[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3206-3218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-552]



[[Page 3205]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part V





Department of Agriculture





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Forest Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



36 CFR Part 212, et al.



Administration of the Forest Development Transportation System; 
Prohibitions; Use of Motor Vehicles Off Forest Service Roads; Final 
Rule



Forest Service Transportation; Final Administrative Policy; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 3206]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Parts 212, 261, and 295

RIN 0596-AB67


Administration of the Forest Development Transportation System; 
Prohibitions; Use of Motor Vehicles Off Forest Service Roads

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final National Forest System Road Management rule revises 
regulations concerning the management, use, and maintenance of the 
National Forest Transportation System. Consistent with changes in 
public demand and use of National Forest System resources and the need 
to better manage funds available for road construction, reconstruction, 
maintenance, and decommissioning, the final rule removes the emphasis 
on transportation development and adds a requirement for science-based 
transportation analysis. In concert with the revision of National 
Forest System roads administrative direction published elsewhere in 
today's Federal Register, the intended effect of this final rule is to 
help ensure that additions to the National Forest System network of 
roads are those deemed essential for resource management and use; that, 
construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of roads minimize adverse 
environmental impacts; and, finally, that unneeded roads are 
decommissioned and restoration of ecological processes are initiated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective January 12, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Ash, Deputy Director of 
Engineering, Engineering Staff, Forest Service, 202-205-1400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following outline displays the contents 
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this rule.

Background

Analysis and Response to Public Comments

General Comments

Natural Resource Agenda
Comments concerning the Natural Resource Agenda
Need for Public Access and Forest Management Access
    Comments concerning the need for access
    Comments concerning access rights
Cooperating Agencies
    Comment concerning cooperating agencies
Forest Trails
    Comments concerning the rule's impact on trails
Amount of Road To Be Decommissioned
Comments concerning road decommissioning
Relationship of the Roads Rule, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, 
and the Planning Rule.
    Comments concerning the relationship among the three rules.
Levels of Road Management Decisions
    Comments concerning the levels at which road management 
decisions will be made
Compliance with Existing Laws, Regulations, and Congressional Intent
    Comments concerning the rule's compliance with various land 
management acts
    Comments concerning compliance with environmental laws and 
regulations
    Comments concerning the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 
Twenty-First Century
    Comments concerning the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960
    Comments concerning the Administrative Procedures Act and the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act
    Comments concerning the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the 
Americans with Disabilities Act
    Comments regarding the rule-making process and the National 
Environmental Policy Act
    Comments concerning the environmental assessment
    Comments concerning the rule's requirement for National 
Environmental Policy Act analyses
    Comments concerning No Takings implications and the Civil 
Justice Reform Act \1\
Funding for Implementation of the Final Roads Rule
    Comments concerning funding
Specific Comments on Proposed Revisions to 36 CFR Part 212
    Comments concerning removing the term ``development''
    Comments concerning changes to those sections of 36 CFR Part 212 
not mentioned in the proposed rule
Comments regarding proposed Sec. 212.1 Definitions
    Overall comment
    Comments concerning the term ``Forest transportation atlas''
    Comments concerning the term ``Forest transportation facility''
    Addition of the term ``new road construction''
    Comments concerning the term ``Road''
    Modification of the definition for ``classified roads''
    Modification of the definition for ``unclassified roads''
    Other changes
Comments regarding proposed Sec. 212.2 Forest Transportation Program
    Comments concerning which lands are affected by the rule
    Comments concerning the contents of the forest transportation 
atlas
    Comments concerning use of science-based transportation analysis
    Comments concerning emergency activities
Comments regarding the proposed Sec. 212.5 Road System Management
    Comments concerning the references to officials
    Comments concerning the order of road management options
    Comments concerning the use of science-based roads analysis
    Comments concerning the identification of minimum road systems
    Comments concerning coordination with tribal governments
    Comments concerning road management and uses
    Comments concerning road decommissioning
Proposed changes to Sec. 212.6, Sec. 212.7, Sec. 212.10
Proposed Sec. 212.13 Temporary suspension of road construction in 
unroaded areas
Proposed Sec. 212.20 National Forest trail system operation
    Overall comment on the trail system
Conforming Amendments to 36 CFR Parts 261 and 295
Regulatory Impact
Unfunded Mandates Reform
Environmental Impact
No Takings Implications
Civil Justice Reform Act
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
Federalism
Conclusion

Background

    On January 28, 1998, in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(ANPR) (63 FR 4350), the Forest Service announced its intent to revise 
regulations concerning management of the National Forest Transportation 
System. Simultaneously, the Forest Service published a proposed interim 
rule (63 FR 4351) to suspend temporarily road construction and 
reconstruction in certain unroaded areas of National Forest System 
lands. The purpose of the interim rule was to take a ``timeout'' for 18 
months while the Forest Service developed a new, long-term road 
management final rule and the new analytical tools needed to provide a 
more ecological approach to analyzing existing and future road needs.
    On March 3, 2000, in Part III of the Federal Register, the Forest 
Service issued an overview notice to provide background information on 
the need for changes in the agency's national forest development 
transportation system. That notice outlined the three primary actions 
in a proposed new road management strategy that would help the Forest 
Service find an appropriate balance between safe and efficient access 
for all forest road users and the protection of healthy ecosystems. The 
three primary actions proposed were the following: (1) Develop new 
analytical tools to decide if, and when, new and existing roads are 
needed to meet resource management objectives; (2)

[[Page 3207]]

aggressively decommission roads that are determined, through forest 
planning, implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, and 
other analyses, to be damaging to the environment or to be no longer 
necessary for achieving resource management objectives; and (3) 
maintain and improve those important roads that do not compromise 
healthy lands and waters and are needed for recreation, rural access, 
and the sustainable flow of goods and services. The overview notice 
made clear that both a proposed revision of Forest Service regulations 
on Administration of the Forest Development Transportation System and a 
proposed revision of administrative directives are necessary to achieve 
these three actions.
    Published, also, in Part III of the Federal Register for March 3, 
2000, the proposed rule clarified the transportation system information 
to be gathered and to be displayed in a new forest transportation atlas 
(formerly plan). The rule also proposed: (1) to remove the emphasis on 
``road development'' that is in the current rules; (2) to set a 
standard that each forest identify the minimum road system required to 
balance access objectives with ecosystem health goals; and (3) to use a 
science-based roads analysis to identify the road network needed to 
serve the public and land administrators.
    Comments were invited on the overview notice, the proposed rule, 
and the corollary administrative directive, all published in Part III 
of the March 3, 2000, Federal Register. Comments were due May 2, 2000. 
The comment period was then extended to May 17, 2000, resulting in a 77 
day comment period. The Forest Service invited written comments and 
considered those comments in preparing this final rule.
    The adoption of the final rule modifies 36 CFR part 212 to require 
the development of a transportation atlas for each National Forest 
System administrative unit, which displays the minimum system of roads, 
trails, and airfields needed for the management of National Forest 
System lands and for public access. The adoption of the final rule 
removes the term ``forest development road'' to signal the shift away 
from development and construction of new roads to maintaining needed 
roads and decommissioning unneeded roads. The adoption of the final 
rule also requires the use of a science-based analysis process to 
analyze the National Forest road system. The adoption of the final rule 
establishes a standard for the road system, requiring it to be in 
compliance with resource objectives, to reflect likely funding, and to 
minimize adverse environmental effects associated with road 
construction, reconstruction, and maintenance. Equally important is the 
rule's requirement to identify unneeded roads that should be 
decommissioned, giving priority to decommissioning those roads that 
pose the greatest risk to public safety or environmental degradation. 
Revisions to 36 CFR parts 261 and 295 are those needed solely to 
conform terminology revisions being adopted in 36 CFR part 212.

