Administration of the Forest Development Transportation System: Temporary Suspension of Road Construction and Reconstruction in Unroaded Areas

SUMMARY: This final interim rule temporarily suspends decisionmaking

regarding road construction and reconstruction in many unroaded areas

within the National Forest System. Its intended effect is to retain

resource management options in those unroaded areas subject to

suspension from the potentially adverse effects associated with road

construction, while the Forest Service develops a revised road

management policy. The interim rule also will provide time to refocus

attention on the larger issues of public use, demand, expectations, and

funding surrounding the National Forest Transportation System. The

temporary suspension of road construction and reconstruction will

expire upon the adoption of a revised road management policy or 18

months from the effective date of this final interim rule, whichever is

sooner.

DATES: This rule is effective March 1, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerald (Skip) Coghlan, Engineering

Staff, 202-205-1400 or Rhey Solomon, Ecosystem Management Coordination

Staff, 202-205-0939.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 28, 1998, the Forest Service

published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (63 FR 4350),

giving notice of its intention to revise its regulations for managing

roads within the National Forest Transportation System and to address

changes in how the road system is funded, developed, used, and

maintained. On that same date, at 63 FR 4351, the agency published a

proposed interim rule to temporarily suspend road construction and

reconstruction in certain roadless areas until new and improved

scientific and analytical tools are developed to better evaluate the

need for and effects of roads in sensitive areas. Comment was invited.

In response to requests from various individuals, organizations,

and elected officials, on February 27, 1998, the agency extended the

public comment period on the proposed interim rule for an additional 30

days (63 FR 9980) and announced that it would hold 25 open houses to

receive comments on the ANPR and proposed interim rule. An additional

six open houses were held in response to local requests. An estimated

2,300 people attended these meetings generating approximately 1,800

comments. Over 53,000 letters, postcards, oral comments, and e-mail

messages concerning the proposal were submitted during the 60-day

comment period. Comments were received from all 50 states, the District

of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Most comments came from California

(14,000 individuals or 26 percent of the total responses) followed by

Montana, Oregon, Colorado, Illinois, Idaho, Pennsylvania, Alaska, and

Georgia. Of the total written comments submitted on the proposed

interim rule, 96 percent were from individuals. Responses from

conservation oriented groups accounted for another one percent of

comments analyzed, while the remaining three percent were from

recreation user groups, wood products companies, other commodity

groups, and county, State, and Federal agencies.

Summary of Public Comments

The variety of comments received represented widely differing

perceptions and interpretations of the proposed interim rule and

reflected regional and specific concerns. However, the majority of

concerns fit into two categories: (1) A belief that the interim rule is

a policy designed to preserve unroaded areas rather than a temporary

measure to suspend road construction and reconstruction in unroaded

areas, and (2) the interim rule will lead to fewer roads in the

National Forest Transportation System and thus reduce access. Based on

the perception that the proposed interim rule was a roadless-area

policy, many comments focused on the positive and negative

environmental, social, and economic attributes of unroaded areas.

The terms ``wilderness'' and ``roadless areas'' were often used

interchangeably by respondents. Many respondents asked the agency to

designate additional wilderness and suggested that exemptions and other

stipulations in the proposed interim rule were concessions to special

interest commodity user groups that allegedly influence Forest Service

policy. Generally, those supporting the proposed interim rule primarily

commented on specific aspects of the proposal, indicating that its

measures would protect the environment. However, many respondents that

supported the rule opposed the exemption for forest plans that are in

or have completed the administrative appeals process and the exemption

to the Northwest Forest Plan. Those opposed wrote that the acreage

requirements for suspensions or exemptions described in the proposed

interim rule were inappropriate. Many respondents, who objected to the

proposed interim rule, perceived it to be part of an ongoing process

that excludes the public from legitimate uses of public lands. These

respondents thought that the Forest Service multiple-use mandate was

being substantially eroded.

Most opponents of the proposed interim rule wrote that it is

fundamentally unnecessary. They asserted that a short-term suspension

of road construction and reconstruction would have no positive or

lasting effects. They commented less on specific parts of the proposal

than on the general nature of their resource management concerns and

perceived violations of law. Many expressed concern about the possible

economic consequences to local communities, including loss of jobs,

reduced Federal receipts to counties, and loss of road infrastructure.

Further analysis of public comments identified a number of issues

that fit into one of the following categories: (1) Need for and purpose

of the interim rule, (2) compliance with laws and regulations, (3)

social and economic consequences, (4) environmental consequences, (5)

public participation, and (6) suggested revisions to the proposed

interim rule. The first five of these categories reflect public concern

for the effects of implementing the proposed interim rule, while the

last reflects concerns directly related to provisions of the proposed

interim rule. A summary of these issues and the Department's response

to them follows.

Comments About the Need for and Purpose of Action

Issue 1: The need for an interim rule is unclear. Many respondents

doubted the need for an interim rule, others cited the environmental,

social, or intrinsic values of unroaded areas, or the sheer size of the

National Forest Transportation System, as reasons an interim rule is

necessary. Some thought that an interim rule would provide a necessary

``time-out'' to allow for careful consideration of a long-term

transportation system policy, while others wrote that a long-term

policy could be developed without an interim rule. The latter cited the

fact that 434 miles of new roads were constructed in 1997 and, because

the National Forest

[[Page 7291]]

Transportation System includes 373,000 miles of classified roads,

additional road construction would not add to problems associated with

Forest Service roads.

Response. The interim rule will suspend very little overall planned

road construction and reconstruction during the 18-month period and

will have a negligible effect on user access and the environment.

However, the suspension will apply to unroaded areas that are

ecologically important where road construction and reconstruction could

have disproportionate and long-term impacts. Therefore, the Department

believes a temporary suspension is beneficial and will provide time to

develop a revised road management policy.

Issue 2: The interim rule appears to violate the multiple-use

mandate. The connection made between road access and use of National

Forest System lands, whether for commodity extraction or recreation,

led many respondents to broadly discuss the purposes of National Forest

System and other public lands, the concept of multiple-use, and

society's perceived changing values. They wrote that the national

forests belong to and should be protected for everyone, not just those

seen as motivated by short-term financial gain. These respondents

argued that unroaded areas are the only remaining areas where ecosystem

integrity can be preserved; a benefit, in their opinion, to the land

and to future generations and satisfying multiple-use in the long-term.

Others wrote that the national forests were set aside by the Federal

Government to provide a sustained yield of natural resources, that

these lands should continue to be managed for that purpose, and that

the Forest Service is not sufficiently following that mandate by

adopting the interim rule.

Some respondents held that national forest management must balance

society's need for commodities, like lumber, beef, and minerals, with

protection of water, air, and wilderness recreation opportunities. A

few suggested that the multiple-use mandate is not valid because

increased human demands for natural resources have exceeded the land's

ability to provide all things for all people.

Response. The proposed interim rule does not alter the statutory

multiple-use mandate nor the agency's compliance with that mandate.

Lands administered by the Forest Service will continue to be managed

for a balance of resource uses according to land and resource

management plans (forest plans), which are prepared in compliance with

the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528) and the

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). The

proposed interim rule is temporary, only addresses road construction

and reconstruction within certain unroaded areas, and does not restrict

multiple-uses, although some projects and activities dependent on road

construction or reconstruction will be affected. Also, these unroaded

areas are not the only areas of the National Forest System where lands

are managed to protect their natural state; for example, 35 million

acres are in congressionally designated wilderness areas.

Issue 3: The interim rule will expand the Wilderness Preservation

System. Some respondents were concerned that the proposed interim rule

is a ``massive land grab'' that will create de facto wilderness in

areas otherwise designated for multiple-use management. Some

respondents wrote that the proposed interim rule is an inappropriate

attempt to create additional wilderness without designation by the

Congress or endorsement by the general public. They suggested that the

proposed interim rule would actually expand the Wilderness Preservation

System. Such responses usually were accompanied by comments that land

would be excluded from other uses, at the expense of public access, for

the use of a select few.

However, some respondents asked that unroaded areas be given full

protection under the Wilderness Act of 1964. These respondents wrote

that unroaded areas are the last vestiges of a once vast area, which

have somehow escaped inclusion in the Wilderness Preservation System.

They suggested that there are not enough designated wilderness areas

and advocated using unroaded areas to buffer designated wilderness

areas from human activities or, ultimately, to include them in the

Wilderness Preservation System. Requests for protection of specific

unroaded areas often accompanied the general comments on unroaded area

protection.

Response. The proposed interim rule is not a policy to expand the

Wilderness Preservation System. It will temporarily suspend road

construction and reconstruction in some unroaded areas; it sets no

limits on other activities, including timber harvest which may be

accomplished without the construction or reconstruction of roads.

Recommendations for wilderness area designation and management

standards and guidelines for roadless areas are decisions made during

the forest planning process and are subject to special procedures under

the Wilderness Act. The proposed interim rule does not affect forest

planning or land allocation decisions made in the land and resource

management plans. It would be inappropriate and infeasible for the

Secretary to recommend new wilderness areas in conjunction with this

interim rule.

Issue 4: The merits of a new roadless area review are of great

concern and interest. The possibility of a new inventory of roadless

areas and roads generated more responses than any other topic. Most

supporters of the proposed interim rule suggested that the Forest

Service expand its suspension of road construction and reconstruction

and protect what they view are irreplaceable resources. Some opined

that the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II), which was

prepared in 1979, is an inadequate inventory and should not be used as

a basis for identifying roadless areas. Others asked that the

suspension not only provide protection of both inventoried and un-

inventoried roadless areas, but also that the Forest Service prepare a

new inventory.

Response. Road construction and reconstruction in unroaded portions

of roadless areas identified in RARE II, as well as those additional

roadless areas identified in land and resource management plans, are

subject to suspension under the final interim rule. The rule does not

change those inventories nor any land allocations made with regard to

these lands. The interim rule is not a roadless area inventory process,

nor does it propose a new inventory. Land and resource management

planning under the National Forest Management Act of 1976 is the

established mechanism for determining the need for conducting

inventories and facilitating decisionmaking with regard to specific

areas.

Comments About Compliance With Laws and Regulations

Issue 5: An environmental impact statement (EIS) should have been

prepared. Because the suspension of road construction and

reconstruction will be national in scope and was perceived to affect

many aspects of forest use, many respondents expressed their

expectation that the Forest Service should follow mandated processes of

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and conduct assessments of

potential impacts. Some asserted that the agency should have prepared

an environmental impact statement before publishing the proposed

interim rule.

