, that public input would be considered, rather than 
merely tallied in support of or against particular proposals. Some 
respondents requested that the proposed directives establish the 
duration and time of year for public comment for specific travel 
management decisions, such as issuance of special use permits for 
motorized recreation events.
    Response. Regulations implementing NEPA, including requirements for 
public involvement, are issued by the Council on Environmental Quality 
and are found at 40 CFR part 1500. Agency direction on NEPA compliance 
is found at 36 CFR part 220 and in FSH 1909.15. The scope, content, and 
documentation of NEPA analysis associated with designating routes and 
areas for motor vehicle use will depend on site-specific factors. 
Therefore, the Forest Service is not addressing NEPA compliance in the 
final directives beyond the direction found in FSM 7715.
    Comment. Some respondents suggested that the proposed directives 
establish specific criteria for monitoring, including the extent and 
timing of monitoring, the data collected, and the storage, reporting, 
and use of the data collected. Some respondents believed that allowing 
each responsible official to develop a monitoring plan would lead to 
collection of inconsistent data at the local and national level.
    Response. The travel management rule requires monitoring of the 
effects of motor vehicle use on designated roads, trails, and areas, 
consistent with the applicable land management plan and as appropriate 
and feasible (36 CFR 212.57). Like travel management decisions, 
decisions regarding what, where, how, and when to monitor are 
determined by local circumstances and are therefore best left to the 
responsible official.
    Consistent with the objective of the travel management rule to 
establish a national framework for local decision-making, the final 
directives provide guidance on monitoring in FSM 7717 and FSH 7709.55, 
section 16.3. The Agency has strengthened this guidance in the final 
directives to ensure that monitoring is consistent with the applicable 
land management plan and to advise responsible officials to use the 
applicable criteria in 36 CFR 212.55 as guidance when monitoring the 
effects of designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use.
    Comment. Some respondents believed that the provisions in proposed 
FSM 7703.14 and 7715.63 clarifying the size of designated areas 
narrowed their scope beyond what is authorized under the travel 
management rule. Other respondents believed that these provisions 
insufficiently narrowed the size of designated areas and suggested that 
their size be further narrowed by including additional considerations 
regarding their scope.
    Response. As stated in the preamble to the proposed and final 
travel management rules, areas designated for motor vehicle use are not 
intended to be large or numerous. In the travel management rule, 
``area'' is defined as ``a discrete, specifically delineated space that 
is smaller, and in most cases much smaller, than a ranger district.'' 
The final directives contain the same definition at FSM 7705, and the 
direction in FSM 7703.14 and 7715.73 is consistent with this definition 
and the preamble to the proposed and final travel management rules.
    While areas are not intended to be large or numerous, the Forest 
Service believes that it is appropriate to designate some areas for 
motor vehicle use. These areas would have natural resource 
characteristics that are suitable for motor vehicle use or would be so 
significantly altered by past actions that motor vehicle use might be 
appropriate. Under the travel management rule and final directives, no 
administrative unit or ranger district is required to designate an area 
for motor vehicle use.
    Routes and areas under the travel management rule are designated at 
the local level, based upon appropriate environmental analysis. Federal 
law does not require the Forest Service to demonstrate that there are 
no environmental impacts from designation of areas.
    Comment. Some respondents recommended against producing multiple 
maps, such as a motor vehicle use map (MVUM), recreation visitor map, 
and opportunity maps, to display travel management data, on the grounds 
that multiple maps would create confusion and make it difficult to 
identify routes designated for motor vehicle use.
    Some respondents wanted additional information displayed on MVUMs, 
including routes intended solely for

[[Page 74696]]