Analysis and Response to Public Comments

    During the comment period, the Forest Service received 
approximately 5,900 letters, e-mails, faxes, petitions, postcards, and 
other responses to the proposed National Forest System Road Management 
rule and policy. The geographic distribution of responses received was 
as follows: Western States --2,105; Mountain States --1,607; Central 
(Midwestern) States --733; Southeastern States --279; Northeastern 
States --541; and Unknown--581. Of the nearly 5900 total responses, 
5505 were received from individuals. Groups and organizations 
representing forest resource users (grazing, timber, oil/gas/mining, 
and recreation) accounted for 134 responses and conservation and 
preservation groups submitted another 97. Government agencies and 
elected officials accounted for 98 responses and are divided between: 
Tribal (6), Federal (16), State (28), county (37), and local (11). 
There were an additional 34 responses received from groups or 
organizations that do not fit into one of the previous categories.
    A number of comments received were outside the scope of this 
rulemaking effort. These included matters such as comments on the 
Forest Service roadless initiative, that was also underway; suggestions 
to seek funding from Congress for recreation trails; suggestions to 
transfer all public land to the States; suggestions to designate more 
Wilderness areas; suggestions to solve jurisdictional disputes in Nye 
County, Nevada; suggestions that the agency emphasize public education 
to gain support for road needs; suggestions to protect the environment 
by land allocation; and a suggestion to conduct an environmental impact 
analysis on each road every 10 years. While these comments emerged as a 
result of respondents' reviews of the proposal, they are generally not 
germane to this regulation. A number of other comments received were 
not specific to a particular section, but to the overall proposed rule 
and administrative policy. A summary of those comments and the agency's 
response to them follows.

General Comments

Natural Resource Agenda

    In the overview notice that preceded the proposed road management 
rule and proposed administrative policy (65 FR 11676), the Forest 
Service explained that the road management initiative was a key element 
of the Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda.
    Comments concerning the Natural Resource Agenda: Some respondents 
were concerned that implementation of the Natural Resource Agenda would 
circumvent legal processes, Congressional intent, and public 
involvement processes. Others expressed concern that the Natural 
Resource Agenda would change the natural resource mission of the Forest 
Service and encourage off-budget trust funds.
    Agency response: The Natural Resource Agenda identifies long-term 
program emphasis areas for the Forest Service. Specifically, it calls 
for the agency to emphasize watershed health and restoration, 
sustainable forest management, recreation, and roads. The Agenda is the 
cornerstone of the agency's Strategic Plan prepared pursuant to the 
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act and the 
Government Performance Results Act. The actions and goals articulated 
in the Natural Resource Agenda all fall within the mission assigned to 
the Forest Service through the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, the 
National Forest Management Act, and the other laws that establish the 
agency's mission and activities. While the Natural Resource Agenda does 
place new emphasis on some resources and uses, it does not 
fundamentally alter the Forest Service's mission nor does it encourage 
off-budget trust funds.

Need for Public Access and Forest Management Access

    In the preamble of the notice of proposed rulemaking (65 FR 11680), 
the Forest Service noted that the proposal gives emphasis to providing 
safe administrative and public access within the context of maintaining 
healthy ecosystems.
    Comments concerning the need for access: The Forest Service 
received numerous comments questioning the agency's ability to 
effectively manage forest resources for long-term forest health and 
wildfire suppression, while reducing road access. Others were concerned 
about the potential reduction

[[Page 3208]]

in the number of roads open to the public and the effect fewer roads 
would have on public access and recreation use on national forests and 
grasslands. A few expressed concern that the agency would use road 
maintenance costs or a lack of funding to justify road closures. A few 
identified human and natural resource-related emergency access 
concerns. Still others were concerned with the concept of road 
decommissioning. Specifically, some expressed concern that roads 
analysis would delay road decommissioning, while others were concerned 
that the agency would not thoroughly analyze options for keeping roads 
open before deciding to decommission them.
    Agency response: Scientific evidence compiled to date suggests that 
roads are a significant source of erosion and sedimentation and are, in 
part, responsible for a decline in the quality of fish and wildlife 
habitat. The agency recognizes that the National Forest Transportation 
System is vitally important for responsible management of the National 
Forest System lands and is essential to many rural communities and 
recreational users. The agency is responsible for finding a balance 
between the need for public and administrative access and the 
environmental costs associated with providing that access. The final 
rule and administrative policy require the use of a science-based roads 
analysis process to identify road needs, issues, and opportunities. The 
roads analysis process encourages the agency to actively engage the 
public and other state, federal, local and tribal partners in those 
discussions. The final rule at 36 CFR Part 212.5(b)(1) requires the 
identification of the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient 
travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National 
Forest System lands. The identification of the minimum road system 
needed includes considerations for forest health, emergency access, and 
public access needs. The final road management policy will improve 
access by allowing the agency to focus its limited resources on the 
roads people need and use.
    Comments concerning access rights: Several individuals expressed 
concern over the effect of the proposed rule and policy on access 
rights, on roads managed by other agencies, and on roads under permit 
or other agreements, such as cost-share agreements and special use 
permits. Some States, such as North Dakota, were concerned the rule and 
policy could circumvent state laws and policies.
    Agency response: The final rule and policy do not affect existing 
access rights provided by statute, treaty, or pursuant to reserved or 
outstanding rights. Moreover, the final rule and policy do not impose 
additional requirements on entities that possess access rights on roads 
owned privately or by state, county, tribal, or local jurisdictions. 
The final rule and policy provide direction regarding how the Forest 
Service intends to make road management decisions, not what those 
decisions must be. Road management activities on public roads with 
easements through the National Forest System, such as state and county 
roads, are not affected by this final rule. However, roadwork (such as 
realignment or widening) on National Forest System lands outside 
granted easements may require some level of roads analysis. The final 
rule and policy emphasize involvement with public, federal, state, 
local and tribal entities and in no way conflict with state laws.

Cooperating Agencies

    Other federal agencies, States, tribal governments, and local 
governments are encouraged to participate with the Forest Service in 
implementing these regulations.
    Comment concerning cooperating agencies: A respondent stated that 
the Forest Service continually denies requests for cooperating agency 
status for various States and counties.
    Agency response: The agency is interested in maximizing cooperation 
with all agencies and interests and has established, within the policy, 
mechanisms with which to accomplish this objective. Both local agency 
and public involvement are key features of the roads analysis 
methodology and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
environmental analysis process. These two public involvement mechanisms 
will ensure that local public issues and concerns are fully disclosed 
and addressed. The agency believes that participation by state, tribal, 
and local governments, as well as by individual citizens, will be 
critical to the long-term success in the implementation of this final 
rule and related administrative directive.

Forest Trails

    The proposed rule did not propose many substantive changes to the 
agency's rules on the management of trails. As with the term ``forest 
development road,'' the term ``forest development trail'' would be 
revised by removing the term ``development.'' Otherwise, all references 
to trails were retained as adopted in the July 1, 1999, edition of 
Title 36, parts 200-299 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    Comments concerning the rule's impact on trails: Several 
respondents requested that the Forest Service explain the relationship 
between the proposed road management rule and the management of the 
National Forest Trail System. Others wanted to know the distinction 
between motorized roads and motorized trails.
    Agency response: The road management rule and associated 
administrative policy provide direction for the management of the 
forest transportation facilities. While forest transportation 
facilities include roads, trails, and airfields, this final rule and 
administrative policy are specific to road management, not trails. 
Roads are managed for use by highway vehicles in compliance with state 
laws. Motorized trails are managed for off-highway vehicles not 
specifically excluded by local authority. Generaly these trails are 
used by motor bikes or all-wheel drive vehicles. The final rule defines 
a road as a motor vehicle travel-way more than 50 inches wide, unless 
designated and managed as a trail. A trail, therefore, may be more than 
50 inches wide and motorized or non-motorized. The roads analysis 
process provides the means for the public and managers to address road 
and trail access relationships and opportunities.