Response. To determine whether an environmental impact statement is

[[Page 7292]]

needed, Forest Service officials have prepared an environmental

assessment of the possible effects of implementing the proposed interim

rule and alternatives. Based on the analysis, the Chief of the Forest

Service has made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The FONSI

discusses the significance of the environmental consequences of the

final interim rule and addresses why an EIS is not required. The

environmental assessment is available on the World Wide Web at

www.fs.fed.us/news/roads/. Copies are also available upon request by

writing the Director of Ecosystem Management Coordination, P.O. Box

96090, Washington, D.C. 20090, or by calling 202-205-0895.

Issue 6: The interim rule appears to violate laws and regulations.

Several individuals expressed strong concern about a perceived

disregard for natural resource management laws and administrative

rulemaking procedures. They wrote that the proposed interim rule

violates Constitutional law, including the Fifth and Tenth Amendments

that address being deprived of property without compensation and limits

of Federal power, respectively. These respondents also alleged

violation of various environmental and administrative laws including

the Wilderness Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Alaska

National Interest Land Conservation Act, the Americans with

Disabilities Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. Laws most often

cited as being violated and the Department's response follows.

The Wilderness Act. Although only Congress may designate wilderness

areas, some respondents viewed the proposed interim rule as a step

toward circumventing congressional authority. These respondents contend

that unroaded lands were released for multiple-use under various

wilderness legislation, as well as RARE II, and they see the proposed

interim rule as a breach of those laws. Some expressed concern that the

proposed interim rule violates release language in State Wilderness

Acts, specifically those in Wyoming and Colorado.

Response. The proposed interim rule was not intended as a policy to

evaluate or consider National Forest System lands for recommendation as

potential wilderness areas. The land and resource planning process

under NFMA is the appropriate vehicle for making recommendations for

congressional wilderness area designation. The interim rule does not

make decisions or recommendations regarding wilderness potential. The

interim rule also does not affect activities in unroaded areas except

road construction and reconstruction for a temporary period. Unroaded

areas released by congress under wilderness statutes are still released

for multiple-use management in accordance with the applicable land and

resource management plan.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) Planning. Some respondents

indicated that the proposed interim rule alters forest plans without

going through the NFMA amendment process. Some also were confused about

integration of the proposed interim rule with the forest planning

process.

Response. Adoption of the interim rule does not violate NFMA.

Together with other applicable laws, NFMA authorizes the Secretary of

Agriculture to promulgate regulations governing the administration and

management of the National Forest Transportation System and regulations

to govern forest plan approval, amendment, and revision (16 U.S.C.

1604, 1608 and 1613). These laws complement the long standing authority

of the Secretary to regulate the occupancy and use of national forests

(16 U.S.C. 551).

Forest planning and management occur at distinct administrative

levels of decisionmaking under the structure established by the NFMA

and its implementing regulations. At the programmatic level, and in

response to specific public concerns, the Forest Service develops

various management options, or alternatives, for an entire national

forest. When a land and resource management plan is approved, the

project initiation phase begins in which managers propose site-specific

actions and assess their environmental consequences and feasibility.

The interim rule does not alter the programmatic framework established

in land and resource management plans, nor does it amend any plan

allocation, standard, or guideline. Although the interim rule may alter

the immediate feasibility of some projects, it will not alter the

premises on which those projects are based. (For a more detailed

discussion of forest plans and project-level decisionmaking see 58 FR

19370-19371.)

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Some respondents were

concerned that the proposed interim rule would deny access to National

Forest System lands by persons with physical disabilities caused by

age, health, or handicaps. Some people rely solely on vehicle access to

enjoy their favorite sites and experience the outdoors away from

crowded, high-impact camping areas. Respondents wrote that the proposed

interim rule could violate the intent of the ADA by denying safe access

to the most remote facilities.

Response. Executive branch actions of the Federal government are

covered by Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and not the

Americans with Disabilities Act. A model for the requirements of the

ADA, Title V prohibits discrimination in services and employment on the

basis of handicap. The proposed interim rule would not violate the

letter or the spirit of the ADA. It is possible that users may be

denied new road access into some areas because of the temporary

suspension of road construction in unroaded areas; however, this would

affect all users equally.

Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA). A number

of respondents claim ANILCA will be violated by denying access to

private land in-holdings or limiting access through unroaded areas.

These respondents also believe that the proposed interim rule violates

ANILCA by establishing additional roadless areas without approval of

Congress or without going through the land and resource management

planning process.

Response. The proposed and final interim rule, expressly state that

road construction and reconstruction needed to ensure access provided

by statute or pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights will be

protected and not subject to provisions of the rule that would suspend

road construction or reconstruction . Additionally, as stated

previously, this interim rule does not change land and resource

management planning decisions or land allocations nor result in a new

roadless area inventory.

Revised Statute 2477. Revised Statute 2477 is a reenactment of

section 8 of the Mining Act of 1866, which was the primary authority

under which many State and county highways in the western United States

were constructed and maintained. Such highway construction required no

approval from the Federal Government and no documentation in public

lands records. With passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management

Act of 1976, Revised Statute 2477 was repealed; however, certain

rights-of-way granted before 1976 were preserved.

Some respondents expressed concern about the potential loss or

restriction of current or future access to private or State lands that

border or are intermingled with National Forest System lands. They

expressed fear of the potential loss of traditionally used access

routes, many of which they claim should be exempt under Revised Statute

2477.

[[Page 7293]]

Response. The proposed interim rule expressly stated that road

construction and reconstruction needed to ensure access provided by

statute or pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights will be

protected. The final interim rule will not limit nor interfere with the

exercise of valid existing rights-of-way granted prior to 1976 pursuant

to Revised Statute 2477.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. A few respondents believe the interim

rule violates the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act by shifting economic

burdens to local communities, primarily by reducing the timber harvest.

These respondents believe that the reduction in direct revenues from

payments-to-States and other indirect revenue loses, such as reduced

employment, are unfair burdens to local communities and violate the

law.

Response. Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Department has assessed the possible

effects of the final interim rule on State, local, and Tribal

governments, and the private sector. The Department recognizes that

there will be some level of economic impacts to some communities as a

result of the interim rule. The loss of payments-to-States is expected

to be $6 to $8 million annually, far less than the threshold of $100

million, and it is not expected to otherwise adversely affect the

economy. The interim rule does not compel the expenditure of $100

million or more by any State, local, or Tribal government, or any

person or entity in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under

section 202 of the Act is not required.

Comments About Social and Economic Consequences

Issue 7: Intrinsic values of unroaded areas. Reflecting an

erroneous belief that roadless areas, unroaded areas, and

Congressionally designated wilderness areas are the same, many

respondents asserted that unroaded areas have a value more important

than can be measured economically and, therefore, should be protected.

Some wrote that the Forest Service should take every opportunity to

expand the Wilderness Preservation System to meet the nation's future

needs for watershed protection, wildlife habitat, and recreation.

Noting that a suspension of road construction in unroaded areas

provides only short-term protection, they worried that a loss of

roadless areas will reduce their opportunities to pursue spiritual and

emotional renewal. A perception that wild places are disappearing led

many reviewers to call for a halt to timber harvesting practices and

associated road building projects.

Response. The stated purpose of the proposed interim rule is to

ensure that when managers consider proposals to construct or

reconstruct roads, they use the best available science in the

decisionmaking process. As already noted, the final interim rule will

not make land allocation decisions. The Department recognizes the

important and unique qualities of unroaded areas and believes that

management decisions for those areas are most appropriately addressed

in land and resource management plans.

Issue 8: Economic and cumulative economic effects. Some respondents

suggested that overall costs to Federal, State, and local governments,

as well as to industries that depend on commodity extraction, will

surpass $100 million annually, which is the threshold for an

economically significant and major rule, especially if direct and

indirect cumulative effects on local communities are considered.

Further, these reviewers asserted that an economic impact analysis must

be completed before a final interim rule is adopted and that the

analysis should consider specifically the cumulative effects of other

land management planning decisions that have adversely affected rural

communities.

Adverse impacts cited include the Northwest Forest Plan, the

Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish Producing Watersheds

(PACFISH), the Inland Fish Aquatic Strategy (INFISH), the North

American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and new air-and water-quality

regulations. Respondents wrote that implementation of decisions like

these have adversely affected the economic base of many cities, towns,

and rural areas in the Western United States and that past decisions

have not adequately considered cumulative economic effects.

Response. In accordance with Departmental requirements, the Forest

Service has completed an economic analysis as part of the environmental

analysis for the final interim rule. That analysis reveals that the

overall effects of the final interim rule will be minor, although some

local communities may be affected more than others, specifically some

areas in Idaho. Some social and economic effects will occur as an

indirect result of temporarily suspending road construction and

reconstruction, primarily those associated with timber harvest.

Analysis indicates that the final interim rule will have an annual

direct effect of $6 to $8 million in lost revenues to local communities

from payments-to-States, which is substantially less than $100 million

and will not significantly compromise productivity, competition,

employment, the environment, public health or safety, or State and

local governments. This interim rule is expected to reduce annual

employment nationwide by 270 to 420 direct timber jobs per year over 3

years. To the extent that workers who would otherwise fill these jobs

do not find alternative employment, local and county revenues would be

decreased. However, provisions of the 1998 Supplemental Appropriations

Rescission Act (Pub. L. 105-174) will, to some extent, compensate for

shortfalls in payments-to-States from revenues generated on National

Forest System lands.

Recent trends of declining timber volumes from National Forest

System lands have been recognized in the environmental assessment. The

national forests lands encompassed by the Northwest Forest Plan

amendments are exempt from suspension of road construction and

reconstruction and are, therefore, unaffected by the interim rule.

However, national forests within the Columbia River Basin that have

experienced a decline in timber harvesting of 7 percent since 1986 and

are expected to decline another 5 percent by the end of the decade are

also impacted by the interim rule with a further small increment of

potential decline in timber production. The impacts from NAFTA on the

economics of communities affected by this interim rule are highly

speculative and, therefore, have not been accounted for when developing

this interim rule. The cumulative economic effects of this interim rule

are primarily related to decreases in timber harvesting, but analysis

shows that those effects are not significant.