administrative use, routes available solely for non-motorized use, and 
routes available for winter use. These respondents believed that the 
additional information would assist with orientation and increase 
compliance with designations. Other respondents suggested that the 
proposed directives state that an MVUM's primary purpose is 
enforcement. Some respondents suggested that MVUMs be made available to 
motorized recreation groups to enhance their distribution.
    Response. An MVUM has a single purpose: To display designated 
roads, trails, and areas on an administrative unit or a ranger 
district. An MVUM informs visitors where, and in some cases when, they 
may operate certain classes of motor vehicles. After NFS roads, NFS 
trails, and areas on NFS lands have been designated (CFR 212.51) on an 
administrative unit or a ranger district and identified on an MVUM, it 
is prohibited to possess or operate a motor vehicle on NFS lands other 
than in accordance with those designations (36 CFR 261.13). The Forest 
Service has clarified the purpose of the MVUM in FSM 7716.41.
    The MVUM is the primary enforcement tool for designation decisions. 
Therefore, the Forest Service believes that the MVUM needs to be 
separate from a visitor map and any other maps produced by the Forest 
Service. It is the responsibility of motor vehicle users to obtain a 
copy of the MVUM and to operate their motor vehicles consistent with 
the designations shown on the MVUM.
    The Forest Service anticipates that it will be necessary to 
continue to produce visitor maps, recreation opportunity maps, and 
other types of maps to meet the needs of visitors to the NFS. Which 
additional maps to produce and how to make them available to the public 
are best determined at the local level, based on local circumstances.
    The travel management rule requires that MVUMs be made available at 
the corresponding administrative units and ranger districts and that 
they be made available as soon as practicable on the Web site for those 
units and districts (36 CFR 212.56). The Forest Service anticipates 
that in some cases responsible officials will obtain assistance from 
cooperators in publishing and distributing the MVUM. The Forest Service 
also anticipates that individuals will forward, print, and copy the 
electronic version of MVUMs.
    The Forest Service believes that it is important that the MVUM be 
produced consistently across the NFS. Visitors to the NFS should be 
able to pick up an MVUM anywhere in the country and see travel 
management decisions displayed consistently, using the same symbols, 
text, and format. To ensure consistency, the final directives require 
responsible officials to use national protocols for each MVUM (FSM 
7711.3 and 7716.41).
    Comment. Some respondents wanted the proposed directives to require 
that when wheeled motor vehicle use is acceptable on a snow trail and 
an over-snow vehicle use map has been published, the designation for 
wheeled motor vehicles be shown on the over-snow vehicle use map.
    Response. The Forest Service agrees with this suggestion. There 
will be times where routes are designated for motor vehicles and both 
wheeled and tracked motor vehicles will be operating over snow on those 
routes simultaneously. In these cases, the routes will be shown on the 
MVUM. If the over-snow vehicle use is regulated under 36 CFR 212.81 on 
the same route, the use by over-snow vehicles would be shown on an 
over-snow vehicle use map. The over-snow vehicle use map should also 
show the wheeled motor vehicle use. The Agency has added direction in 
FSM 7718 of the final directives to address this unique situation.
    Comment. Some respondents believed that the proposed directives 
should require full rehabilitation of all decommissioned routes. Other 
respondents believed that decommissioning unauthorized routes should be 
mandatory. Some respondents wanted the proposed directives to include a 
requirement to establish a schedule for decommissioning unneeded 
routes. Other respondents did not want any routes decommissioned. 
Instead, these respondents wanted the Agency to consider including all 
unauthorized routes in the forest transportation system and designating 
them for motor vehicle use. Some respondents wanted the agency to 
consider designating routes that have been decommissioned. One 
respondent requested more explanation of how roads should be 
decommissioned.
    Response. In connection with identification of the minimum road 
system, the 2001 roads rule requires responsible officials to review 
NFS roads on each national forest and national grassland and identify 
those that are no longer needed to meet forest resource management 
objectives and that therefore should be considered for decommissioning 
or other uses, such as trails (36 CFR 212.5(b)(2)). Decommissioning 
involves restoring roads to a more natural state. Decommissioning may 
involve reestablishing former drainage patterns, stabilizing slopes, 
restoring vegetation, blocking the entrance to the road, installing 
water bars, removing culverts, reestablishing drainage ways, removing 
unstable fills, pulling back road shoulders, scattering slash on the 
road bed, completely eliminating the road bed by restoring natural 
contours and slopes, or other methods designed to meet the specific 
conditions associated with the unneeded road. Further guidance on road 
decommissioning is provided in FSM 7734. Identification of the minimum 
road system and decisions regarding when and how to decommission roads 
are left to the discretion of the responsible official. The roads rule 
does not address identification of the minimum trail system or 
decommissioning of trails.
    The Agency believes that evaluation of which routes, including 
unauthorized routes, should be designated for motor vehicle use is also 
best handled at the local level by officials with first-hand knowledge 
of the particular circumstances, uses, and environmental impacts 
involved, in coordination with Federal, State, and local governmental 
entities and tribal governments and input from motor vehicle users and 
other members of the public.
    Comment. Some respondents stated that allowing motor vehicles to 
park within one vehicle length of a designated route should not be 
allowed because it is inconsistent with 36 CFR 212.51(b), which limits 
motor vehicle use off designated routes to dispersed camping and big 
game retrieval. Some respondents wanted the agency to replace ``one 
vehicle length'' with a specified distance and to include provisions in 
the proposed directives for prohibiting parking under certain 
circumstances.
    Response. Users of NFS lands have always been able to park along 
NFS roads and NFS trails when it is safe to do so, when it would not 
cause damage to NFS resources or facilities, and when it is not 
prohibited by an order issued under 36 CFR 261.50 or by State traffic 
law.
    The travel management rule does not regulate parking of motor 
vehicles along NFS roads and NFS trails. NFS roads are subject to State 
traffic laws, which allow parking along the shoulder of public roads 
when it is safe to do so. Causing resource damage to NFS lands while 
operating a motor vehicle is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.15(h).
    The final directives provide two options for specifying how far 
from a designated road parking will be allowed. Accordingly, FSM 
7716.1, paragraph 1, of the final directives states: ``The designation 
also includes

[[Page 74697]]

parking a motor vehicle on the side of the road, when it is safe to do 
so without causing damage to NFS resources or facilities, unless 
prohibited by state law, a traffic sign, or an order (36 CFR 261.54). 
Road designations must specify either that they include parking within 
one vehicle length of the edge of the road or within a specified 
distance of up to 30 feet from the centerline of the road.''
    Comment. Other respondents suggested that the proposed directives 
allow OHVs to pull 8 to 10 feet off a route to let others, such as 
equestrians, pass.
    Response. The Forest Service has adopted this suggestion for trails 
designated for motor vehicle use to promote safe, responsible, and 
courteous use and to reduce or eliminate use conflicts. The agency has 
revised FSM 7716.1 in the final directives to allow for pulling over 
for a safe distance on a designated trail to allow others to pass in 
either direction.
    Comment. Some respondents commented that the Agency has devoted 
considerable time to development of strategic plans for recreation, but 
has not addressed recreation niches and how they relate to trail 
planning. These respondents suggested addressing these issues in the 
proposed directives.
    Response. Recreation Facility Analysis (RFA) is an administrative 
process, incorporating identification of an administrative unit's 
recreation niche to inform facility master planning decisions for 
recreation sites. Development of strategic plans for recreation and 
facility master planning are beyond the scope of these directives, 
which address designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle 
use. However, recreation opportunities should be consistent with the 
applicable land management plan, and the Agency has included this 
clarification in FSM 2350.2, paragraph 2. In addition, FSH 2309.18, 
chapter 10, was recently updated (73 FR 61600; October 16, 2008) to 
address trail planning considerations.
    Comment. Some respondents suggested that the authority to designate 
routes and areas be kept at the lowest possible level so as to maximize 
flexibility in the designation process. Other respondents believed that 
the authority to designate routes and areas should be placed at the 
highest possible level for consistency in the designation process.
    Response. The travel management rule authorizes designations at 
either the level of an administrative unit or a ranger district (36 CFR 
212.51(a)), and the agency did not propose changing these provisions in 
the proposed directives. Therefore, these comments are beyond the scope 
of the directives.
    The Forest Service believes that it is appropriate to give forest 
supervisors the discretion to delegate designation authority to 
district rangers. One of the main objectives of the travel management 
rule and its implementing directives is to provide a national framework 
for local decisionmaking. The Agency believes that the decision to 
designate NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands for motor 
vehicle use is best made by the forest or grassland supervisor or 
district ranger, in coordination with Federal, State, and local 
governmental entities and tribal governments and with public 
involvement. The requirements in the travel management rule and 
direction and guidance in the final directives provide the consistency 
needed in the designation process.