Amount of Road To Be Decommissioned

    The focus of the rule and policy is on determining the need for 
proper restoration, maintenance, and decommissioning of roads. The 
issue of decommissioning roads received substantial comment from the 
public.
    Comments concerning road decommissioning: Respondents expressed a 
wide range of opinions on the amount of road decommissioning that 
should occur. Some stated strong feelings that all unauthorized and 
environmentally damaging roads should be decommissioned immediately. 
Others expressed strong concerns that if too many roads were 
decommissioned, public access needs and demands would not be met.
    Agency Response: At about 380,000 miles of classified roads (plus 
an estimated additional 60,000 miles of unclassified roads), the forest 
transportation system is considered to be largely complete. National 
Forest System management's focus, therefore, through implementation of 
the roads rule and administrative policy, is shifting from developing 
new roads to managing access within the capability of the land. Through 
the rule's roads analysis process, responsible officials

[[Page 3209]]

can use local public involvement to identify roads that are needed for 
access and those roads that are no longer needed. These unneeded roads 
will be prioritized for decommissioning, either to return to a more 
natural state or to become a designated trail.

Relationship of the Roads Rule, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, 
and the Planning Rule

    In addition to the Road Management Rule, the Forest Service has two 
other ongoing and related rulemaking efforts: the Land and Resource 
Management Planning Rule and the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
    Comments concerning the relationship among the three rules: Many 
respondents expressed concern about the relationships among the 
proposed road management policy, the roadless area conservation rule, 
and the planning rule and questioned their cumulative effects. Others 
complained about the impacts of having to respond to these and other 
national policy efforts simultaneously.
    Agency response: The proposed planning rule, road management 
policy, and roadless area conservation rule are three separate and 
distinct Forest Service initiatives that together form a coherent 
strategy for dealing with vital conservation issues. The Forest Service 
teams writing the rules have coordinated with each other to ensure that 
definitions and requirements are consistent across the policies. The 
proposed planning rule revisions will incorporate the principles of 
ecological, economic, and social sustainability into forest planning. 
The proposed roadless area conservation rule addresses how to protect 
inventoried roadless areas within National Forest System lands in the 
context of multiple-use management.
    The planning rule provides the overall framework for planning and 
management of the National Forest System. The road management rule and 
policy which are implemented through the planning process must adhere 
to the sustainability, collaboration, and science provisions of the 
planning rule. For example, under the road management policy, national 
forests and grasslands must complete an analysis of their existing road 
system and then incorporate the analysis into their land management 
planning process. The analysis is accomplished by using a science-based 
analysis procedure and by working cooperatively with other agency 
partners and the public, as required by the planning rule. The road 
management rule and policy are intended to ensure that the National 
Forest Road System: (1) Meets current and future land and resource 
management objectives; (2) provides for public uses of National Forest 
System lands; (3) allows for economical and efficient management; and, 
(4) minimizes and begins to reverse adverse ecological impacts 
associated with the current transportation system.
    The planning rule, road management rule and policy, and roadless 
area conservation rule all seek to provide for long-term 
sustainability, to promote collaboration, and to integrate science into 
National Forest System land management decisions. The agency has 
provided various public involvement and information meetings, public 
hearings, use of draft documents for public, and other opportunities to 
engage the public in these rulemaking efforts.

Levels of Road Management Decisions

    The Forest Service proposal to revise its national road management 
policy continues the practice of making decisions about road management 
activities at the local level.
    Comments concerning the levels at which road management decisions 
will be made: Several individuals indicated a preference for road 
decisions to be made at the National level, in the belief that 
decisions at the national level would better ensure broad 
representation for all Americans. Others suggested that road decisions 
are best made at the local level by those most knowledgeable about 
resource issues, and these respondents objected to the proposed 
service-wide policy. Some were confused by the terms ``line officers,'' 
``Forest officers,'' ``responsible officials,'' and other terms for 
those who would make agency decisions.
    Agency response: The road management rule is an appropriate 
decision to be made at the national level. Also appropriate for 
issuance at the national level are policies that address national 
issues or service-wide directives, which establish standards that guide 
Forest Service field officials, who administer the funds and resources. 
Regional Foresters, Forest Supervisors, and District Rangers are 
responsible for implementation of this rule and policy. Within the 
national framework, the majority of road decisions, such as whether to 
build, close, or decommision a particular road, would likely be made at 
the Forest Supervisor level or lower. However, road decisions would be 
made using local public involvement to identify needed and uneeded 
roads. To help avoid confusion, the final rule uses the term 
``Responsible Official.'' (See the subsequent preamble discussion of 36 
CFR 212.5.)

Compliance With Applicable Laws and Regulations

    Forest Service rules must be in compliance with applicable laws and 
regulations. The following comments and agency responses relate to 
those requirements.
    Comments concerning the rule's compliance with various land 
management acts: Many respondents expressed concern that the roads 
rule, if implemented, would be contrary to the statutory requirements 
set forth in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1601-1613), National Forest Management Act, the Organic 
Administration Act, National Forest Roads and Trails Act, and the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act. These writers stated that the 
violations would be a result of the agency's shift away from the 
``continued flow of products'' emphasized in the various land 
management acts. They also stated that the shift away from the term 
``development,'' as used in regard to forest roads and trails, would 
conflict with Sec. 10(b) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
Resources Planning Act. In addition, some of these writers believed 
that the process being used to initiate the road management rule is 
outside the land management planning process and, therefore illegal.
    Agency response: Generally, the respondents did not specify what 
aspects of the final rule would violate existing laws, nor did they 
provide suggestions for modifying or improving the regulations. 
Therefore, the agency is unable to address the respondents' concerns 
directly. However, the agency is confident that the proposed rule and 
policy are compliant with applicable laws. The final rule sets the 
guidelines for management of the forest transportation system, but does 
not make site-specific decisions or allocate resources. Rather, the 
final rule sets in place a process by which decisions about National 
Forest System roads are to be informed through a roads analysis 
approach that will include active public involvement. Allocation of 
forest-land resources will continue to be made through forest planning. 
The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, Sec. 10(a) 
directs the ``installation of a proper system of transportation to 
service the National Forest System . . . to meet anticipated needs on 
an economical and environmentally sound basis.'' Section 10 (b) of the 
act addresses re-vegetation requirements for roads that are not a

