[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