Section-Specific Comments and Responses

FSM 7703

    Comment. Some respondents suggested that FSM 7703 in the proposed 
directives incorporate the phrase ``minimize impacts on'' from E.O. 
11644 in reference to the factors to consider in designating trails and 
areas for motor vehicle use.
    Response. The phrase, ``the responsible official shall consider 
effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing,'' is 
contained in the travel management rule at 36 CFR 212.55(b) and was not 
proposed for revision. Therefore, this comment is beyond the scope of 
these directives.
    The phrase in question is mandatory with respect to addressing 
environmental and other impacts associated with motor vehicle use of 
trails and areas. Moreover, the Agency believes that this phrase is 
consistent with E.O. 11644 and better expresses its intent. It is the 
intent of E.O. 11644 that motor vehicle use of trails and areas on 
Federal lands be managed to address environmental and other impacts, 
but that motor vehicle use on Federal lands continue in appropriate 
locations. An extreme interpretation of ``minimize'' would preclude any 
use at all, since impacts always can be reduced further by preventing 
them altogether. This interpretation would not reflect the full context 
of E.O. 11644 or other laws and policies related to multiple-use 
management of NFS lands. Neither E.O. 11644, nor these other laws and 
policies, establish the primacy of any particular use of trails and 
areas. The Agency believes that the phrase, ``shall consider * * * with 
the objective of minimizing * * *'' will ensure that environmental 
impacts are properly taken into account, without categorically 
precluding motor vehicle use.

FSM 7703.11

    Comment. Some respondents believed that the Agency should not limit 
designations to vehicle class and time of year in proposed FSM 7703.11, 
paragraph 3.
    Response. The travel management rule states: ``Motor vehicle use on 
National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and in 
areas on National Forest System lands shall be designated by vehicle 
class and, if appropriate, by time of year by the responsible official 
on administrative units or ranger districts of the National Forest 
System'' (36 CFR 212.51(a)). The Agency has not proposed changing this 
provision. Therefore, this comment is beyond the scope of these 
directives.

FSM 7703.15

    Comment. Some respondents suggested that proposed FSM 7703.15 
require responsible officials to work with municipalities to craft 
long-term, integrated transit and recreation plans that consider 
locating recreation opportunities where they can be accessed by public 
transportation, bicycles, or other means besides a private motor 
vehicle. These respondents also suggested including provisions in the 
proposed directives that would encourage providing public 
transportation to popular locations in the NFS that are far from urban 
areas.
    Response. The need to provide guidance regarding alternative modes 
of transportation is beyond the scope of these directives, which 
provide direction on designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor 
vehicle use.
    However, the Forest Service agrees as a matter of principle with 
this Comment. The agency is working with the U.S. Department of the 
Interior, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and many 
municipalities under the Alternative Transportation for Parks and 
Public Lands provisions of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. No. 109-59) to 
provide transit and alternative transportation in the NFS when 
appropriate. The agency has retained the proposed policy addressing 
that subject in the final directives at FSM 7703.15 and 7704.2.

FSM 7703.24

    Comment. Some respondents believed that proposed FSM 7703.24, 
paragraph

[[Page 74698]]

4, should be modified to allow motor vehicle use for recreation events 
on roads that are open only intermittently.
    Response. The Forest Service believes that this change is not 
necessary. Consistent with the travel management rule at 36 CFR 
212.51(a)(8), the proposed and final directives at FSM 7703.24, 
paragraph 4, allow for motor vehicle use that is specifically 
authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or 
regulation. Recreation events involving motor vehicles are subject to 
the conditions in FSM 2353.28h.

FSM 7703.25

    Comment. Some respondents stated that responsible officials should 
be able to designate temporary roads for motor vehicle use under 
proposed FSM 7703.25, paragraph 1.
    Response. Under the travel management rule, only NFS roads, NFS 
trails, and areas on NFS lands may be designated for motor vehicle use 
(36 CFR 212.51(a)). NFS roads and NFS trails are a subset of forest 
roads and trails (36 CFR 212.1). Temporary roads and trails are not 
forest roads and trails (36 CFR 212.1) and therefore cannot be 
designated for motor vehicle use. Consequently, this comment is beyond 
the scope of these directives.
    However, emergency motor vehicle use on temporary roads is exempt 
from designations under 36 CFR 212.51(a)(5), and motor vehicle use on 
temporary roads that is specifically authorized under a written 
authorization is exempt from designations under 36 CFR 212.51(a)(8).