[[Page 3210]]

part of the forest development road system. This final rule changes 
nomenclature by shifting from a ``forest development road system plan'' 
to a ``forest transportation atlas,'' but the agency must still comply 
with relevant statutes. The final rule and policy are in compliance 
with sections 10(a) and 10(b) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
Resources Planning Act. This final rule, in fact, was developed in 
response to strong public concern about National Forest System road 
management issues.
    Comments concerning compliance with environmental laws and 
regulations: The Forest Service also received several comments 
suggesting that if the agency were fully compliant with existing 
environmental laws and regulations, such as the Clean Water Act and the 
Endangered Species Act, the need to promulgate these regulations would 
be negated.
    Agency response: As stated previously, the agency must comply with 
all applicable laws. The agency believes this final rule balances the 
need for public use and safe public access with the protection of 
healthy ecosystems.
    Comments concerning the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 
Twenty-First Century: A few respondents suggested that any major shift 
in the road policy should include a reference to the Transportation 
Efficiency Act for the Twenty-First Century (TEA-21).
    Agency response: The final rule and policy do not materially change 
the manner in which the Forest Service cooperates and participates in 
highway management programs of the Federal Highway Administration or 
the various State Departments of Transportation for highway development 
and management as envisioned under TEA-21.
    Comments concerning the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960: 
Some respondents felt that the proposed rule and administrative policy 
would result in restricting motorized access so broadly as to prevent 
sustained yields of forest products and would reduce other multiple 
uses and, thus, violate the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960.
    Agency response: The final rule does not alter the statutory 
multiple-use mandate or the agency's compliance with that mandate. 
Lands administered by the Forest Service must continue to be managed in 
consideration of the relative values of the various resource uses in 
accordance with 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), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
Resources Planning Act, as amended by the National Forest Management 
Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. et seq), and the National Environmental Policy 
Act.
    Comments concerning the Administrative Procedures Act and the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act: A few respondents alleged that the 
agency had apparently colluded with environmental groups in drafting 
the notice of proposed rulemaking, and, if so, this collusion was a 
violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act. Some felt a statement from the Chief's speech made at 
the Commonwealth Club of California and reported in the January 26, 
2000, issue of a California newspaper-- ``In the end there will be 
fewer roads''-- was a clear indication that the agency had already made 
a decision without the opportunity for the public to provide comment.
    Agency response: Section 553(c) of the Administrative Procedures 
Act directs agencies to give prior notice of proposed rules and to give 
an opportunity for the public to comment. The Act requires 
consideration of those comments in adoption of a final rule. In order 
to obtain that public comment, the agency identifies a proposed action. 
There is no prohibition on listening to citizens or groups and 
discussing issues or approaches prior to formulating a draft or final 
rule. In fact, the Forest Service continually receives correspondence 
from, or is asked to meet with, citizens, members of Congress, other 
public officials, and interest groups who are asking the agency to take 
action on many policy fronts. Letters from, and meetings with, interest 
groups can sometimes result in discussions of potential policy changes 
and help the agency formulate proposed policies. Moreover, the public 
has full opportunity to comment on proposed rules.
    The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) is not a bar to all 
formal and informal consultations between federal agencies and groups 
rendering advice. Recently, the Federal District Court for the District 
of Idaho rejected claims alleging violations of FACA regarding 
development of its roadless rulemaking and related actions (Boise 
County, Idaho v. Glickman, CV-OO-141-S-EJL (D.Id. decided Sept 8, 
2000)). The requirements of FACA have not been violated.
    Comments concerning the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the 
Americans with Disabilities Act: Many respondents expressed concern 
that eliminating roads would limit access for those not physically 
capable of hiking and that this would result in discriminatory action 
on the part of the Federal Government.
    Agency response: Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the 
Americans with Disabilities Act both cover executive branch actions of 
the Federal Government. Title V prohibits discrimination in services 
and employment on the basis of handicap and has no bearing on this 
final rule, which would not affect employment of persons with 
disabilities nor the delivery of federal services to persons with 
disabilities. As to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities 
Act, it is likely that accessibility to some areas of National Forest 
System lands may change in the future, but any such change would follow 
an indepth public involvement process during which the concerns of the 
disabled wishing access to such areas would be taken into account. 
Moreover, a reduction in roads would result in a more focused use of 
Forest Service resources for reconstruction that could actually improve 
access for the disabled on those roads most suitable to their needs and 
desires.
    Comments regarding the rule-making process and the National 
Environmental Policy Act: Many respondents expressed the belief that 
the National Environmental Policy Act mandates preparation of an 
environmental impact statement rather than an environmental assessment 
prior to this rule's promulgation.
    Agency response: In this case, the National Environmental Policy 
Act does not require an environmental impact statement or an 
environmental assessment. Under the Council on Environmental Quality 
regulations at 40 CFR 1501.3(b), agencies may adopt regulations which 
establish categories of actions, known as categorical exclusions, which 
do not require the preparation of an environmental assessment or impact 
statement. Forest Service categorical exclusions are established in 
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, chapter 30. As noted in the proposed 
rule, the Forest Service has established a categorical exclusion for 
documentation in an environmental assessment or impact statement for 
``rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide 
administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.'' 
Although the agency determined that the rule could be categorically 
excluded, to further the goals of the National Environmental Policy 
Act, the Forest Service has elected to prepare an environmental

[[Page 3211]]

assessment. The agency has updated the environmental assessment 
addressing the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of this 
final rule and associated policy in response to comments and new 
information, and has concluded that an environmental impact statement 
is not required.
    Comments concerning the environmental assessment: The agency 
received numerous comments regarding the National Forest Service Road 
Management Strategy Environmental Assessment. Comments included: 
requests for clarification of terms, assertions that the environmental 
assessment violated the National Environmental Policy Act because a 
full range of alternatives was not analyzed, statements that the 
assumptions used in the analysis were biased in favor of closing roads, 
requests to consider the environmental effects of moving timber 
harvests to private lands and other countries, concern that the agency 
balance the social, economic, and environmental elements, and many 
others.
    Agency response: Comments related to the content of the 
environmental assessment have been reviewed and addressed. Agency 
responses may be found in Appendix G of the National Forest System Road 
Management Strategy Environmental Assessment. Comments in that Appendix 
are categorized as follows: range of alternatives, adequacy of 
analysis, compliance with existing laws, need for environmental impact 
statement, and various editorial comments or suggestions.
    Comments concerning the rule's requirement for National 
Environmental Policy Act analyses: A small number of respondents 
expressed the concern that the cost associated with an environmental 
impact statement during the transition period for the road policy, 
required prior to any road construction or reconstruction in roadless 
or specific unroaded areas, could exceed the total value of one's 
property or the cost of the road and, thus, constitute a taking of 
private land without just compensation.
    Agency response: The Forest Service is obliged to comply with all 
environmental and administrative laws, including the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Council on Environmental Quality 
implementing regulations requires the Forest Service to promulgate 
procedures for compliance with NEPA, including instructions on the 
preparation of environmental impact statements and environmental 
assessments. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations in the 
review and approval of particular road construction decisions does not 
constitute a taking of private property.
    Comments concerning No Takings implications and the Civil Justice 
Reform Act: Some respondents believe the No Takings implications and 
Civil Justice Reform Act statements are incorrect because of inaccurate 
RARE II inventories and resultant designations. They also believe the 
road management rule will result in taking of private property rights 
by restricting access to mining claims, private and native in-holdings, 
and other rights of ingress and egress by closing county and permitted 
roads through and within National Forest System lands. Others were 
concerned that access for other federal, state, and local agencies 
would be restricted by decommissioning roads.
    Agency response: The agency recognizes that changes have occurred 
since the RARE II inventories were completed and that on some forests 
portions of inventoried roadless areas have been roaded. This final 
rule requires a science-based roads analysis that will identify needed 
and unneeded roads, road maintenance priorities, and other road related 
resource concerns. Updating existing road inventories will occur as 
part of the roads analysis process. The final road management rule and 
the accompanying final administrative policy honors access to private 
property pursuant to statute, treaty, and outstanding or reserved 
rights, including reasonable access to private land inholdings. Also, 
the final rule does not retroactively affect existing permits, 
contracts, or other instruments authorizing the occupancy and use of 
National Forest System lands. Forest Service officials must conduct a 
roads analysis to determine the minimum road system needed to achieve 
management goals and objectives. As part of that analysis, the agency 
requires the responsible official to seek to involve interested and 
affected citizens and organizations, including businesses, in the roads 
analysis and subsequent National Environmental Policy Act processes. 
Road decommissioning decisions will be made on a local basis, with 
public involvement, and will take into account access needs of state, 
county, and tribal governments.