Issue 9: Effects on dependent local communities. Many respondents

were concerned that a suspension of decisionmaking with regard to

timber sale road construction and reconstruction under the proposed

interim rule would adversely affect the financial health of their

communities. Lost revenue, fewer new jobs, and escalating unemployment

with its attendant social costs were cited as potential negative

effects. Noting the loss of high paying jobs and a rising cost of

living, many respondents wrote that reduced timber harvest and, to a

lesser extent, reduced oil and gas development, will prohibit them from

maintaining their lifestyles, lead to a loss of revenue for community

infrastructure maintenance, and result in a loss of local community

control.

[[Page 7294]]

Many asserted strongly that national forests were set aside to

provide a sustained yield of goods and services and should continue to

do so. Some respondents expressed an opinion that the proposed interim

rule will be used by some groups to lobby for a ban on all logging on

Federal lands. They asserted that Federally administered lands are

economically vital, not just for resource-producing communities, but

also for a resource-consuming nation.

Many small communities in resource-dependent counties with

substantial acreage in national forest or other Federal ownership

responded that they rely on the 25 percent payments-to-States for

funding of public schools and for road maintenance. Many wrote that

reductions in the amount of Federal timber and other receipts resulting

from the proposed interim rule will drastically affect the quality of

life in rural communities by shifting a greater financial burden to

counties and taxpayers.

Other respondents asserted that jobs will not be lost or that any

losses will be offset by the creation of recreation and tourism jobs

and employment opportunities from watershed and wildlife habitat

restoration efforts. They suggested that communities focus on those

opportunities rather than on potential job losses.

Response. As noted earlier, the possible effects of implementing

the final interim rule have been evaluated in the environmental

assessment and an associated benefit/cost economic analysis. Under the

rule, payments-to-States could be reduced by about $6 to $9 million

nationally; however, these estimates are uncertain and are greatly

dependent on possible changes in planning priorities, budgets, and the

timing of implementing projects on the ground. Additionally, the 1998

Supplemental Appropriations Rescission Act (Pub. L. 105-174) requires

the Forest Service to compensate States for the loss of revenues from

scheduled activities that are suspended by this interim rule. It is

uncertain what mitigating effect this law will have on payments-to-

States until the rule is implemented and scheduled projects are

assessed.

The Forest Service anticipates no long-term effects on the

production of forest resources as a result of implementing the final

interim rule, although some short-term effects are identified and

examined in the environmental assessment and benefit/cost analysis. The

anticipated temporary effects on local employment supported by national

forest timber harvest and other commodity resource production are

expected to be minor, but, as stated previously, relatively greater

impacts are probable in some Idaho communities. The environmental

assessment does anticipate some employment offsets within the same

employment sectors in some areas of the country. For instance, where

timber harvest reductions occur in the southern States, the Forest

Service expects that many of these reductions can be offset by

temporary increases in production from non-federal lands. However, in

other areas of the country, such as the Pacific Northwest, there is

little opportunity for such offsets.

Issue 10: Loss of infrastructure. Many respondents said the interim

rule should address the obliteration and decommissioning of roads. They

suggested that many classified roads are in poor repair and should be

obliterated to prevent further deterioration of and impacts to the

environment from runoff and soil erosion. Others wrote that roads are

vital to responsible management of the national forests. They asserted

that implementation of the proposed interim rule would be a waste of

money and a loss of a public investment. Still others said that

obliterating roads is unwise, because the Forest Service will return in

a few years and possibly construct roads in these same suspension areas

at the taxpayers' expense. Many wrote that roads are investments and

should not be obliterated.

Response. The National Forest Transportation System infrastructure

is vitally important to responsible management of the national forests.

The transportation system is essential to many rural communities, and

recreational use of classified roads is also important. The Department

recognizes the effects of deferred road maintenance and reconstruction

that have occurred in recent years. These deferrals are part of the

reason the Forest Service is reexamining the role of roads and

developing a new long-term transportation system policy. The interim

rule is a temporary measure designed to maintain options for management

of certain unroaded areas that are ecologically sensitive to help focus

on managing the entire National Forest Transportation System. The

agency's long-term transportation system policy will ensure that only

necessary roads are constructed and that road maintenance and

obliteration priorities are established through public involvement and

use of other appropriate planning tools. This rule will have no effect

on projects designed to obliterate or decommission roads.

Issue 11: Effects on timber supply. Many respondents believe that

reduced timber harvest resulting from implementation of the interim

rule will be detrimental to forest health and to the communities that

depend on commodity extraction. They wrote about the legal mandate that

national forests provide timber resources and suggested that the

proposed interim rule will force consumers to use more imported timber

products.

However, many individuals believe that placing the remaining

unroaded areas off-limits to road construction, reconstruction, will

not result in timber supply shortages. Instead, these reviewers

suggested that the proposed interim rule will have a negligible effect

on timber supply because private ownership and other National Forest

System lands can meet the nation's needs.

Response. Production of timber volume from the National Forests

accounts for less than 5 percent of the total volume of timber produced

in the United States. Implementation of the interim rule may reduce

timber harvest volume by 170 to 260 million board feet, which is less

than 5 percent of the total volume estimated to be offered from

National Forest System lands during an 18-month period. The final

interim rule's effect on wood products imports, therefore, is expected

to be negligible; less than 1 percent of current total wood fiber

imports. Varying levels of substitution of timber from non-federal

sources is expected across the country, which should prevent any

significant national shortfall. The environmental assessment associated

with the interim rule found no significant impacts to commodity

production or impacts to communities. However, there are a few local

communities, primarily in Idaho, where the amount of timber volume

offered could be reduced more than 15 percent from levels initially

planned.

Issue 12: Subsidies to commercial users. Many respondents said that

road construction and reconstruction projects constitute a subsidy to

logging companies and that such subsidies should cease. Some suggested

that the 18-month suspension should be extended to ensure that

additional public funds are not spent on such subsidies. Others wrote

that the construction or reconstruction of purchaser-credit roads

serves a larger purpose than to subsidize timber interests. They

pointed out that roads facilitate public access to recreation

resources, increase the agency's ability to administer programs and

policies, and aid in preventing or suppressing wildfire.

Response. Road systems are vital to meet the access needs within

each

[[Page 7295]]

national forest. The 18-month suspension should provide adequate time

for land managers to study the related issues and develop analytical

tools and adopt a revised road management policy to ensure that road

construction and reconstruction projects are useful, safe,

environmentally sound, and cost efficient. Additionally, the Omnibus

Appropriation Act for fiscal year 1999 eliminated purchaser credit. For

these reasons, the Department finds no need to extend the interim rule

beyond the 18-month period.

Issue 13: Access into or through unroaded areas. Many people were

concerned that the proposed interim rule would preclude public access

to recreational opportunities and industry access to national forest

timber and other commodities; others suggested that it would deny or

interfere with rights-of-way and jeopardize public safety.

Those citing reduced recreational opportunities cited the

importance of roads in providing off-highway vehicle access to remote,

pristine, scenic, or wilderness areas. Some argued that navigating

undeveloped roads is a desired recreational activity. They wrote that

road closures will lead to an overcrowding of available roads and

trails, increased environmental consequences to a smaller land base,

and a reduced quality of recreational experiences.

In contrast, many respondents referred to unroaded areas as

national treasures that should be considered precious because they

offer recreational experiences removed from the presence of machines.

They wrote that too many of the remaining unroaded areas have been

penetrated, leaving less and less land free of disruptive human

activity. They suggested that increased motorized access will ruin

important wildlife habitat and plant ecosystems and cause an increase

in the occurrence of wildfire, poaching, and dumping.

Many others believe that timber harvest, mining, oil exploration,

and other commodity extraction activities would be severely curtailed

by the proposed interim rule. They wrote that without roads, resource

extraction could not continue or would be significantly reduced,

causing economic hardship for industry and small rural communities.

Response. The final interim rule does not alter the use of existing

roads for multiple-use purposes nor does it limit activities that do

not require the construction or reconstruction of roads in unroaded

areas. Road construction or reconstruction in unroaded areas needed for

legal rights-of-access will be provided in accordance with provisions

of all applicable laws. Additionally, in response to public comment

requesting exemptions for impending threat to life and property from

flood, fire, insect infestation, or forest disease, paragraph (c)(4)

has been revised to permit all such access for flood, fire, and other

catastrophic events that, without intervention, would cause the loss of

life or property.

Comments About Environmental Consequences

Many respondents expressed concerns about old-growth forests,

fisheries, and noxious weeds. Many wrote about possible adverse effects

on forest health and biological diversity, citing impacts to State and

Federally-listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. Some,

however, wrote that access to unroaded areas is needed to allow

managers to effectively respond to changing conditions or catastrophic

events, such as insect infestation, the spread of tree diseases, and

wildfire.

Issue 14: Impacts to soil erosion, sedimentation, and fish. Many

respondents cited timber harvest and the road construction associated

with resource extraction as reasons for soil erosion, stream

sedimentation, and declining fish populations. They mentioned poor

engineering design, improper road placement, and degradation of

existing roads as leading causes of these adverse effects. They

consider roads to be harmful sources for sediment deposition in prime

trout and salmon habitat. Many suggested that the proposed interim rule

should become permanent policy. Generally, these respondents supported

road obliteration, decommissioning, and reconstruction to mitigate soil

erosion.

By contrast, some expressed a belief that roads and road

construction are not the primary cause of soil erosion and that logging

and associated activities, such as road obliteration, are the major

causes.

Response. Science and history have shown that roads and road

construction can have adverse effects on biological diversity, wildlife

habitat, noxious weed infestation, soils, and watersheds. Poor

engineering design, improper road placement, and the degradation of

existing roads are all causes of soil erosion and sedimentation. For

many wildlife and fish species, core habitat and genetic isolation are

intricately tied to lands within the National Forest System.

Scientific evidence compiled to date suggests that, depending on

their geologic setting and topography, roads are a significant source

of increased erosion, sedimentation, and declining fish habitat. This

evidence was an important consideration in formulating the proposed

interim rule, as well as in publishing the advance notice of proposed

rulemaking for the National Forest Transportation System. The final

interim rule offers an important safeguard for protecting unroaded

areas for 18 months or when a revised road management policy is

adopted, whichever is sooner. Such policy will help ensure that

possible environmental effects, including soil erosion and

sedimentation, are more thoroughly evaluated before roads are

constructed or reconstructed or decommissioned. For example, analytical

tools will provide scientific information to inform the decisionmaker

whether road decommissioning will produce additional disturbance or

halt continuing disturbance.

Issue 15: Impacts from noxious weeds. Road construction and timber

harvest are believed to increase the spread of noxious weeds.