FSM 7703.26

    Comment. Some respondents suggested modifying the word ``benefit'' 
with the adjective ``public'' or ``social'' in proposed FSM 7703.26, 
paragraph 1, to be consistent with the discussion of social 
sustainability elsewhere in the proposed directives.
    Response. The Forest Service agrees and has modified ``benefit'' 
with ``social'' and ``economic'' in FSM 7703.26, paragraph 1, in the 
final directives.
    Comment. Some respondents suggested modifying the 3rd and 5th 
sentences in proposed FSM 7703.26, paragraph 2, to clarify that changes 
could be positive and expanding proposed FSM 7703.26, paragraphs 2a 
through 2c, to include positive effects, such as improved access and 
enhanced recreation opportunities.
    Response. The Forest Service agrees and in the final directives has 
changed the word ``impacted'' to ``affected'' in the 3rd sentence and 
has changed the word ``impacts'' to ``effects'' in the 5th sentence of 
FSM 7703.26, paragraph 2. In addition, the Agency has expanded the list 
of considerations to include effects on recreation opportunities and 
access to NFS lands.

FSM 7705

    Comment. Some respondents commented that the definition of forest 
transportation atlas at FSM 7705 should include the environmental 
analysis and decision documents and the underlying electronic data that 
serve as the basis for the maps included in the atlas.
    Response. The Forest Service does not believe it is appropriate to 
include environmental analysis and decision documents in the forest 
transportation atlas. However, the forest transportation atlas may be 
used to record decisions regarding forest transportation facilities and 
has added this use for the atlas to FSM 7711.2 in the proposed and 
final directives.
    The Agency agrees that relevant electronic data need to be included 
in the forest transportation atlas and has therefore added to FSM 
7711.2 in the proposed and final directives the requirement to use the 
Forest Service's national Infrastructure database and the 
transportation layer of the geographic information system for storage 
of information in a forest transportation atlas.

FSM 7712.3

    Comment. Some respondents suggested that proposed FSM 7712.3, 
paragraph 6, require the use of travel analysis in setting maintenance 
priorities.
    Response. FSM 7732.04c adequately addresses setting road 
maintenance priorities. This section requires forest and grassland 
supervisors to approve an annual road maintenance plan. The 
requirements for these plans include consideration of both short- and 
long-term needs; consideration of all sources of maintenance funds 
available during the fiscal year, including appropriated funds and 
deposits made under cooperative agreements; consideration of 
maintenance performed by timber purchasers, other contractors, permit 
holders, and cooperators; and consideration of the need for 
expenditures of appropriated road maintenance funds for road 
decommissioning (FSM 7732.11, para. 1). Responsible officials conduct 
maintenance planning in a variety of ways that are tailored to meet 
local needs and availability of resources. While travel analysis could 
be used for maintenance planning, the Agency does not believe it would 
be productive to require each responsible official to do so.

FSM 7712.4

    Comment. One respondent noted that the discussion about travel 
analysis in proposed FSM 7712.4 should address trails, as well as 
roads.
    Response. The Forest Service has modified FSM 7712 and 7712.4 to 
provide for the use of travel analysis to inform decisions relating to 
the designation of NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands for 
motor vehicle use.

FSM 7715.63

    Comment. One respondent believed that the requirements in proposed 
FSM 7703.14 and 7715.63 (FSM 7715.73 in the final directives), 
governing designation of areas for motor vehicle use, were not well 
coordinated.
    Response. The Forest Service disagrees with this Comment. Both 
sections in the proposed and final directives are consistent with the 
travel management rule and each other.

FSM 7715.66

    Comment. Some respondents believed that proposed FSM 7715.66 
unnecessarily and illegally limited the agency's discretion regarding 
management of wilderness and primitive areas and requested that this 
section be removed.
    Response. The Wilderness Act prohibits mechanical transport and 
motor vehicles in wilderness areas unless they are necessary to meet 
minimum requirements for administration of the areas or they are 
expressly authorized under the applicable enabling legislation for 
those areas. In addition, section 3(a)(4) of E.O. 11644 prohibits 
designation of off-road motor vehicle use in primitive areas. 
Accordingly, 36 CFR 212.55(e) and FSM 7715.66 in the proposed 
directives (FSM 7715.76 in the final directives) prohibit designation 
of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use in wilderness areas 
and primitive areas, unless, in the case of wilderness areas, motor 
vehicle use is authorized by the applicable enabling legislation for 
those areas. Primitive areas are defined as areas in the NFS that were 
classified as primitive on the effective date of the Wilderness Act, 
September 3, 1964 (36 CFR 261.2; FSM 7705).

FSM 7715.67

    Comment. Some respondents believed that the restrictions in 
proposed FSM 7715.67 on motorized mixed use would limit the network of 
OHV routes.

[[Page 74699]]

    Response. The Forest Service anticipates the need to mix highway-
legal and non-highway-legal traffic on some NFS roads at maintenance 
levels 3, 4, and 5 and on a significant percentage of NFS roads at 
maintenance level 2. These decisions will be advised by professional 
engineering judgment and, when appropriate, will include design 
features deemed appropriate in engineering studies. The Forest Service 
believes that the guidance provided in FSM 7715.77 and FSH 7709.55, 
chapter 30, in the final directives is necessary for public safety and 
enjoyment.

FSM 7715.69

    Comment. Some respondents believed that proposed FSM 7715.69 (FSM 
7715.79 in the final directives) should preclude exemptions from 
designations for people with disabilities. Some respondents believed 
that proposed FSM 7715.69 should promote more use of OHVs by disabled 
hunters.
    Response. Under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, no 
person with a disability can be denied participation in a Federal 
program that is available to all other people solely because of his or 
her disability. Consistent with section 504, FSM 2353.05, and Title V, 
Section 507(c), of the Americans With Disabilities Act, wheelchairs and 
mobility devices, including those that are battery-powered, that are 
designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for location and 
that are suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area are allowed on 
all NFS lands that are open to foot travel.
    There is no legal requirement to allow people with disabilities to 
use motor vehicles on roads, on trails, or in areas that are closed to 
motor vehicle use. Restrictions on motor vehicle use that are applied 
consistently to everyone are not discriminatory. Generally, granting an 
exemption from designations for people with disabilities would not be 
consistent with the resource protection and other management objectives 
of designation decisions and would fundamentally alter the nature of 
the Forest Service's travel management program (29 U.S.C. 794; 7 CFR 
15e.103).