Funding for Implementation of the Final Roads Rule

    In the discussion of the regulatory impact of the proposed rule (65 
FR 11691), the agency stated that management costs are not expected to 
change significantly as a result of these proposals.
    Comments concerning funding: Several respondents were concerned 
that the proposed roads analysis requirements would add to the cost of 
managing the National Forest Road system and that this would reduce 
available road maintenance funding. Others expressed concern that the 
agency does not consider roads as assets; and, therefore, the agency 
would not consider and compare the cost of maintenance to the cost of 
road decommissioning. Still others recognized that the Forest Service's 
reduced budgets do not allow for adequate road maintenance and 
suggested that avenues to enhance revenue for road maintenance, such as 
user fees, be considered. Still others suggested using volunteers or 
entering into cooperating maintenance agreements with user groups to 
accomplish the needed road maintenance. Some questioned why the agency 
requested less funding than what is needed for maintenance in Fiscal 
Year 2001.
    Agency response: Roads are an integral part of the Forest Service 
Natural Resource Agenda and Strategic Plan. The final rule reflects the 
agency's realistic capability to manage the operation, use, and 
maintenance of the forest transportation system over the long term. The 
overview notice (65 FR 11676) acknowledged that the agency has a 
continuing problem adequately funding road maintenance. The agency is 
exploring the potential benefits of converting selected high use roads 
to public roads to qualify more roads for funding from the Federal 
Highway Trust Fund. Inventories of forest transportation system 
maintenance and restoration needs, which are to be conducted under the 
rule and administrative policy, are intended to provide a basis for 
future funding requests for road management activities. The Forest 
Service is proud of the volunteer relationships that have been 
developed and strengthened over time and will continue to use 
volunteers as appropriate. Issues of revenue enhancement are beyond the 
scope of this final rule.

Specific Comments on Proposed Revisions to 36 CFR Part 212

    On March 3, 2000, the Forest Service proposed to revise 36 CFR Part 
212 to shift emphasis from transportation development to managing 
administrative and public access within the capability of the land. The 
proposal would shift the focus of National Forest System road 
management from development and construction of new roads to 
maintaining and restoring

[[Page 3212]]

needed roads and decommissioning unneeded roads within the context of 
maintaining, managing, and restoring healthy ecosystems.
    The following is a summary of substantive comments received 
pertaining to the proposed rule and the agency's response, including 
any changes made in the final rule.
    Comments concerning removing the term ``development'': Consistent 
with the intent to shift emphasis from road development to managing 
access, the proposed rule removed the words ``forest development 
roads'' and replaced them with the words ``National Forest System 
roads.''
    Several respondents objected to the removal of the word 
``development'' from the rule as they felt this change indicated a 
shift from sustainable forest management and public access. Others 
agreed that the change was in alignment with the proposed direction of 
the road management policy. Others objected to the use of the terms 
``Forest Service'' roads since the respondents felt that roads on 
National Forest System lands were not owned by the Forest Service, but 
rather are managed by the Forest Service and ``owned'' by the public.
    Agency response: The agency believes that this shift from 
``development'' to improved stewardship of the transportation system is 
both realistic and appropriate. Therefore, as proposed, the term 
``development'' is removed in the final rule. In considering comments 
on this issue, the agency discovered two other places where the term 
``development'' needed to be removed: in the heading of Sec. 212.1(c) 
and in the heading and text of Sec. 212.1(d). Also, with regard to the 
proposed rule's reference to ``Forest Service'' roads, the agency 
agrees with the comments and has changed the terminology in the final 
rule from ``Forest Service roads'' to ``National Forest System roads.'' 
Forest roads are administrative roads, authorized by the National 
Forest Road and Trail Act. Many of these roads are open to public 
travel. However, they are not public roads as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101. 
National Forest System roads is a more accurate term since it covers 
national grasslands as well as other lands that are part of the 
National Forest System.
    Comments concerning changes to those sections of 36 CFR Part 212 
not mentioned in the proposed rule: Some respondents wanted to know 
whether other sections of 36 CFR Part 212 not specifically mentioned in 
the proposed rule (such as Sec. 212.3, Sec. 212.8, Sec. 212.9 and 
Sec. 212.21) would be adopted as unchanged.
    Agency response: Those sections of 36 CFR Part 212 not specifically 
mentioned in the proposed rule and this final rule, remain unchanged.

Comments Regarding Proposed Sec. 212.1 Definitions

    The proposed rule added new definitions and updated and revised 
existing definitions. The agency proposed to remove the term ``forest 
transportation plan'' and instead, add the term ``forest transportation 
atlas'' to more clearly reflect the nature and intent of the 
transportation information being collected. Definitions also were 
proposed for ``road,'' ``classified road,'' and ``unclassified road.'' 
These terms are necessary to understand and implement the requirements 
of Sec. 212.5 that provide direction for the identification of needed 
and unneeded National Forest System roads.
    Overall comment: Several respondents requested that the definitions 
be simplified for clarity and understanding. Others were concerned with 
apparent conflicts among the definitions of federal, state, and local 
jurisdictions. The area of most concern was the definition of a 
``road.'' Many people stated that the Forest Service should clarify its 
definition of a road and offered suggestions as to what the definition 
should be.
    Agency response: In the final rule at Sec. 212.1, the definitions 
for ``forest transportation atlas,'' ``forest transportation 
facility,'' and ``road'' have been revised in response to comments. The 
term ``temporary roads and other temporary facilities'' has been 
defined and added to the definition of a road. The previous definition 
of ``construction'' was replaced with a definition for ``new road 
construction'' to be consistent with the revised administrative policy.
    Comments concerning the term ``Forest transportation atlas'': Some 
respondents expressed the concern that the agency was violating the 
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act by replacing the 
term ``forest development transportation plan'' with ``forest 
transportation atlas.'' Others wanted to know what the difference was 
between a forest transportation atlas and a forest transportation plan.
    Agency response: The Agency has not only changed the name from 
``forest transportation development plan'' to ``forest transportation 
atlas'' but also has more clearly identified the requirements of the 
atlas. The forest transportation atlas serves as the repository of road 
related information. As part of this final rule, each administrative 
unit must prepare and maintain a forest transportation atlas, which 
must contain information about the transporation system, such as 
inventories, descriptions, and geo-spatial displays of the forest 
roads, trails, and airfields. The forest transportation atlas will be 
updated, as needed, through ongoing inventories or via project planning 
and must be available to the public.
    Comments concerning the term ``Forest transportation facility'': 
Many respondents felt the proposed revisions in terminology and 
definitions were consistent with the change in proposed philosophy. 
Other respondents wanted to know how the definition for forest 
transportation facility would apply to particular roads, trails, and 
airfields.
    Agency response: The definition of ``forest transportation 
facility'' has been modified to add the word ``designated'' to describe 
trails and airfields. The change was necessary because ``classified'' 
is a term used to describe needed roads and does not apply to trails 
and airfields. The description of facility types has been revised by 
adding ``devices and other transportation network'' before the word 
``appurtenances.'' The description of the lands affected was modified 
to include those facilities that are ``wholly or partially within or 
adjacent to National Forest System lands'' for consistency with the 
administrative policy.
    Addition of the term ``new road construction'': No comments were 
received regarding the specific definition of construction; however, 
for clarity, the definition for ``construction'' has been replaced in 
the final rule with the term ``new road construction'' and minor 
changes were made to the definition.
    Comments concerning the term ``Road'': There were many comments 
requesting clarification of the terms ``road,'' ``classified road,'' 
and ``unclassified road,'' as well as questions about where temporary 
roads should be categorized. Others offered suggestions as to what the 
definition of ``road'' should be.
    Agency response: The agency has revised terms related to roads to 
more clearly delineate various categories of roads. The definition for 
road has been modified to replace the word ``classified'' with the word 
``designated'' when referring to trails. The term ``classified'' 
describes a needed road and does not apply to trails or airfields. In 
addition, the term ``temporary roads'' was added to identify temporary 
roads as a subcategory of a road.
    Modification of the definition for ``classified roads'': The 
definition for classified roads has been modified to

[[Page 3213]]

better describe which roads are classified roads and to fully conform 
to the definition of ``Forest Road'' (23 U.S.C. 101) of which 
classified roads are a subset.
    Modification of the definition for ``unclassified roads'': The 
definition for unclassified roads has been modified in the final rule 
to clarify that these roads are not managed as part of the forest 
transportation system. In addition, the term ``temporary roads'' has 
been removed from the definition of unclassified road and has been set 
out as a separate subcategory of road to acknowledge that temporary 
roads are managed differently than unclassified roads. An example of a 
temporary road would be those needed for short-term access to forest 
areas for restorative efforts after fires.