Respondents wrote that logging equipment and other motorized equipment

introduce seeds into formerly pristine areas along roadbeds and in

areas where resources have been extracted. Others expressed concern

that noxious weeds on Federal lands will spread to adjacent private and

State lands. On the other hand, some respondents suggested that

limiting road construction may limit the ability of Federal and county

agencies to manage the spread of noxious weeds.

Response. Invasion of noxious weeds was recognized as a problem in

the preamble to the ANPR (63 FR 4350) and in the proposed interim rule.

The Department believes that the suspensions established in the final

interim rule provide a measure of safeguards to protect unroaded areas

against invasion by noxious weeds until a revised road management

policy for assessing the possible effects of road construction or

reconstruction is adopted. Management of noxious weeds on the entire

National Forest Transportation System will be made under the long-term

transportation policy announced in the ANPR. In addition, the Forest

Service has an established noxious weed policy intended to reduce the

invasion and dissemination of noxious weeds to and from the national

forests (FSH 2080).

Issue 16: Impacts to old-growth. Many respondents wrote that

protection and preservation of old-growth ecosystems within unroaded

and wilderness areas of the National Forest System is a good reason to

implement the proposed interim rule and subsequent management policies.

Others distinguished the proposed suspension

[[Page 7296]]

of road construction and reconstruction from protection of old-growth,

noting that insect, disease, and fire events naturally affect changes

in the forest environment and make preservation of old-growth

ecosystems problematic. In addition, they wrote that the absence of

management plans for old-growth forests has created unhealthy stands

that are thick with fuels.

Response. Protection of old-growth forests is not an objective of

the proposed interim rule. Issues germane to management of old-growth

ecosystems are most appropriately addressed in Regional guides,

individual forest plans, and during project planning at the local

level.

Issue 17: Impacts to wildlife and plants. Some respondents wrote

that protection of plants and animals on undisturbed National Forest

System lands should be the purpose of the interim rule and also should

be incorporated into agency policy. They expressed a belief that

survival of most forest species is ensured in unroaded areas and that

an absence of motor vehicle noise, trampling of sensitive plants,

littering, and excessive hunting would protect plants and animals.

Others suggested that the Forest Service should better balance its

management focus between mature and early successional species, placing

less emphasis on those species dependent on wilderness and unroaded

areas. They wrote that early successional forest management contributes

to stratification and diversity among the many species that depend on

young forests.

Response. The purpose of and need for the interim rule concerns

roads and the problems associated with their construction and

reconstruction. Issues related to protection and management of wildlife

and plants are best addressed through the agency's established planning

process, which includes land and resource management plans and project-

level decisionmaking. However, the environmental assessment

accompanying the final interim rule does evaluate the possible effects

of its implementation on wildlife and plant species and concludes that

those effects will be minimal.

Issue 18: Impacts on habitat fragmentation and wildlife corridors.

Many respondents welcomed the proposed interim rule as a step toward

protecting and preserving critical habitat for numerous species. These

respondents wrote that protection of relatively undisturbed ecosystems

would help maintain sufficient habitat for viable bird, fish, and

animal populations and provide wildlife corridors. A few respondents

noted that neotropical birds require contiguous forest cover, which

occurs in unroaded areas, and that those species depend on such habitat

to nest and reproduce. They wrote that large, pristine, and unmanaged

areas maintain critical genetic diversity and species viability.

Although many favored the proposed interim rule, they felt that the

5,000-acre guideline would exclude important habitat in the Eastern

United States where unroaded areas tend to be smaller than those in

Western United States. Some respondents disputed the need to mitigate

ecosystem fragmentation, and others questioned the validity of analyses

that consider home range or expressed doubt that roads are solely to

blame for population declines or the demise of certain species.

Response. The maintenance and protection of large blocks of forest

land to prevent habitat fragmentation and retain wildlife corridors is

a short-term benefit of the interim rule. Long-term management measures

to protect corridors and prevent fragmentation are evaluated in land

and resource management planning documents and may be considered in the

comprehensive revision of the long-term National Forest Transportation

System policy announced in the January 28, 1998, ANPR (63 FR 4350).

Issue 19: Impacts on Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive (TES)

species. A number of comments reflected public awareness of TES species

requirements. Many mentioned large predators and carnivores, focusing

on the need to monitor and preserve grizzly bear and its habitat in the

48 contiguous States, the brown bear in Alaska, and large cats like the

cougar and the lynx. Because neotropical birds are particularly

susceptible to habitat fragmentation, some respondents wrote that the

proposed interim rule would help increase and improve migratory

corridors and critical nesting habitat for those species. Sedimentation

from roads and fragmented drainages were blamed most often for the

decline of trout, salmon, and other important fish populations.

Numerous comments reflected a belief that the proposed interim rule

recognizes species that have special interest to people and responds to

this interest with increased habitat protection.

Response. The final interim rule does provide short-term assurance

that unnecessary road construction will be avoided. This ensures that

TES species that require habitats associated with unroaded areas are

also better protected. Section 7 consultation with the Fish and

Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service has been

completed for this interim rule. Additionally, when new and improved

analytical tools are adopted and applied, protection of TES species

will be integrated into those requirements.

Comments About Public Participation

Issue 20: Disregard for public involvement in planning. Many

respondents wrote that the proposed interim rule would interfere with

local forest planning where intensive collaboration and tough

compromises have resulted in well-balanced management direction. Many

expressed anger that a suspension of road construction and

reconstruction would disregard their hard work and invalidate current

forest plans. They were concerned that the proposed interim rule would

undermine the trust and collaboration gained through effective forest

planning. Some questioned the legality of ignoring the forest planning

process in 36 CFR part 219 by means of a ``top-down'' administrative

action. They asserted that the proposed interim rule ignores recent

analyses conducted at the national forest and regional levels and that

current plans have adequately assessed the possible effects of road

construction and reconstruction.

Response. By providing exemptions for revised forest plans, the

proposed interim rule recognizes and validates specific planning that

has occurred through collaboration at the local level. The proposed

interim rule does not alter or overturn land management prescriptions,

guidelines, or standards contained in land and resource management

plans; it merely defers some activities that might be implemented

during the next 18-month period. The Department believes the integrity

of the NFMA forest planning process has been protected and that the

interim rule does not affect that process.

Issue 21: Insufficient public involvement. Officials from all

levels of government, including Tribal, Federal, State, county, and

local expressed concern about a perceived deliberate attempt to

circumvent their authority and bypass the ongoing forest planning

processes. Many believe that the authority of Congress and the will of

the American people are not reflected in the proposed interim rule.

They asserted that the proposed interim rule is a misguided attempt to

appease special-interest groups at the general public's expense.

Questioning the Forest Service's motives, a few respondents asserted

that the agency is party to a broad, hidden agenda that would deny

public access to public lands.

Response. The purpose of the interim rule was clearly stated in the

Federal

[[Page 7297]]

Register notice of January 28, 1998 (63 FR 4351). Given the widespread

public interest in National Forest System management, the Forest

Service gave advance notice of the proposal and invited comment. In

response to requests from various individuals, organizations, and

elected officials, on February 27, 1998, the agency extended the public

comment period on the proposed interim rule for an additional 30 days.

Additionally, the agency hosted 31 open houses receiving approximately

2,300 persons and 1,800 comments. Further, the agency will provide

opportunity for public comment on revising the roads management policy

which will replace the interim rule.

Issue 22: Availability of information. Many respondents wrote that

the Forest Service inadequately distributed information to the public

about its intent and did not provide sufficient time for meaningful

public input to the review process. A number of individuals expressed

dissatisfaction with local Forest Service officials' ability to answer

questions or to provide more information about the proposed interim

rule.

Response. The Department acknowledges that information on the

proposed interim rule was not made available before publication in the

Federal Register on January 28, 1998 (63 FR 4351). Facts used to

support the proposed interim rule were published in an Appendix to that

announcement (63 FR 4351, Appendix A--Facts About the National Forest

Road System). Further information and reports were made available

through the Internet. In response to public requests, the comment

period was extended 30 days, and a schedule of open houses was

announced in the Federal Register on February 27, 1998 (63 FR 9880). As

part of that announcement, preliminary effects information was also

made available to the public. Local officials were provided with this

information to share with local public and special-interest groups. As

evidenced by approximately 53,000 responses to the proposed interim

rule, the Department believes sufficient public notice and involvement

occurred.

Suggested Revisions to the Proposed Interim Rule

Definitions. There was not a definition paragraph in the proposed

interim rule.

Comment: Addition of definitions. Many respondents asked that the

definitions of roads and roadless areas be included in the final

interim rule. Most were concerned that existing unclassified, or

``ghost'' roads, would be considered as roads and thus eliminate areas

where the suspension should apply. Others expressed concern that the

trails they use for hiking, biking, and horseback riding would be

characterized as roads, and that necessary maintenance and repair would

not be done during the interim 18-month period.

Response. Because such definitions are critical to understanding

which projects will be subject to suspension, the agency has added a

new paragraph (a) Definitions. The terms ``roads'', ``classified

roads'', ``unclassified roads'', ``unroaded areas'', and ``RARE II

areas'' are defined. Definitions for ``road construction'', ``road

reconstruction'', and ``road maintenance'' were not added because these

terms are already defined in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 7705).

The term ``roads'' is used in the interim rule as a general term to

mean a vehicle travel way over 50 inches wide. A road may be classified

or unclassified. ``Classified roads'' are those that are constructed or

maintained for long-term highway vehicle use. Classified roads may be

public, private, or forest development. ``Unclassified roads'' are

roads that are not constructed, maintained, or intended for long-term

highway use. Unclassified roads include all temporary roads associated

with fire suppression, timber harvest, and oil, gas, or mineral

activities, as well as travel ways resulting from off-road vehicle use.

Unclassified roads, including roads created by repeated public use and

often used by off-road vehicles, do not disqualify an area for

consideration as unroaded in the final interim rule.

The term ``roadless'' is used in the final interim rule in

conjunction with areas already inventoried that have defined boundaries

as established through forest planning, RARE II, or some other agency

planning process. The term ``unroaded area'' is defined in the final

interim rule and is used to characterize any area that does not contain

classified roads, even if the area was not previously inventoried in

RARE II or land and resource management planning.

The final interim rule will not obliterate or prevent the use of

existing classified or unclassified roads. However, construction and

reconstruction of unclassified roads in certain unroaded areas will be

suspended as described in paragraph (b) of the final interim rule.

Decisions regarding the management and use of such travel ways will be

addressed through land and resource management planning and project-

level decisionmaking, which require environmental analysis and public

involvement.