FSM 7716.11

    Comment. Some respondents wanted to know how new vehicles such as 
utility-terrain vehicles (UTVs) would be included in designations.
    Response. Designations are made by vehicle class (36 CFR 212.51; 
FSM 7716.11). The final directives establish seven categories of motor 
vehicle classes for use when producing a motor vehicle use map: (1) 
Road open only to highway-legal motor vehicles; (2) road open to all 
motor vehicles; (3) trail open to all motor vehicles; (4) trail open 
only to motor vehicles less than or equal to 50 inches in width; (5) 
trail open only to wheeled motor vehicles less than or equal to 50 
inches in width; (6) trail open only to motorcycles; and (7) special 
vehicle designation (includes any classes of vehicles that are not 
already listed) (FSM 7711.3, para. 5a through 5g). UTVs could fall into 
category 2, 3, 4, 5, or 7, depending on their width.

FSM 7716.12

    Comment. Some respondents suggested that proposed FSM 7716.12 
require responsible officials to standardize seasonal restrictions to 
promote consistency and to make compliance with designations easier for 
the public.
    Response. The Forest Service agrees that responsible officials 
should, to the extent possible, standardize seasonal restrictions for 
consistency. Accordingly, the Agency has revised FSM 7716.12, paragraph 
2, in the final directives to emphasize consistency in designating 
roads, trails and areas by time of year.

FSM 7716.4

    Comment. Some respondents suggested that proposed FSM 7716.4 
provide direction on adequate signage to ensure the public knows which 
routes and areas are designated for motor vehicle use. Other 
respondents objected to providing direction on signage for designations 
so as to encourage reliance on MVUMs.
    Response. The Forest Service will continue to use signs widely to 
provide information and to inform users on a variety of topics, 
including regulations and prohibitions. However, the Agency does not 
believe it is appropriate or necessary to require signing for 
designations. The Agency has found that posting routes as open or 
closed to particular uses has not always been effective in controlling 
use. Signs have proven difficult to maintain, are subject to vandalism, 
and may not be as high a priority for scarce road maintenance funds as 
providing for user safety and environmental protection. Therefore, the 
Agency believes that decisions regarding signing are best made at the 
local level, based on site-specific circumstances. However, the final 
directives suggest that each route designated for motor vehicle use 
have a route marker on the ground that corresponds to the route 
identification shown on the corresponding MVUM (FSM 7716.42, para. 2). 
The travel management rule makes motor vehicle users responsible for 
obtaining MVUMs from the headquarters or Web sites of corresponding 
administrative units and ranger districts (36 CFR 212.56).

FSH 7709.55, Section 10.02

    Comment. Some respondents believed that paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 in 
section 10.02 of proposed FSH 7709.55 conflict with each other, to the 
extent that it is impossible simultaneously to limit gridlock, simply 
confirm existing travel management decisions, limit inventories of 
routes, and engender trust and credibility in travel management.
    Response. The Forest Service disagrees with this Comment. For many 
years, some administrative units have limited motor vehicle use to a 
designated system of roads, trails, and areas. There is nothing in the 
travel management rule or the final directives that requires these 
units to reconsider these travel management decisions. To the contrary, 
the travel management rule provides that these decisions may be 
incorporated into designations for motor vehicle use (36 CFR 
212.50(b)).
    The Forest Service believes that it is not necessary to inventory 
unauthorized routes to complete travel planning. Trust and credibility 
in designating NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands are best 
engendered through coordination with Federal, State, and local 
governmental entities and tribal governments per 36 CFR 212.53 and 
public involvement per 36 CFR 212.52.

FSH 7709.55, Section 21.11

    Comment. Some respondents stated that proposed FSH 7709.55, section 
21.11, should require use in travel analysis of the data required to be 
collected in proposed FSH 7709.55, Section 20.03, paragraph 2.
    Response. The Forest Service believes that FSH 7709, section 21.11, 
paragraphs 1a through 1m, in the final directives adequately address 
what should be considered in travel analysis and track the guidance in 
FSH 7709.55, section 20.03, paragraph 2, regarding travel analysis.

FSH 7709.55, Section 21.4

    Comment. Some respondents suggested that the Agency add guidance in 
FSH 7709.55, section 21.4, on use of data and analysis of issues 
associated with social and economic sustainability.
    Response. The Forest Service believes that FSH 7709.55 adequately 
addresses social and economic effects by providing a framework for 
conducting travel analysis in general that gives the responsible 
official the discretion to design the analysis to address economic

[[Page 74700]]

and social issues unique to that administrative unit or ranger 
district.

FSM 2352

    Comment. Some respondents objected to elimination of the concept of 
recreation road management. These respondents stated that travel 
analysis is focused exclusively on efficient road system management and 
fails to consider the value of recreation, which is a critical use of 
NFS lands.
    Response. The Agency agrees that driving for pleasure and other 
forms of recreational use of motor vehicles are legitimate uses of the 
forest transportation system. The agency has provided guidance on these 
uses in FSM 2353.28.
    Travel analysis is used both to identify the minimum road system 
per 36 CFR 212.5(b) and to designate NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas 
on NFS lands for motor vehicle use per 36 CFR 212.51(a).
    Recreation management in general is beyond the scope of the final 
directives, which implement the travel management rule.