Other Changes

    In addition to changes made in response to comments, the agency 
discovered that it had failed to include a definition for the term 
``road decommissioning'' in the proposed rule. A definition had been 
included in the final rule and administrative policy at FSM 7705.

Concerns Regarding Proposed Sec. 212.2--Forest Transportation Program

    The proposed rule recommended revising Sec. 212.2 to require a 
transportation atlas for each National Forest System administrative 
unit in lieu of the current ``forest transportation plan.''
    Comments concerning which lands are affected by the rule: Some 
respondents did not understand what constituted the ``National Forest 
System'' and wanted the Forest Service to clarify the lands to which 
the rule applied. Others wanted the Forest Service to clarify whether 
the proposal applied to National Grasslands as well as National 
Forests.
    Agency response: Paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 212.2 identifies 
the lands for which transportation atlas must be prepared. Grasslands 
are specified when describing the administrative units to which the 
final rule applies. However, to ensure that readers understand what 
constitutes the ``National Forest System,'' that term has been added at 
Sec. 212.1 in the final rule including the definition set out in the 
Forest Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act. Additionally, for 
clarity, the term ``national grassland'' rather than ``grassland,'' is 
used in Sec. 212.2(a) of the final rule.
    Comments concerning use of science-based transportation analysis: 
Paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 212.2 indicated that the identification 
of transportation facilities was required by science-based analysis. 
There were many comments in support of the requirement of a science-
based transportation analysis. One organization submitted a ``best 
science'' document and requested that this document be given 
consideration in the final rule. Other respondents were concerned that 
the requirement to carry out a science-based analysis prior to any new 
road construction would hamper the ability of the agency to respond 
quickly to conditions requiring immediate action, such as fire 
emergencies.
    Agency response: The agency is pleased with the support for 
science-based roads analysis. The requirement to use science-based 
analyses has been moved to paragraph Sec. 212.5(b)(1) Identification of 
road system to clarify how the analysis would be used.
    Comments concerning emergency activities: A number of respondents 
wrote to state that emergency activities should be exempt from roads 
analysis.
    Agency response: The agency has provided for exemptions from roads 
analysis for emergency activities in Forest Service Manual 7712.16 
[Interim Requirements for road construction/reconstruction in 
inventoried roadless and contiguous unroaded areas].

Concerns Regarding the Proposed Sec. 212.5--Road System Management

    Paragraph (b) (1) of this section of the proposed rule directed 
responsible officials to identify the minimum transportation system 
needed to administer, protect, and utilize National Forest System 
lands. This section also established a standard that the road system on 
each unit must be commensurate with the resource objectives adopted in 
forest plans, must reflect likely funding, and, to the extent 
practicable, must minimize the adverse environmental impacts associated 
with road construction, reconstruction, and maintenance. Finally, to 
provide the information necessary to meet these requirements, the 
proposed rule required Forest Service officers to conduct a roads 
analysis at appropriate scales with opportunities for public 
involvement and consultation with state, local, and tribal governments.
    Proposed paragraph (b) (2) addressed identification and 
decommissioning of roads not needed to meet forest plan resource 
objectives. The proposed paragraph also gave direction on scheduling of 
decommissioning, giving priority to decommissioning those roads posing 
the greatest risk to public safety or to environmental quality.
    Comments concerning the references to officials: Several reviewers 
found the various references to decision makers, such as ``line 
officers,'' ``forest officers,'' and ``responsible official'' 
confusing.
    Agency response: The agency understands how these terms, which are 
well understood by Forest Service employees, can be confusing to 
others. As a result, in the final rule only the term ``responsible 
official'' is used to indicate the decisionmaker.
    Comments concerning the order of road management options: A 
respondent noted that the order of possible road management options 
varied: from construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, and 
maintenance in the Roads Analysis document to decommissioning, 
reconstructing, maintaining, and then constructing in the proposed 
policy and rule. The respondent stated that though a subtle change, 
such a change might be significant.
    Agency response: The ordering of road management activities in the 
various documents was random and does not signify any importance or 
priority of one type of activity over another.
    Comments concerning use of science-based roads analysis: There were 
many comments in support of the requirement to use a science-based 
roads analysis process to identify needed and unneeded roads. One 
environmental organization submitted a document that identified the 
``latest'' science-based research on roads and related environmental 
effects and requested the document be given consideration in the final 
rule.
    Agency response: This final rule does not establish any specific 
science-based roads analysis process as the standard to be used; 
rather, it preserves Forest Service flexibility to further describe 
science-based roads analysis in conjunction with other ecosystem 
analyses and to adjust the process in response to new scientific 
information about road and resource management interactions. 
Appropriate portions of Sec. 212.5 have been revised to provide 
clarifying direction for using a science-based analysis to identify 
those transportation facilities needed for the management and access of 
National Forest System lands. Science-based roads analysis is discussed 
further in the final administrative policy published elsewhere in 
today's Federal Register.
    Comments concerning the identification of minimum road systems: 
Concerned about the proposed direction to identify the minimum road 
system needed, many respondents questioned

[[Page 3214]]

the ability of the agency to effectively manage forest resources long-
term while reducing road access. Others objected strongly to the 
reduction in roads open to public use because of the effect on public 
access and recreation opportunities on National Forest System lands. 
Still, others favored and expected to see a reduction in roads on 
National Forest System lands as a result of the final rule and 
administrative policy. Most of these concerns were linked to opinions 
about negative environmental impacts of road construction and to 
concerns that roads may not be maintained to safe standards.
    Agency response: In the final rule, the agency has clarified the 
phrase ``minimum road system'' to mean the road system necessary to 
meet resource and other management objectives adopted in the land and 
resource management plan, to meet applicable statutory and regulatory 
requirements, and, to the extent practicable, to minimize the adverse 
environmental impacts associated with road construction, 
reconstruction, decommissioning, and maintenance. When identifying the 
minimum road system, responsible officials also must consider and be 
responsive to expected long-term road funding.