Suspensions. Paragraphs (a)(1)-(5) of the proposed interim rule

listed five categories of unroaded areas in which road construction or

reconstruction would be suspended. First, the proposed interim rule

would apply a temporary suspension of road construction and

reconstruction in roadless areas of 5,000 or more acres inventoried in

RARE II and in other unroaded areas identified in land and resource

management plans. Second, the proposal would also suspend road

construction and reconstruction in unroaded areas greater than 1,000

acres that are contiguous to congressionally-designated wilderness

areas or contiguous to Federally-administered components of the

National Wild and Scenic River System that are classified as ``Wild''.

Third, suspensions would apply to all unroaded areas greater than 1,000

acres contiguous to roadless areas of 5,000 acres or more on other

Federal lands. In addition, the suspension would apply to two other

categories: (1) Any National Forest System (NFS) areas of low-density

road development or (2) any other NFS area that retains its unroaded

characteristics which the Regional Forester subsequently determined

have such special and unique ecological characteristics or social

values that no road construction should proceed.

Comment: Size and type of areas where suspensions should apply.

Many respondents disagreed that the proposed interim rule should apply

only to unroaded areas that are 1,000 acres or more, suggesting

instead, that no size limit should be imposed. These respondents

proposed that the interim rule should apply to all roadless areas,

regardless of size. Others stated that road construction and

reconstruction should also be suspended in any unroaded area, not just

those adjacent to inventoried roadless areas. A few respondents offered

minimum size criteria, which ranged from 10 to 500 acres, to 100 square

miles. Still others suggested that criteria might appropriately vary by

region; for example, Eastern and Southern forests, which have smaller

contiguous National Forest System lands than forests in the West,

should have a smaller minimum size criterion. Many recommended that the

suspension also should provide protection to unroaded areas that have

not been inventoried. Some respondents felt that the suspension should

apply to roaded portions of inventoried roadless

[[Page 7298]]

areas that have been roaded since the inventory was done.

Response. The 5,000-acre limit described in RARE II was used as a

criterion for wilderness suitability to define areas that could be

effectively managed while providing visitors with an opportunity for

solitude. This criterion was included in the proposed interim rule to

clearly restate the acreage criteria used for RARE II delineations. The

intention was not to limit suspensions to areas that are 5,000 acres or

larger. Agency officials believe that the 5,000-acre criterion specific

to RARE II areas is redundant and confusing and unnecessary. Therefore,

paragraph (b) of the final interim rule omits this acreage limit.

The vast majority of all large blocks of roadless areas (5,000

acres or more) were inventoried in RARE II or forest planning. While

some large blocks of National Forest System unroaded areas, in excess

of 5,000 acres, have been created through land exchanges, purchases,

road obliterations and other management actions, it is impractical and

unnecessary to commission a new inventory of roadless areas at this

time. Such inventories are appropriate at the forest planning level and

regional assessment scales within the existing agency planning and

decisionmaking framework. Therefore, road construction and

reconstruction are not suspended in un-inventoried areas that are not

contiguous to inventoried roadless areas.

Areas inventoried as roadless under RARE II or forest planning, but

in which roads have since been constructed, no longer have the

ecological and social values of roadless areas and, therefore, do not

meet the same threshold of concern and need for protection. Therefore,

in the final interim rule a one-quarter mile road influence zone has

been added as a criterion for determining the remaining areas that will

be considered unroaded and subject to suspension of road construction

and reconstruction. An influence zone is an area on either side of a

road where the effects on ecological process from the road are felt.

Recent science suggests that a road influence zone may be as great as

1000 meters, in excess of one-half mile, away from the road. Other

studies suggest a zone as small as 100 meters. For purposes of the

final interim rule, the one-quarter mile limit was selected as an

intermediate measure of road influence. The final interim rule states

at paragraph (b)(1) that road construction and reconstruction will be

suspended in remaining unroaded portions of RARE II and forest plan

inventoried areas that are one-quarter mile or more beyond any

classified road.

The suspension is intended to apply to roadless areas already

inventoried and identified through the forest planning process (36 CFR

part 219). The final interim rule does not call for a new inventory of

roadless areas or compromise the local planning processes. It does,

however, cover all unroaded portions of roadless areas inventoried in

the forest plans, irrespective of size. The intent in establishing the

one-quarter mile limit is not to encourage road construction or

reconstruction within the one-quarter mile influence zone. However, it

is anticipated that there will be no new road construction or

reconstruction within the one-quarter mile influence zone.

The proposed interim rule did not contain an explicit provision to

suspend road construction or reconstruction in unroaded areas

contiguous to RARE II or contiguous to areas inventoried in land and

resource management planning. Having considered the comments, this

omission has been corrected. The final interim rule includes an

explicit provision, at paragraph (b)(2), suspending road construction

and reconstruction in unroaded areas greater than 1,000 acres

contiguous to RARE II and forest plan roadless inventoried areas. This

provision recognizes that these areas provide the same ecological

benefits as areas contiguous to wilderness, Wild components of Wild and

Scenic Rivers System, or unroaded areas of other Federal ownership. To

qualify for suspension, these contiguous areas must have a considerable

common boundary, provide an important corridor for wildlife movement,

or significantly extend a unique value of the already inventoried

roadless area. This condition is added to ensure that contiguous areas

enhance ecological values of inventoried roadless areas. Without this

condition, irregular shapes might be created that do not, in fact,

significantly enhance the ecological values being protected.

Comment: Regional Forester's authority to designate special areas.

Most respondents did not want Regional Foresters to have the authority

to suspend road construction in areas thought to have unique ecological

characteristics or social values. These respondents wrote that such

authority would allow Regional Foresters ``arbitrarily'' to designate

land as special or unique and thereby withdraw it from possible timber

harvest. Many expressed a concern that, because special or unique

attributes could be found on every acre of the National Forest System,

unelected officials might eventually put all lands off-limits to

natural resource management. Others, citing a need to protect remaining

unroaded areas, wrote that Regional Foresters should use their

authority under the proposed interim rule to prevent road construction.

Response. Paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of the proposed interim rule

are not retained in the final interim rule because of the concern with

how these procedures would be implemented with consistency and

fairness. Additionally, further consideration of these paragraphs led

to a conclusion that these provisions are unnecessary to accomplish the

objectives of the interim rule, since Regional Foresters have authority

to limit road construction or reconstruction without the interim rule.

Comment: Additional areas need to be protected. Some respondents

asked that the final interim rule identify specific areas in which road

construction and reconstruction would be suspended. Many respondents

suggested specific areas they wanted to be protected by suspending road

construction and reconstruction. These areas included those listed in

the Southern Appalachian Area Assessment and other specific areas of

special meaning to various respondents.

Response. Areas that have been inventoried through an established

planning process with public involvement were considered for suspension

under the proposed interim rule. For example, the preamble to the

proposed interim rule (63 FR 4352) listed several areas that might

warrant protective consideration under the Regional Foresters'

authority, such as municipal watersheds that provide drinking water;

habitat for listed or proposed threatened and endangered fish,

wildlife, or plants; and areas listed in the Southern Appalachian Area

Assessment, Social/Cultural/Economic Technical Report (Report 4 of 5,

dated July 1996). In response to these comments, the Department

considered adding designated municipal watersheds and threatened and

endangered species habitat to areas suspended but decided not to

include these areas in the final interim rule because they are

protected through existing environmental laws such as the Safe Drinking

Water Act, Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

Having considered the comments proposing additional unroaded areas

that should be subject to the road construction and reconstruction

suspension, the Department has decided to add areas listed in Table 5.1

of the Southern Appalachian Area Assessment

[[Page 7299]]

as specific and unique ecological areas where road construction or

reconstruction will be suspended. Those areas are included in current

inventories and have been the subject of extensive public discussion,

scientific analysis, and collaborative planning and thus merit special

consideration before deciding to construct or reconstruct roads in

them.

Comment: Scope of suspension. A number of respondents asserted that

all road construction should be suspended, arguing that no additional

roads are needed to manage the national forests and that the potential

risks are more significant in heavily roaded areas than in roadless

areas. These reviewers argued that if the purpose of the proposed

interim rule is to allow the Forest Service time to develop improved

analysis tools, those tools should be applied to all road construction

throughout the National Forest System, not just to roads in unroaded

areas. Many wrote that, to be equitable, national policy must be truly

national in application. A few respondents asked that the final interim

rule suspend all ``destructive'' activities, including grazing, mining,

and oil and gas development. They wrote that unroaded areas are

priceless because of their biological diversity, wildlife habitats, and

spiritual values. Those whose livelihoods would be more directly

affected by a suspension of road construction or reconstruction had a

different view. They saw the proposed interim rule as a first step

towards eliminating multiple-use and sustained-yield management of

unroaded areas. Some wrote that the proposed interim rule is ``* * * an

attempt by special interests to lock up our National Forests to the

public.''

Response. The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) and the

proposed interim rule both addressed the need for a time-out while

additional transportation planning tools are developed and a revised

road management policy is adopted. Interim action is needed to ensure

better roads management and planning, to help managers avoid causing

irreversible damage to resources, and to help focus attention on

comprehensive management of the entire National Forest Transportation

System. This final interim rule is not intended to suspend decisions

made more appropriately in the forest planning process. The purpose of

the final interim rule is to retain resource options in unroaded areas

and to safeguard those areas from the potential adverse effects

associated with road construction and reconstruction until a revised

road management policy is adopted. The potentially damaging ecological

effects of a first entry into a unroaded area is often proportionately

greater than the effects of similar construction or reconstruction in

an already roaded area. By contrast, suspending all road construction

throughout the National Forest System would be extremely disruptive to

the ongoing management of lands and resources. Much road reconstruction

is specifically designed to reduce environmental problems by relocating

roads originally constructed in sensitive riparian areas, to improve

road drainage and reduce erosion, and to improve safety and access.

Curtailment of all such work would have greater ecological and social

consequences than continuing current program activities in roaded

areas. Therefore, the suggestion of suspending all road construction

has not been adopted.

Comment: Applicability to construction of temporary roads. A number

of respondents were concerned that temporary roads would be allowed

during the suspension and indicated that the Forest Service should not

allow this to happen.

Response. In the short term, temporary roads can create as great a

risk of environmental damage as permanent roads. The proposed interim

rule recommended temporary suspension of permanent and temporary road

construction and reconstruction in unroaded areas of National Forest

System land, with certain stated exemptions. This provision is retained

in the final interim rule.