FSM 2353

    Comment. Some respondents requested that the agency remove Web page 
references throughout this section and instead make a cross-reference 
to the FSM or FSH.
    Response. The Forest Service's accessibility guidelines reside on a 
Web site. Therefore, references to this Web site must remain. The 
Agency has removed references to the Recreation and Heritage Resources 
Integrated Business Management Web site because the external Web site 
is no longer active and the Agency has incorporated much of this 
information in recently issued directives at FSM 2350 and FSH 2309.18 
(73 FR 61600; October 16, 2008).

FSM 2353.05

    Comment. Some respondents believed that the description of 
difficulty levels for NFS trails in proposed FSM 2353.05 could be 
improved by incorporating the variation in these levels from region to 
region. Other respondents suggested that the Agency provide a reference 
guide for assigning difficulty levels for all types of trails in all 
parts of the country.
    Response. Current direction is adequate to allow trail managers to 
assign difficulty levels, as appropriate, to all different types of NFS 
trails in different parts of the country. In FSM 2353 and FSH 2309.18, 
chapter 20, of the recently issued directives implementing the Agency's 
national trail classification system (TCS), the Agency clarified the 
definitions for and guidance on use of difficulty levels (73 FR 61600; 
October 16, 2008).

FSM 2353.12

    Comment. Some respondents suggested that proposed FSM 2353.12 
require posting of MVUMs on national forest Web sites.
    Response. The travel management rule and the final directives 
require MVUMs to be made available to the public on Web sites of 
corresponding administrative units and ranger districts (36 CFR 212.56; 
FSM 7711.3).

FSM 2353.18

    Comment. Some respondents suggested that the Agency provide 
guidance on development of TMOs in FSM 2353.18 or elsewhere in the FSM 
or FSH that is similar to the guidance on RMOs in FSM 7720 and 7730. 
These respondents also believed that there should be a clear link 
between TMOs and travel planning.
    Response. The Agency has clarified direction on development of TMOs 
by adding a definition for ``trail management objective'' in FSM 
2353.05 in the new directives implementing the TCS (73 FR 61600; 
October 16, 2008). In addition, the Agency has added a definition for 
the Trail Fundamentals and their components of Trail Class, Trail Type, 
Managed Use, Designed Use, and Design Parameters. The applicable Trail 
Type, Trail Class, Managed Use, Designed Use, and Design Parameters are 
reflected in the TMOs for each NFS trail. The link between TMOs and 
travel planning is established at FSM 2353.12 in the final directives, 
which requires identifying and documenting TMOs for all NFS trails. In 
addition, the directives governing application of the Design Parameters 
for motorized trails require those trails to be designated for motor 
vehicle use pursuant to 36 CFR 212.51 and displayed on an MVUM (FSH 
2309.18, sec. 23.21, para. 1; 23.22, para. 1; and 23.23, para. 1). 
Management of the TCS is beyond the scope of these directives, which 
govern designation of routes and areas for motor vehicle use.

FSM 2353.28

    Comment. Some respondents recommended including in proposed FSM 
2353.28f a discussion of permits and fees for motorized use authorized 
under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA).
    Response. Issuance of special recreation permits and fees for those 
permits under REA are beyond the scope of these directives, which 
govern designation of NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands for 
motor vehicle use.

    Comment. Some respondents believed that proposed FSM 2353.28h 
should be modified to include language from FSM 2355 regarding issuance 
of permits for motorized recreation events. Other respondents stated 
that motorized recreation events should occur only on designated routes 
and in designated areas.
    Response. The final directives at FSM 2353.28h appropriately 
incorporate direction from current FSM 2355. The direction not to issue 
permits for motorized recreation events that can be conducted off NFS 
lands was narrowed to include only competitive events and activities 
that are not appropriate for a national forest or national grassland 
setting. Rather than prohibiting motorized recreation events off 
designated routes and outside designated areas, FSM 2353.28h in the 
final directives requires the authorized officer to consider, with the 
objective of minimizing, adverse effects on natural and cultural 
resources; to promote activities in harmony with the natural terrain; 
and to enhance the experience and appreciation of the national forest 
setting.

FSM 2353.33

    Comment. Some respondents suggested that proposed FSM 2353.33a 
identify who should prepare the establishment report for a National 
Recreation Trail. One respondent suggested that proposed FSM 2353.33a 
identify who conducts studies for National Historic Trails and who 
makes recommendations regarding establishment of National Historic 
Trails. One respondent suggested that proposed FSM 2353.04g identify a 
leadership role for the regional forester in the agency's trail 
program.
    Response. Forest Supervisors are responsible for preparing 
establishment reports for National Recreation Trails (FSM 2353.04i, 
para. 6). Congress authorizes studies for National Historic Trails (16 
U.S.C. 1241-1251), and Regional Foresters are responsible for 
conducting those studies (FSM 2353.04g, para. 3c). The Agency revised 
FSM 2353.04g in the final directives to identify the regional 
forester's responsibilities for trails.