Comments Concerning Coordination With Tribal Governments

    Some respondents expressed concern that the proposed rule did not 
sufficiently emphasize the importance of communication between agency 
and tribal governments.
    Agency response: The agency agrees, and in the final rule, the 
agency has added ``tribal governments'' Sec. 212.5(b)(1) to the list of 
other government entities with whom the responsible official must 
consult when conducting a roads analysis.
    Comments concerning road management and uses: Some respondents 
questioned the need for a process to identify whether new roads are 
needed, or to identify which existing roads should be reconstructed, 
maintained, or decommissioned. Other respondents questioned whether and 
how the road management policy and use of the roads analysis would 
allow for the consideration of other motorized and non-motorized uses.
    Agency response: The final rule directs the agency to use a roads 
analysis to determine the minimum road system needed to meet resource 
and other management objectives adopted in forest plans. The roads 
analysis is a critical component of the overall road strategy that will 
help to ensure that road issues and concerns are fully disclosed and 
analyzed. In response to the query about how the roads analysis would 
allow for consideration of other travel means, text has been added to 
paragraph Sec. 212.5(b)(2) to recognize that roads may be converted to 
other uses.
    Comments concerning road decommissioning: Some respondents felt 
that the term needed to be clarified or better defined. A few 
respondents requested more specific information about the end 
objectives of decommissioning a road. Others equated decommissioning to 
road closure and restricted access to public lands and restricted use 
of forest resources.
    Agency response: In the final rule, Sec. 212.5(b)(2) has been 
expanded to more accurately describe the activities and treatments 
encompassed within the term ``decommissioning''. Decommissioning is 
described as an activity that restores roads to a more natural state. 
Activities used to decommission a road include the following: (1) 
reestablishing former drainage patterns, stabilizing slopes, and 
restoring vegetation; (2) blocking the entrance to the road, installing 
water bars, removing culverts, reestablishing drainage-ways, and 
removing unstable fills; (3) pulling back road shoulders; (4) 
scattering slash on the roadbed; (5) complete elimination of the 
roadbed by restoring natural contours and slopes; and (6) other methods 
designed to meet the specific conditions associated with the land 
around the unneeded road. Therefore, the agency has adopted Sec. 212.5 
as proposed except for the changes noted. It should be noted that in 
addition to decommissioning roads, the responsible official may also 
convert roads to other uses such as trails.

Proposed Changes to Sec. 212.6, Sec. 212.7, Sec. 212.10

    The final rule removes the words ``forest development roads'' from 
part 212 and replaces them with the words ``Forest Service roads.''

Proposed Sec. 212.13--Temporary Suspension of Road Construction in 
Unroaded Areas

    Section 212.13 is the requirement set out in the interim rule (63 
FR 4351) that adopted a temporary road building suspension on certain 
unroaded lands. The interim rule was designed to expire after 18 months 
or upon the publication of a final road management rule, whichever 
occured first. Therefore, this section is removed by this final rule.

Proposed Sec. 212.20--National Forest Trail System Operation

    The agency proposed a revision to the rule on National Forest 
development trail system to remove the reference to development.
    Overall comment on the trail system: Some respondents wanted the 
Forest Service to clarify the relationship between the road management 
rule and management of the National Forest trail system.
    Agency response: The Forest Transportation System is composed of 
forest roads, trails, airfields, and related facilities. The final 
roads management rule and administrative policy focuses on the road 
management system because of the intense public controversy surrounding 
forest road management and because of the environmental impacts 
associated with roads. In addition, there is a critical need to address 
the road maintenance backlog on many National Forests. The National 
Forest trail system, while an important component of the overall Forest 
Transportation System, is not nearly as controversial, nor as 
environmentally impacting. Moreover, this rule was designed 
specifically to address road management issues. However, the final rule 
modifies Sec. 212.20 to require that Forest Service trails be 
identified in the forest transportation atlas in recognition of the 
importance of displaying the overall forest transportation network. In 
the final rule, this section was revised to change the heading from 
``National Forest development trail system operation'' to ``National 
Forest trail system operation'' to conform to the language in the 
remaining sections of part 212.

Conforming Amendments to 36 CFR Parts 261 and 295

    The rules at 36 CFR part 261 list prohibited acts on National 
Forest System lands. Violations of these acts may lead to a citation or 
an arrest, depending on the case and its severity. There were numerous 
references in these regulations to ``forest development roads.'' This 
final rule replaces ``forest development road(s)'' with ``National 
Forest System road(s)'' to conform to the terminology in part 212. The 
final rule also replaces ``Forest Development Road System Plan'' at 
Sec. 261.2 with ``Forest Transportation Atlas'' to conform with the 
terminology in part 212.
    The rules at 36 CFR part 295 govern use of motor vehicles off 
forest development roads. This final rule replaces the term ``National 
Forest development roads'' with ``National Forest System roads'' in the 
heading and

[[Page 3215]]

sections of part 295 to conform with the terminology in part 212. No 
substantive revisions are proposed to these parts.
    No comments were received on 36 CFR part 261 or 295, and, 
consequently, the final rule adopts the text of these sections as 
proposed.

Conclusion

    The Forest Service is adopting this final rule and corresponding 
changes in administrative policy to help govern National Forest 
Transportation System planning and management. This action is necessary 
for the following reasons: (1) to ensure that the National Forest 
Transportation System meets current and future land and resource 
management objectives and provides for attendant public uses of 
National Forest System lands; (2) to provide for safe public access and 
travel; (3) to allow for economical and efficient management; and (4) 
to the extent practicable, to minimize and begin to reverse adverse 
ecological impacts from roads. This revision reflects shifts in public 
opinion and changes in demand and use of the National Forest System, 
considers possible economic and social benefits associated with road 
construction and uses, and utilizes scientific information about the 
environmental impacts of road construction. Also, all of the action 
items called for in the report to the President on wildlandfires of 
2000 are compatible with the final road management policy. The final 
road management policy provides local decisionmakers adequate 
discretion to authorize needed access to meet resource management 
objectives and, is therefore, consistent with the agency's cohesive 
fire strategy; ``Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire 
Adapted Ecosystems, a Cohesive Strategy.''

Regulatory Impact

    This final rule was reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive 
Order (E.O.) 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this is a significant rule 
as defined by E.O. 12866 because of the importance of the Forest 
Service road system and the level of public interest expressed in the 
promulgation of the interim and final rules. A cost-benefit analysis 
has been prepared as part of the environmental assessment of this rule.
    Issuing new regulations consistent with emerging road management 
policy will provide a transportation system that best serves current 
and anticipated management objectives and public uses, including 
access, of National Forest System lands. This final rule emphasizes 
investing in the reconstruction and maintenance of the most heavily 
used roads and establishing priorities for decommissioning unneeded 
roads. This final rule requires that the agency use a roads analysis 
prior to making decisions about road construction, reconstruction, and 
decommissioning. The agency currently conducts transportation analysis 
in association with forest planning, ecosystem assessments, and other 
analyses. Thus, the agency does not expect an incremental increase of 
administrative costs due to new administrative requirements under this 
final rule.
    The costs and benefits associated with this final rule were 
described primarily in qualitative terms. Since the rule does not 
result in any land management decisions, the effect of the rule on the 
flow of goods and services will be further evaluated in the roads 
analysis and other planning analyses. Implementation of the final rule 
is expected to improve water quality, air quality, and wildlife and 
fish habitat. The spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants should be 
reduced. Increased emphasis on road decommissioning may reduce 
recreation access in some situations. However, this reduction in access 
would likely be offset by increased emphasis on maintaining existing 
roads and improving access in other areas. Remote recreation settings 
found in contiguous unroaded areas will be protected during the interim 
requirement period.
    During the interim requirement period, access that requires roads 
will be limited in contiguous unroaded areas. Timber harvest and 
exploration and development of minerals are likely to be impacted in 
this interim period. If all planned timber harvest in contiguous 
unroaded areas was foregone, approximately 65 million board feet of 
timber per year could be affected. Up to 433 direct and 797 total jobs 
could be affected. These effects would expect to be of short duration, 
since the interim requirements period ends once comprehensive road 
inventory and forest-scale roads analysis is completed and incorporated 
as appropriate into the forest plan.
    The cost-benefit analysis can be found in: National Forest System 
Road Management Strategy Environmental Assessment. This document can be 
obtained from the Internet at www.fs.fed.us/news/roads for 1 year 
following publication of the final rule or by writing to the Director 
of Ecosystem Management Coordination, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, D.C. 
20090.
    In summary, this final rule provides direction that emphasizes a 
science-based approach to addressing road management activities. While 
the agency cannot quantify many of the impacts of this final rule, the 
agency thoroughly considered both the potential and qualitative costs 
and benefits. Pursuant to requirements of Executive Order 12866, the 
agency carefully assessed alternative regulatory approaches and made a 
reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs.
    This final rule also has been considered in light of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This final rule primarily 
involves revising agency terminology and broad principles to guide the 
planning and management of the Forest Service road system and has no 
significant direct or indirect financial or other impact on small 
businesses. Therefore, it is hereby certified that this action does not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities as defined by the Act.