Exemptions. Paragraphs (b)(1)-(b)(4) of the proposed interim rule

expressly exempted four categories of roadless areas from the temporary

suspension of road construction and reconstruction:

1. Roadless areas within national forests that have a signed Record

of Decision revising their forest plans and have completed the

administrative appeal process as of the effective date of the rule;

2. Roadless areas within national forests that have a signed Record

of Decision revising their forest plans on which the administrative

appeal process is underway, but not completed as of the effective date

of the rule;

3. Roadless areas in Washington, Oregon and California within those

portions of national forests encompassed by the Northwest Forest Plan;

and

4. Road construction or reconstruction in roadless areas needed for

public safety or to ensure access to private lands pursuant to statute

or outstanding and reserved rights.

Comment: Elimination of exemptions. Many respondents questioned the

need for any exemptions to the interim rule. To support their

arguments, they cited perceived instances of poor planning, an

intentional exclusion of roadless issues from planning, and a lack of

trust in local Forest Service officials. Many wrote about inadequate

safeguards for protecting unroaded areas, insufficient scientific

justification, and lack of credible forest planning processes. These

reviewers said that exempting any national forest or planning area from

the suspension will have a negative effect on lands they believe are

already over-roaded and degraded.

By contrast, some respondents thanked the Forest Service for

honoring the effort of national forest officials and their public

partners to complete plan revisions. They felt that areas in which

citizens have invested much time and energy to forge agreements and

reach compromises should be exempt from the final interim rule. Many

wrote that formal land management planning and appeals processes would

be undermined by a ``top-down national forest plan amendment'' to

suspend road construction in most roadless areas. A few suggested

exempting all national forests that are in any stage of the planning

process, and some were concerned that the interim rule would result in

decisions that reverse management direction in revised land and

resource management plans now under appeal without regard for the hard

work of their communities. Respondents expressing this concern most

often cited the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan.

A number of respondents were concerned that a provision in the

proposed interim rule to exempt forests of the Pacific Northwest and

national forests with revised forest plans might be reversed in the

final interim rule. These respondents believe that formal land

management planning and appeals processes would be undermined if

revised forest plans are not exempt from the temporary suspension of

road construction and reconstruction in the final interim rule. This

concern was often coupled with a general opinion that the Forest

Service is disregarding valid processes for the development of land and

resource management plans.

Response. The Department believes strongly that established

planning processes should be honored and, therefore, the exemption for

revised forest plans has been retained in the final interim rule.

However, the most recent available science has not been incorporated

into all revised forest plans. Therefore, the final interim rule

[[Page 7300]]

includes a provision at paragraph (c)(1) that exempts only the most

recent forest plan revisions, specifically those that have Records of

Decision issued after January 1, 1996. The effect of this cutoff date

is that unroaded areas within Virginia's George Washington National

Forest are subject to the road construction suspension. The George

Washington National Forest is the only forest that would have been

exempted under the proposed interim rule but will not be exempted under

the final interim rule.

Comment: Application of exemptions to the Pacific Northwest and

Alaska. A majority of those who commented on application of the

proposed interim rule to the Pacific Northwest and Alaska strongly

recommended that the national forests in these areas should be subject

to the road construction and reconstruction suspension, citing the

unique ecological characteristics of these lands. They asserted that

maintenance of biological diversity and protection of old-growth

ecosystems should be principle goals.

Response. To avoid undue interruption or interference with

established planning processes and to honor current decisions that

incorporate current available science, the agency proposed an exemption

for those plans in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. Following

publication of the proposed interim rule, Forest Service officials

prepared an environmental assessment of the possible effects of several

alternatives for suspending road construction and reconstruction. One

alternative included suspending road construction and reconstruction in

unroaded areas of forests encompassed by the Northwest Forest Plan and

the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The

assessment shows that suspending road construction and reconstruction

in unroaded areas of the Tongass National Forest would disrupt

projected timber harvesting substantially. However, in recent years the

actual timber harvested from the Tongass National Forest has been less

than levels offered for sale. The forests encompassed by the Northwest

Forest Plan would be disrupted to a lesser degree than the Tongass. The

Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan and the Northwest Forest Plan

were subject to substantial public involvement, greater, in fact, than

received by most other land and resource management plans that also

would be exempt under the proposed interim rule. The Tongass and

Northwest Forest plans also involved considerable scientific input by

scientists evaluating the environmental consequences that might result

from following these plans. Moreover, the Tongass forest plan is still

undergoing evaluation as part of the administrative appeal process

under 36 CFR 217. As a result of the considerable science and public

involvement in formulating these plans and considering the disruption

to management that could result by applying suspensions to these

forests, the Department has decided to retain the exemption for the

Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan and those forests encompassed

by the Northwest Forest Plan.

Comment: Exemption for plans under development but yet to be

adopted. Some respondents believe that land and resource management

plan revisions that have been ongoing for the last few years should be

honored by exempting these plans from suspension provisions of the

final interim rule. These respondents state that the rigor of analysis

in these plans is comparable to land and resource management plans

exempted under the proposed interim rule and upon completion of these

plans they should be exempted.

Response. The Department agrees with these comments. Since future

forest plan revisions will undergo analyses as rigorous as those

conducted since January 1, 1996, forest plan revisions that will be

approved while the rule is in effect would be exempt upon completion of

a Record of Decision revising the forest plan and implementation of

that decision.

To date, the Northwest Forest Plan is the only multi-agency, eco-

regional, decisionmaking document that has extensively employed

available science, especially integrating scientific findings into the

decision. However, decisions on other multi-agency, eco-regional

projects may be issued while the final interim rule is in effect; for

example, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

(ICBEMP). Paragraph (c)(3) of the final interim rule exempts portions

of those forests encompassed by the ICBEMP upon completion of a Record

of Decision for that planning effort or other multi-agency eco-region

decisionmaking made during the 18-month suspension period of the final

interim rule. Paragraph (c)(3) also would permit road construction and

reconstruction in unroaded areas where the forest plan amendment or

revision has been developed through multi-Federal agency coordination

based on an eco-regional assessment.

Comment: Opportunity to provide additional information in appeals

of forest plan revision decisions. One individual asked the Forest

Service to reopen the appeal period for those forest plans exempt under

the proposed interim rule but currently under appeal; for example the

Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan. This respondent believes

that the appeal period should be extended until new and improved

analytical tools are developed and cited in the appeal process.

Response. To extend current planning and appeal processes for the

18-month suspension period would not honor established planning and

appeal processes. Additionally, a halt to all ongoing planning,

decisionmaking, and appeal processes until new and improved analytical

tools are developed would result in unreasonable and unnecessary delays

of many forest management activities. The final interim rule respects

current planning and decisionmaking; it does not alter the established

process for the Forest Service Chief's review of forest plans nor does

it change the criteria for administrative review. If the Chief remands

a land and resource management plan to reconsider certain land

allocations, NFMA compliance would be required, as it would for any

change in a land and resource management plan.

Comment: Exemptions for ski areas and oil and gas leases with

current authorizations. A number of respondents asked that oil and gas,

mining, and ski area projects be exempted from the final interim rule.

Permit holders wrote that they have made good-faith efforts to complete

necessary administrative processes and abide by the conditions of their

respective permits. They stated that the proposed interim rule would

revoke rights duly given under permits and unfairly affect responsive

and responsible operators for the actions of others. If permits were to

be affected by the final interim rule, they asked that the Forest

Service allow road maintenance and repair.

Exempting ski area permits was an issue for many. The proposed

expansion of Colorado's Vail Ski Area was of particular concern for

those who believe that Vail does not need to expand and that the

required road construction would have negative effects on the adjacent

Two Elks Roadless Area. Some expressed concern about the proposed

construction of new ski areas on the Kootenai National Forest in

northwest Montana and in Oregon's proposed Pelican Butte area. By

contrast, a few persons wrote that ski areas should be exempt from the

proposed suspension.

Response. Recreation resort developments, including ski areas, oil

and gas leases, and mining operations,

[[Page 7301]]

are authorized by special use permits or other legal instruments for

development and operation. These authorizations constitute a long-term,

legally binding relationship between the permit holder and the Forest

Service. Paragraph (d)(1) of the final interim rule retains the

proposed exemption for special use authorizations and contract

commitments made in such agreements. Ski area master development plans

and other large development plans do not necessarily make project-level

decisions on anticipated road construction or reconstruction. However,

road construction and reconstruction evaluated and decided as part of a

development plan are considered to be authorized under the special use

authorization and, therefore, are encompassed by exemptions in

paragraph (d)(1) of the final interim rule.

Less than 15 miles of permanent and temporary road construction and

reconstruction for ski areas could be affected. Most proposed

construction and reconstruction for ski areas are within areas covered

by approved master development plans and are not subject to suspension

of road construction and reconstruction. Since most oil and gas and ski

area developments are not subject to suspension, the Department does

not believe the final interim rule will unduly disrupt these activities

and, therefore, a specific exemption is unnecessary in the final

interim rule.

Comment: Exemption of land exchanges and timber sales under

analysis. A few respondents representing timber companies requested

that the final interim rule exempt road construction projects in

pending land exchanges because, in some cases, the terms and conditions

of a land exchange may be contingent on future access and road

construction may be required. Some asked that active timber sale

contracts or proposed timber sales for which planning has been

completed also be exempt.

Response. The final interim rule will not affect rights-of-access

associated with land exchanges already decided. Land exchanges in and

of themselves do not involve road construction or reconstruction and,

therefore, are not affected by the final interim rule. However, road

construction or reconstruction in unroaded areas affected by the

temporary suspension in connection with a land exchange could not

proceed. There are few situations where land exchanges are dependent on

road construction or reconstruction; therefore, an exemption for road

construction or reconstruction associated with land exchanges is

unnecessary. The final interim rule will not modify any existing

contract or other instrument including timber sale contracts. Timber

sales in the planning and contract award process that have not

progressed to a signed timber sale contract, as of the effective date

of the rule, create no right and, therefore, would be subject to

suspension provisions of paragraph (b) of the rule.

Comment: Exemption of recreation roads and trails. A few

respondents wrote that recreation roads and trails funded with Federal

and State money should be exempt from the final interim rule. These

reviewers expressed concern about the suspension's potential effects on

continued funding for roads or off-road vehicle trails jointly operated

and maintained by Federal and State government entities. Other

respondents were concerned that existing recreation roads and trails

would be removed unless exempted by this interim rule.

