[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7290-7305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3103]
[[Page 7289]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Agriculture
_______________________________________________________________________
Forest Service
_______________________________________________________________________
36 CFR Part 212
Administration of the Forest Development Transportation System:
Temporary Suspension of Road Construction and Reconstruction in
Unroaded Areas; Interim Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 1999 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 7290]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 212
[0596-AB68]
Administration of the Forest Development Transportation System:
Temporary Suspension of Road Construction and Reconstruction in
Unroaded Areas
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Adoption of interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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