Summary of Changes to the Current and Proposed Directives

    To ensure timely and consistent implementation of the travel 
management rule, the Forest Service is amending travel management 
directives in FSM 2350, 7700, and 7710 and FSH

[[Page 74701]]

7709.55. While some of the changes in the directives simply reiterate 
direction in the travel management rule, other changes provide 
clarifying instructions, delegations of authority, or other guidance on 
implementing the travel management rule.
    The final directives consolidate Forest Service policy for travel 
management into FSM 7700. The Agency changed the title of this chapter 
from ``Transportation System'' to ``Travel Management'' to be 
consistent with the new title of 36 CFR part 212. The Agency added 
authorities and responsibilities to FSM 7700.
    The Agency added direction on travel analysis and route and area 
designation to FSM 7710, ``Travel Planning.'' In addition, the Agency 
revised the Travel Planning Handbook, FSH 7709.55, to identify a 
process for designating roads, trails, and areas, to describe travel 
analysis, and to identify a process for conducting engineering 
analysis. Directives governing road maintenance and operations remain 
in FSM 7730, Operations and Maintenance, and FSH 7709.59, the Road 
System Operations Handbook.
    The Agency consolidated management direction for motor vehicle use 
in FSM 2350, Trail, River, and Similar Recreation Opportunities. 
Directives governing trail maintenance and operations remain in FSM 
2350 and the Trails Management Handbook, FSH 2309.18.
    The following lists the substantive changes made to the proposed 
directives. These changes were based on public comment or on the 
Agency's 3 years of experience in implementing the travel management 
rule. In addition to these substantive revisions, the Agency improved 
organization, enhanced clarity by renaming sections, and removed 
duplication.

FSM 2350

    2350--Added rock climbing to the list of recreational activities 
that involve relatively low-density use and limited infrastructure.
    2350.2--Clarified that recreation opportunities provided must be 
consistent with the applicable land management plan.
    2350.2, paragraph 3--Added the phrase, ``on the ground management, 
including law enforcement.''
    2350.3, paragraph 7--Added direction not to maintain unauthorized 
trails.
    2353.01b, paragraph 3--Clarified language regarding prohibitions 
that apply in wilderness and primitive areas.
    2353.03, paragraph 3--Clarified that an NFS trail may not have more 
than one national trail classification.
    2353.03, paragraph 6--Added that trails may be included in the 
forest transportation atlas even if they are under the jurisdiction of 
another entity.
    2353.03, paragraph 8--Added direction to designate trails for motor 
vehicle use.
    2353.04d, paragraph 10--Added direction to disseminate information 
to the public to enhance understanding of the proper use of motor 
vehicles.
    2353.04e, paragraphs 4 and 5--Added responsibilities to issue 
technical specifications for signs and posters and to approve non-
standard symbols and traffic control devices.
    2353.04g, paragraph 1--Added general responsibilities for NFS 
trails.
    2353.04i, paragraph 11--Clarified that the responsibility for 
temporary, emergency closures may not be delegated to district rangers.
    2353.04j--Added responsibilities, including approval of TMOs.
    2353.05--Added definitions for ``motorcycle,'' ``over-snow 
vehicle,'' ``route,'' and ``utility terrain vehicle.''
    2353.23, paragraph 2--Added direction to consult with the regional 
sign coordinator for approval of non-standard signs.
    2353.25--Provided direction to consider available resources and 
costs and decommissioning when alternative routes are available.
    2353.28, paragraphs 3 and 4--Added direction on linking routes into 
a trail system and use conflicts.
    2353.28a, paragraph 2--Added direction to use appropriate and 
effective communication methods to ensure understanding of motor 
vehicle management strategies and requirements.
    2353.28b, paragraph 3--Added direction to review mixed use analysis 
when existing conditions change.
    2353.28c--Deleted redundant direction and referred to FSM 7716.42.
    2353.28d, paragraph 5--Added requirements regarding signing for 
temporary emergency closures.
    2353.28h--Modified direction regarding when recreation event 
permits should not be issued.
    2353.28i--Added a requirement to use applicable criteria in 36 CFR 
212.55 as a basis for identifying effects to monitor.
    2353.28j--Added section entitled, ``Relationship Between Motorized 
NFS Roads and NFS Trails.''
    2353.53--Added additional guidance regarding the type of trail 
experience provided.
    2353.54--Added examples of elements to address when describing the 
history of a National Recreation Trail.

FSM 7700, Zero Code

    7703.11--Removed erroneous direction regarding over-snow vehicle 
management.
    7703.23--Removed direction regarding management of non-motorized 
recreation.
    7703.26--Added provisions regarding the positive effects of adding 
roads to the forest transportation system.
    7703.27--Added section entitled, ``Converting NFS Roads to NFS 
Trails and Managing Coincidental Routes.''
    7705--Added a definition for ``primitive area.''

FSM 7710

    7710.3--Clarified that a science-based travel analysis will be used 
when identifying the minimum road system.
    7710.42--Added a responsibility for the Washington Office Director 
of Engineering to produce a production guide for MVUMs.
    7710.43--Added a responsibility for the Director of Recreation, 
Heritage, and Volunteer Resources to monitor implementation of the 
travel management rule.
    7710.44--Added a responsibility for regional foresters to ensure 
that MVUMs comply with the production guide.
    7711.2, paragraph 3b--Clarified that the forest road atlas 
constitutes the forest development road system plan for purposes of the 
National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1608).
    7711.3--Included a seventh standard vehicle class category.
    7712, paragraph 1--Clarified that travel analysis is not required 
to inform decisions related to the designation of roads, trails, and 
areas for those administrative units and ranger districts that have 
issued a proposed action as of the effective date of these directives.
    7712, paragraph 2--Modified direction to state that travel analysis 
may address identification of the minimum road system and route and 
area designation decisions separately or simultaneously.
    7712, paragraph 3--Added direction to state that proposals 
resulting from travel analysis may be addressed in the same or 
different environmental analyses.
    7712, paragraph 7--Clarified that a roads analysis completed in 
accordance with Publication FS-643 satisfies the requirement for travel 
analysis relative to roads.
    7712.3--Clarified that travel analysis is not required for 
decommissioning unauthorized routes.