Response. Approximately 230 recreation projects with approximately

195 miles of road construction or reconstruction are needed to access

the government facilities are estimated for all NFS lands during the

period the final interim rule would be in effect. Because less than one

mile of associated access would be within an unroaded area covered by

the final interim rule, the effect would be negligible. Additionally,

the Forest Service will not remove any existing roads or trails within

unroaded areas as a direct consequence of this final interim rule.

Comment: Exemption for national forests covered by the Upper

Columbia River Basin Assessment. Many respondents asked that the final

interim rule exempt national forests in the Upper Columbia River Basin

(UCRB), and one organization requested that the Forest Service exclude

all projects within the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project (ICBEMP) for which the NEPA process has already begun.

A number of respondents argued that years of work and thousands of

hours of research have gone into the creation of the ICBEMP and,

therefore, the Forest Service should consider exempting all forests

encompassed by the ICBEMP. They wrote that the regionally developed

ICBEMP is based on sound science, broad public participation, and in-

depth analysis, which should be sufficient to ensure that road

construction and reconstruction anywhere in the area will meet the

objectives of the final interim rule. One individual said, ``* * * the

active public participation and substantial work on guidelines factored

into the ICBEMP mean the proposed moratorium on road building in

roadless areas in the Basin is not necessary to achieve the better

decisionmaking process you are seeking.'' A few respondents suggested

that an analysis process be included in the final interim rule that

would allow road construction and reconstruction to proceed within the

area encompassed by the ICBEMP if the science in the ICBEMP assessment

was used at the project-level and a watershed analysis was followed to

make site-specific road construction decisions.

In contrast to these veiwpoints, others argued that since no

decisions have been made for the ICBEMP, none of the standards and

guidelines that might apply to road construction and reconstruction are

binding on any of the national forests in the analysis area. In

addition, some stated that the areas most at risk from detrimental

effects of road construction are within the ICBEMP.

Response. The ICBEMP team and public participants are using the

best available science to plan, locate, and design roads. This

extensive planning effort has maintained extensive public involvement,

conducted in-depth analyses, and fostered collaboration among all

Federal management and regulatory agencies directly affected by the

proposed action. However, as many respondents noted, there are no final

resource decisions and, therefore, guidelines and standards that may

result are not yet binding on the Forest Service nor agreed to by the

cooperating agencies.

Having considered these comments, the Department has adopted a

revised exemption at paragraph (c)(3) that will permit road

construction in unroaded areas to proceed where forest plan amendments

or revisions are adopted using a multi-Federal agency approach, current

and available science, and an eco-regional assessment. Thus, portions

of the National Forest System covered by the ICBEMP will be exempt when

the Forest Service issues a final decision that amends or revises

forest plans.

Comment: Impending threat considerations should be exempted. Many

wrote that the Forest Service proposal gave no recognition to the

importance of roads for fire suppression, access for emergency/rescue

personnel, and critical insect and disease treatment. They said that

the proposed temporary suspension would limit the agency's ability to

fight fires, rescue injured or lost persons, and prevent property loss.

Many wrote that access also improves fire suppression safety. Others

argued that areas should be exempt from active management of fuel

[[Page 7302]]

accumulation and improvement of forest health.

Response. The Forest Service included an exemption for public

safety in the proposed interim rule. This exemption is retained in

paragraph (c)(4) of the final interim rule, which has been modified,

based on consideration of comments, to also provide for the imminent

threat of flood, fire, or other catastrophic event that, without

intervention, would cause a loss of life or property. This provision

allows for fire suppression and emergency rescue of those who are in

danger and provides for a level of pro-active management to mitigate

potential emergency situations before they become unmanageable.

The final interim rule does not provide an exemption for impending

threats to significant ecological values, as recommended by some

respondents, although the Forest Service and Department did consider

such an exemption. Definitions of significant ecological values are

subjective, may be misinterpreted or misconstrued, and could result in

inappropriate road construction or reconstruction while the final

interim rule is in effect.

Comment: Violation of Indian Treaty Rights. A few respondents

expressed concern that the proposed interim rule would violate Indian

treaty rights.

Response. The proposed interim rule expressly stated that road

construction and reconstruction needed to ensure access provided by

statute or pursuant to reserved or outstanding private rights will be

protected. However, the Department has concluded that the term

``private rights'' may not be sufficient to include treaty rights;

therefore, the final interim rule specifically adds treaty rights to

paragraph (c)(4) to make clear the intent to protect Indian treaty

rights. Additionally, the term ``rights'' has been substituted in

paragraph (c)(4) of the final rule for ``private rights'' to ensure

there is no confusion that State and local government rights are also

protected.

Scope and Applicability. Paragraph (c) of the proposed interim rule

contained an assertion that the interim rule would not modify, suspend,

or cause to be reexamined any existing permit, contract, or other

instrument authorizing occupancy and use of the National Forest System.

This provision also would not modify or suspend any land and resource

management plan, any land allocation decision, or other management

activity or use within unroaded areas in which road construction or

reconstruction have been temporarily suspended. Finally, in the

proposed interim rule, the suspensions would remain in effect until

adoption of a revised road management policy is adopted or 18 months,

which ever is sooner.

Comment: Duration of the interim rule. Many people commented on the

proposed length of the final interim rule, as well as the design and

application of new and improved analytical tools. Those supporting and

those opposing the proposed interim rule wrote that the Forest Service

has a poor record of completing plans and implementing policy changes

within established timeframes. Some said that it would be impossible to

conduct a comprehensive study and implement an appropriate revision of

the National Forest Transportation System within 18 months. A few

respondents suggested that the final interim rule should remain in

effect until forest plan revisions have been completed or until a long-

term transportation system policy has been adopted. Specific

suggestions for the duration of the rule ranged from 6 to 36 months.

Some respondents expressed fear that the final interim rule would

become permanent by default, while others specifically requested that

it be made permanent. Such comments were often accompanied by personal

views on the ``appropriate use'' and management of public lands. Many

respondents cited the importance of forest management and the need to

actively address forest health problems. These respondents expressed

concern that, like the interim Strategies for managing Anadromous Fish

Producing Habitat (PACFISH), the Inland Fish Aquatic Strategy (INFISH),

and the California Spotted Owl Environmental Impact Statement (CASPO),

the final interim rule would eventually become institutionalized. On

the other hand, many recommended maintaining unroaded areas in an

unmanaged condition and suggested that the Forest Service provide those

areas with additional protection.

Response. The Department is determined that the final interim rule

remain in effect for only as long as necessary until a revised road

management policy is adopted. For this reason, a limit of 18 months was

imposed to mitigate against delays while these tools are developed and

tested and a revised road management policy is adopted. The certainty

of the final interim rule's termination will expedite the revised

policy and help ensure timeliness.

Comment: Applicability to Memorandums of Understanding. A few

Federal and State agency respondents expressed concern that the

proposed interim rule would delay projects conducted under established

agreements with other Federal or State agencies. The only project of

this type cited was the multi-agency Yellowstone Pipeline project.

Response. The Yellowstone Pipeline project is an ongoing project

that has fostered valuable collaboration among 11 cooperating agencies

involved in decisionmaking. Substantial resources have been committed

to this project over the last few years. The Department does not intend

to disrupt established land management planning or broad, multi-agency

planning. Therefore, paragraph (d)(2) of the final interim rule makes

explicit that the suspension does not apply to the Yellowstone Pipeline

project.

Comment: Lack of description of the analytical tools. A few

respondents expressed concern that the analytical tools that will

replace the final interim rule are not described in the preamble to the

proposed interim rule. These respondents believe that these analytical

tools will replace established planning mechanisms such as forest

planning. They are also concerned that the analytical tools will impose

standards that will eliminate future roading in unroaded areas. These

respondents asked that the analytical tools be described in the final

interim rule.

Response. The Department agrees that the analytical tools should be

better described. Since publication of the proposed interim rule, a

draft roads analysis procedure has been developed and is being field

tested on six national forests across the National Forest System before

undergoing a rigorous scientific peer and technical review. The

objective is to develop a procedure that integrates ecological, social,

and economic considerations into future decisions about building roads

in roaded and unroaded areas. The procedure, which serves as a template

to guide thinking about road options at all planning scales, will be

composed of various analytical steps to identify and gather needed

information and to produce maps and other documents. The analytical

tools will be designed to be issue driven; that is, they will help

managers identify public issues when analyzing local road system status

and need. The process will use a multi-scale approach to ensure that

all road-related issues are examined in context. The procedure will

include methods for developing management opportunities and options and

assessing risks associated with decisions to maintain, reduce, and

expand road networks on the national forests. In addition, the process

will provide a framework for examining important issues and

[[Page 7303]]

developing relevant information before managers enter into any formal

decision process that may change the characteristics and uses of

national forest road networks.

These analytical tools will neither make decisions nor allocate

lands for specific purposes; instead, they will assist decisionmaking

by examining important ecological, social, and economic issues and by

developing information relevant to decisions about forest plans and

projects. The roads analysis tools will provide an ecological approach

to transportation planning, will be flexible, and will allow a

customized examination of individual landscapes and sites.

The agency intends to obtain scientific peer and technical review

of these tools. However, since these tools are still under development

and have yet to be peer reviewed, and since the analysis procedures

themselves do not provide policy direction, it is both premature and

inappropriate to include them in the final interim rule.

The final interim rule revises the circumstance that will lift the

suspension before the 18-month termination. At paragraph (d)(3), the

proposed rule would have lifted the suspension upon 18 months or upon

the adoption of a revised road management policy whichever is first.

Adoption of a revised road management policy provides a clearer

termination point for the interim suspension than implementation of the

analytical tools. Before adopting a revised road management policy, the

Forest Service will provide public notice of its proposal and an

opportunity for public comment.

Conclusions

Having considered the comments received, the Department is adopting

a final interim rule to suspend road construction and reconstruction in

certain unroaded areas for up to 18 months. Road construction and

reconstruction will be suspended in certain unroaded areas,

specifically in remaining unroaded portions of RARE II and land and

resource management planning inventoried roadless areas, National

Forest System unroaded areas of more than 1,000 acres contiguous to

RARE II areas and forest plan inventoried roadless areas, unroaded

areas of 1,000 acres or more contiguous to Wild components of the Wild

and Scenic River System, or unroaded areas of other Federal lands

larger than 5,000 acres. The final interim rule provides for certain

exemptions, specifically unroaded areas encompassed by land and

resource management plans revised since January 1, 1996, and unroaded

areas encompassed by land and resource management plan amendments or

revisions resulting from multi-Federal agency coordination using

current available science and based on an eco-regional assessment. Also

exempted are road construction or reconstruction in unroaded areas

where roads are needed for public safety, to ensure access provided by

statute, treaty, to address impending threats of flood, fire, or other

catastrophic event, or pursuant to reserved or outstanding private

rights. The final interim rule does not suspend or modify any existing

permit, contract, or other instrument authorizing the occupancy and use

of National Forest System land, and the rule specifically does not

apply to road construction or reconstruction associated with the multi-

Federal agency Yellowstone Pipeline project.

