[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