[[Page 74702]]

    7712.4, paragraph 1--Clarified that travel analysis satisfies the 
requirement for incorporating a science-based roads analysis at the 
appropriate scale when identifying the minimum road system.
    7712.4, paragraph 5--Clarified that a report produced subsequent to 
a roads analysis conducted pursuant to Publication FS-643 also meets 
the requirement to use travel analysis relative to roads.
    7715.03--Added a statement that administrative units and ranger 
districts should avoid adding routes to the forest transportation 
system unless there is adequate provision for their maintenance.
    7715.5, paragraph 2f--Removed grazing allotments as specific 
criteria to be considered when designating trails and areas, since they 
are not identified as criteria to be considered when designating trails 
and areas in the travel management rule.
    7715.73--Added guidance on use of signs to identify the boundaries 
of a designated area; added a requirement to establish and document 
management objectives for designated areas; and clarified that motor 
vehicle use in a designated area cannot be restricted by the type of 
activity.
    7715.74--Added guidance on including in a designation the limited 
use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain forest 
routes, rather than merely designated routes, solely for the purposes 
of big game retrieval and dispersed camping; clarified the use of 
terminal facilities for dispersed camping; and suggested coordinating 
dates for motor vehicle use for big game retrieval with the appropriate 
State agency.
    7715.77--Clarified that motor vehicles licensed under a State green 
sticker or other similar program do not meet the definition of a 
highway-legal vehicle for purposes of the agency's directives.
    7715.77--Added a provision regarding use of engineering judgment to 
determine if and to what extent an engineering analysis is needed to 
ascertain whether over-snow vehicle use should be allowed on roads that 
are designated for highway-legal vehicles only.
    7716.1, paragraph 1--Revised to require that road designations 
provide for parking within one vehicle length of the edge of the road 
or within a specified distance of up to 30 feet from the centerline of 
the road.
    7716.12, paragraph 2--Added emphasis on use of standard seasonal 
designations.
    7716.13--Identified limitations on designations for big game 
retrieval.
    7716.41--Added direction to meet requirements for the MVUM 
established by the Washington Office Director of Engineering.
    7717.1, paragraph 1--Added the requirement to establish a regular 
schedule for monitoring motor vehicle use; to monitor for consistency 
with the applicable land management plan; and use applicable criteria 
established in 36 CFR 212.55 as a basis for identifying effects to 
monitor. Stated that if over time monitoring of motor vehicle use in a 
designated area identifies a well-established system of routes, 
consider designating those routes.
    7718.1, paragraph 1--Clarified that over-snow vehicle use may be 
prohibited or restricted pursuant to orders issued under 36 CFR part 
261, subpart B, and that wheeled motor vehicles that are modified with 
tracks and/or skis meet the definition of ``over-snow vehicle.''

FSH 7709.55, Chapter 10

    Section 13--Included a statement that the steps of the travel 
planning process overlap with the steps of the travel analysis process 
and that planners should avoid duplication of effort.
    Section 15.1--To be consistent with FSM 7711.3, included direction 
on the contents of an MVUM and direction on how to notify the public 
that an MVUM is available.
    Section 15.2--Identified a possible need to adjust RMOs and TMOs 
after travel management decisions are made.
    Section 16.3--Added the requirement to use applicable criteria 
established in 36 CFR 212.55 as a basis for identifying effects to 
monitor.

FSH 7709.55, Chapter 20

    Section 21.1, paragraph 3--Added the requirement to identify the 
scope of travel analysis.
    Section 21.12--Deleted the example, since it did not clearly 
illustrate effects on the timeframe for implementing travel management 
decisions.
    Section 21.6--Deleted the requirement to include a map in a travel 
analysis report.

Regulatory Certifications

Environmental Impact

    The final directives provide policy and procedural guidance to 
Agency officials implementing the travel management rule. Travel 
management decisions implementing these directives are made with 
appropriate site-specific environmental analysis and public 
involvement. The final directives have no effect on the ground until 
designations of roads, trails, and areas are completed at the field 
level, with opportunity for public involvement, as appropriate. Section 
31b of FSH 1909.15 (57 FR 43180, September 18, 1992) 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 these final directives fall within this 
category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist that 
require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental 
impact statement.

Regulatory Impact

    These final directives have been reviewed under USDA procedures and 
E.O. 12866 on regulatory planning and review. The Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) has determined that these directives are not 
significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. These 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. Accordingly, these 
final directives are not subject to OMB review under E.O. 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    The Agency has considered these final directives in light of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602 et seq.). The final directives 
require identification at the field level, with public input, as 
appropriate, of a designated system of roads, trails, and areas for 
motor vehicle use. The Agency has determined that these final 
directives will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
because the 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. Therefore, the final directives will not have any 
effect on small entities as

[[Page 74703]]

defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

No Taking Implications

    The Agency has analyzed these final directives in accordance with 
the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 12630. The Agency has 
determined that these final directives will not pose the risk of a 
taking of private property.

Federalism and Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    The Agency has considered these final directives under the 
requirements of E.O. 13132 on federalism and has determined that the 
final directives conform to the federalism principles set out in this 
E.O.; 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, these directives do not have Tribal implications as 
defined by E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments, and therefore advance consultation with Tribes is not 
required.

Energy Effects

    The Agency has reviewed these final directives under E.O. 13211 of 
May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
the Energy Supply. The Agency has determined that these final 
directives do not constitute a significant energy action as defined in 
the E.O.

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 these final directives on 
State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. These 
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.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    These 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.

Access to the 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 travel planning and management. 
The full text of FSM 2350, 7700, and 7710 and FSH 7709.55 is available 
electronically on the World Wide Web at http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/.

    Dated: November 4, 2008.
Abigail R. Kimbell,
Chief, Forest Service.
[FR Doc. E8-29041 Filed 12-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P