Travel Management Directives; Forest Service Manual 2350, 7700, and 7710 and Forest Service Handbook 7709.55, 74689-74703 [E8-29041]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74689-74703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 u