Regulatory Impact

The final interim rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and

Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review and determined

that it will not have a significant adverse effect on the economy.

Under the final interim rule, some projects may not be implemented

within their planned time-frames, particularly such activities as

timber sales and ecosystem restoration projects that require road

construction or reconstruction. While the interim rule is in effect,

some projects may be canceled, some projects may proceed to the extent

that no road construction will occur, and some may be postponed until

adoption of a revised road management policy. Application of the

revised policy to these projects may eventually result in modifications

or elimination. A number of factors contribute to difficulties in

estimating the costs and benefits associated with deferred land

management projects. There may be considerable variation in site-

specific factors, projects are in various stages of development,

planning and analysis often take longer than initially anticipated, and

some project work can be shifted to sites outside unroaded areas

subject to suspension or road construction or reconstruction.

The Forest Service estimates that, nationwide, of the 5.4 billion

board feet of timber planned for sale during the 18-month period of the

final interim rule, the timber volume actually offered may be reduced

by an estimated 170 to 260 million board feet as a result of this final

interim rule. This is less than 5 percent of the planned sales.

Although the actual amounts are difficult to estimate, reductions in

timber-volume is expected to result in corresponding reductions in

employment and in payments-to-States. The reductions in timber-volume

sold could affect between 270 to 420 direct timber jobs per year over 3

years. The estimated potential loss of payments-to-States is $6 to $8

million. However, the 1998 Supplemental Appropriations Rescission Act

(Pub. L. 105-174) contains a provision requiring the Forest Service to

compensate counties for loss of revenues that would have been provided

from scheduled projects if the final interim rule were not implemented,

or if substitute timber sales are not offered. The Forest Service

expects that the Northern, Southern, and Intermountain Regions could

experience a greater share of lost revenues than other geographic

regions due to their higher dependence on unroaded areas for timber

production. The losses could be mitigated by requirements of the 1998

Supplemental Appropriation Act. It is not possible to estimate the

extent of the mitigation until implementation guidelines are

established.

While project delays will have some adverse economic effects in the

short-term, such effects will be offset by the benefits gained from the

suspension. Those benefits will result from a reduced risk of erosion,

landslides, and slope failure, all of which would threaten water

quality in headwater streams within many of the included unroaded

areas. The temporary suspension of road construction and reconstruction

will also help prevent the introduction of noxious weed species, retain

scenic and intrinsic values, and maintain important wildlife habitat

and corridors. The transportation system analysis process will use the

best available science and information about use trends during project

planning. Resource managers and the public will better understand the

possible effects of locating and constructing roads in unroaded areas.

Although it does result in costs associated with delays or

deferrals in road construction or reconstruction, the suspension is

limited to unroaded areas and will not extend beyond 18 months. The

greatest impact of the final interim rule is the loss of an estimated

$6 to $8 million annually, far less than the threshold of $100 million,

and it is not expected to otherwise adversely affect the economy,

worker productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health

or safety, or State or local governments.

Moreover, the final interim rule has been considered in light of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and it is hereby

certified that the final interim rule will not have a

[[Page 7304]]

significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities

as defined by that Act.

No Takings Implications

This final interim rule has been analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria described in Executive Order 12630 and it has

been determined not to pose the risk of a taking of constitutionally

protected private property. Because it applies only to Federal lands

and explicitly ensures access to private property pursuant to statute,

or to outstanding or reserved rights, no constitutionally protected

private property rights will be affected.

Civil Justice Reform Act

This final interim rule has been reviewed under Executive Order

12988, Civil Justice Reform. It (1) preempts all State and local laws

and regulations that are in conflict or which would impede its full

implementation, (2) has no retroactive effect on existing permits,

contracts, or other instruments authorizing the occupancy and use of

National Forest System lands, and (3) does not require administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit challenging its provisions.

Unfunded Mandates Reform

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 Department has assessed the effects of this interim rule on

state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This

interim rule does 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.

Environmental Impacts

Based on the environmental assessment and comments received on the

proposed interim rule, the Department has determined that there are no

significant environmental impacts associated with adoption of this

final interim rule. A copy of the environmental assessment and Finding

of No Significant Impacts may be obtained on the World Wide Web at

www.fs.fed/news/roads/ea.html or by writing the Director of Ecosystem

Management Coordination, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, D.C. 20090, or by

calling 202-205-0895.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

This final interim rule does not contain any recordkeeping or

reporting requirements or other information-collection requirements as

defined in 5 CFR part 1320 and, therefore, imposes no paperwork burden

on the public. Accordingly, review provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and implementing

regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 212

Highways and roads, National forests, Rights-of-way, and

Transportation.

Therefore, for reasons set out in the preamble, Part 212 of Title

36 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 212 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 551, 23 U.S.C. 205.

2. Add a new Sec. 212.13 to read as follows:

PART 212--ADMINISTRATION OF THE FOREST DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION

SYSTEM

Sec. 212.13 Temporary suspension of road construction in unroaded

areas.

(a) Definitions. The special terms used in this section are defined

as follows:

(1) Road. A vehicle travel way of over 50 inches wide. As used in

this section, a road may be classified or unclassified.

(i) Classified road. A road that is constructed or maintained for

long-term highway vehicle use. Classified roads may be public, private,

or forest development.

(A) Public road. A road open to public travel that is under the

jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority such as States,

counties, and local communities.

(B) Private road. A road under private ownership authorized by an

easement to a private party, or a road which provides access pursuant

to a reserved or private right.

(C) Forest development road. A road wholly or partially within or

adjacent to a National Forest System boundary that is necessary for the

protection, administration, and use of National Forest System lands,

which the Forest Service has authorized and over which the agency

maintains jurisdiction.

(ii) Unclassified road. A road that is not constructed, maintained,

or intended for long-term highway use, such as, roads constructed for

temporary access and other remnants of short-term use roads associated

with fire suppression, timber harvest, and oil, gas, or mineral

activities, as well as travel ways resulting from off-road vehicle use.

(2) Unroaded area. An area that does not contain classified roads.

(3) RARE II. The acronym for the second Roadless Area Review and

Evaluation conducted by the Forest Service in 1979 that resulted in an

inventory of roadless areas considered for potential wilderness

designation.

(b) Suspensions. Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of

this section, new road construction projects, including temporary road

construction, and road reconstruction projects are suspended within the

following areas of the National Forest System:

(1) All remaining unroaded portions of RARE II inventoried roadless

areas within the National Forest System, and all other remaining

unroaded portions of roadless areas identified in a land and resource

management plan prepared pursuant to the National Forest Management Act

(16 U.S.C. 1604) that lie one-quarter mile or more beyond any existing

classified road as of March 1, 1999;

(2) All National Forest System unroaded areas of more than 1,000

acres that are contiguous to remaining unroaded portions of RARE II

inventoried roadless areas or contiguous to areas inventoried in land

and resource management plans. For purposes of implementing this

category of suspension, areas of 1,000 acres or more must have a common

boundary of considerable length, provide important corridors for

wildlife movement, or extend a unique ecological value of the

established inventoried area;

(3) Roadless areas listed in Table 5.1 of the Southern Appalachian

Area Assessment, Social/Cultural/Economic Technical Report, Report 4 of

5, July 1996;

(4) All National Forest System unroaded areas greater than 1,000

acres that are contiguous to congressionally-designated wilderness

areas or that are contiguous to Federally-administered components of

the National Wild and Scenic River System (16 U.S.C. 1274) which are

classified as Wild; and

(5) All National Forest System unroaded areas greater than 1,000

acres that are contiguous to unroaded areas of 5,000 acres or more on

other federal lands.

(c) Exemptions. Road construction and reconstruction projects are

not subject to the suspension established by paragraph (b) of this

section if they fall within one of the following unroaded areas:

(1) Unroaded areas within national forests that have a signed

Record of Decision revising their land and resource management plans

prepared pursuant to the National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C.

1604) after January 1, 1996, and on which the

[[Page 7305]]

administrative appeals process under 36 CFR part 217 has been completed

as of March 1, 1999;

(2) Unroaded areas within a National Forest that have a signed

Record of Decision revising the land and resource management plan

prepared pursuant to the National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C.

1604) on which the administrative appeals process under 36 CFR part 217

has begun before or after March 1, 1999. (For these forests, any issues

related to the construction of roads in unroaded areas will be

addressed in the appeal decision, when appropriate.);

(3) Unroaded areas within the National Forest System encompassed by

a land and resource management plan amendment or revision adopted

before or during the period in which this section is effective, where

such amendment or revision has been developed through multi-federal

agency coordination using a science based eco-regional assessment;

(4) Road construction or reconstruction in unroaded areas where

roads are needed for public safety, needed to ensure access provided by

statute, treaty, or pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights; or

needed to address an imminent threat of flood, fire, or other

catastrophic event that, without intervention, would cause the loss of

life or property.

(d) Scope and applicability. (1) This rule does not suspend or

modify any existing permit, contract, or other instrument authorizing

the occupancy and use of National Forest System land. Additionally,

this rule does not suspend or modify any existing National Forest

System land allocation decision, nor is this rule intended to suspend

or otherwise affect other management activities or uses within unroaded

areas in which road construction or reconstruction projects are

suspended pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.

(2) This rule does not suspend or modify road construction or

reconstruction associated with the multi-federal agency Yellowstone

Pipeline project.

(3) The suspensions established by paragraph (b) of this section

remain in effect until the Forest Service, after giving appropriate

public notice and opportunity to comment, adopts its revised road

management policy, or 18 months from the effective date of this rule,

whichever is first.

(e) Effective date. The suspension of road construction and

reconstruction projects in unroaded areas as provided in paragraph (b)

of this section is effective March 1, 1999.

Dated: February 2, 1999.

Mike Dombeck,

Chief, Forest Service.

[FR Doc. 99-3103 Filed 2-11-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P