Unfunded Mandates Reform

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538), the agency has assessed the effects of this final 
rule on State, local, and tribal governments, and on the private 
sector. This final 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 statment under Sec. 202 of the Act is not 
required.

Environmental Impact

    Section 31.1b of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43180; 
September 18, 1992) excludes from documentation in an environmental 
assessment or environmental impact statement ``rules, regulations, or 
policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program 
processes, or instructions.'' The Forest Service's assessment is that 
this final rule falls within this category of exclusion. Nevertheless, 
the agency has prepared an environmental assessment. The agency 
received numerous comments regarding the National Forest Service Road 
Management Strategy Environmental Assessment. Comments included: 
requests for clarification of terms, assertions that the environmental 
assessment violated the National Environmental Policy Act because a 
full range of alternatives was not analyzed, statements that the 
assumptions used in the analysis were biased in favor of closing roads, 
requests to consider the environmental effects of moving timber

[[Page 3216]]

harvests to private lands and other countries, concern that the agency 
balance the social, economic, and environmental elements, and many 
others.
    Comments related to the content of the environmental assessment 
have been reviewed and addressed. Agency responses may be found in 
Appendix G of the National Forest System Road Management Strategy 
Environmental Assessment. The agency has updated the environmental 
assessment addressing the environmental effects of this rule and 
associated policy in response to the comments and new information, and 
has concluded that an environmental impact statement is not required.
    The environmental assessment can be obtained from the Internet at 
www.fs.fed.us/news/roads for 1 year following publication of the final 
rule or by writing to the Director of Ecosystem Management 
Coordination, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, D.C. 20090.

No Takings Implications

    This final rule has been reviewed for its impact on private 
property rights under Executive Order 12630. It has been determined 
that this final rule does not pose a risk of taking Constitutionally-
protected private property; in fact, the final rule honors access to 
private property pursuant to statute, treaty, and to outstanding or 
reserved rights.

Civil Justice Reform Act

    This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. The revision would (1) preempt all state and 
local laws and regulations that are found to be in conflict with or 
that would impede its full implementation; (2) would not retroactively 
affect 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 in 
court challenging these provisions.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    This final rule does not contain any record keeping 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, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 USC 3501, et seq.) and implementing regulations at 5 
CFR Part 1320 do not apply.

Federalism and Consultation with Tribal Governments

    The agency has considered this final rule under the requirements of 
Executive Order 12612 and concluded that the final rule does not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, 
the agency has determined that no further assessment of federalism 
implications is necessary at this time.
    In addition, the agency has reviewed the consultation requirements 
under Executive Order 13132, effective November 2, 1999. This order 
calls for enhanced consultation with federal, state and local 
governmental officials and emphasizes increased sensitivity to their 
concerns. In the spirit of these requirements, the agency has carefully 
considered, in the development of this final rule, the comments 
received from States, federal agencies, tribal governments, and local 
governments in response to the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
published January 28, 1998 (63 FR 4350) and National Forest System Road 
Management and Transportation System; Proposed Rule and Notices 
published March 3, 2000 (65 FR 11680). In Sec. 212.2, the definition of 
``forest transportation atlas'' recognizes the need to consider forest 
resources upon which communities depend. Section 212.5 of the final 
rule requires agency officials to use a science-based roads analysis 
process and actively engage the public in identifying the Forest 
Service road system. The final rule at Sec. 212.5(b)(1) calls for 
consultation with affected federal agencies, State, tribal, and local 
governments in identifying transportation needs. In addition to public 
comments on the proposed rule and policy, the agency also contacted 
many federal, state, tribal, and local government officials to clarify 
provisions of the proposed rule and to understand their concerns.
    Although the Forest Service did not mandate that evey field unit 
had to consult with other government agencies and tribes, many Regional 
Foresters and Forest Supervisors met with representatives of these 
governmental entities to discuss their ideas and concerns about the 
proposals. Some 98 governmental entities submitted formal comments on 
the road management proposals. In the final rule, the agency has added 
``tribal governments'' Sec. 212.5(b)(1) to the list of other 
governmental entities with whom the responsible official must consult 
when conducting a roads analysis.
    This final rule provides the broad framework for managing National 
Forest System roads. Instructions for complying with these revisions 
are set out in a final revision of the Forest Service Manual Title 7700 
that appears elsewhere in this part of today's Federal Register. The 
final revisions to 36 CFR parts 212, 261, and 295, in conjunction with 
final administrative direction published elsewhere in this notice 
today, provide the framework for achieving this new emphasis.

List of Subjects

36 CFR Part 212

    Highways and roads, National forests, Public lands--rights-of-way, 
and Transportation.

36 CFR Part 261

    Law enforcement, Investigations, National forests, and Seizures and 
forfeitures.

36 CFR Part 295

    National forests and Traffic regulations.


    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Forest Service 
amends Chapter II of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations to 
read as follows:

PART 212--ADMINISTRATION OF THE FOREST TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

    1. The authority citation for Part 212 continues to read as 
follows:


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

    2. Revise the heading for Part 212 as set out above.
    3. Remove the words ``forest development'' and, in their place, add 
the word ``forest'' in the following places:
    a. Sec. 212.1 (c) heading
    b. Sec. 212.1 (d) heading, text
    c. Sec. 212.1(e) heading;
    d. Sec. 212.1(i) text;
    e. Sec. 212.1(j) text;
    f. Sec. 212.1(k) text;
    g. Sec. 212.2 heading;
    h. Sec. 212.2(a) text;
    i. Sec. 212.2(b) text;
    j. Sec. 212.2(c) text;
    k. Sec. 212.4(a) text;
    l. Sec. 212.4(b) text.

    4. Amend Sec. 212.1 as follows:
    a. Remove the paragraph designations (a)-(k) and arrange the terms 
in alphabetical order.
    b. Remove the definition for ``forest transportation plan'', add 
the definition for ``forest transportation atlas'' and revise the 
definition for ``forest transportation facility.''

[[Page 3217]]

    c. Remove the term and definition for ``construction'' and add 
definitions in alphabetical order, for ``new road construction,'' 
``National Forest System,'' ``road decommissioning'', ``road 
reconstruction,'' and ``road'' to read as follows:


Sec. 212.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Forest Transportation Atlas. An inventory, description, display, 
and other associated information for those roads, trails, and airfields 
that are important to the management and use of National Forest System 
lands or to the development and use of resources upon which communities 
within or adjacent to the National Forests depend.
    Forest Transportation Facility. A classified road, designated 
trail, or designated airfield, including bridges, culverts, parking 
lots, log transfer facilities, safety devices and other transportation 
network appurtenances under Forest Service jurisdiction that is wholly 
or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System lands.
    National Forest System. As defined in the Forest Rangeland 
Renewable Resouces Planning Act, the ``National Forest System'' 
includes all National Forest lands reserved or withdrawn from the 
public domain of the United States, all National Forest lands acquired 
through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means, the National 
Grasslands and land utilization projects administered under title III 
of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tennant Act (50 Stat. 525, 7 U.S.C. 1010-
1012), and other lands, waters or interests therein which are 
administered by the Forest Service or are designated for administration 
through the Forest Service as a part of the system.
    New Road Construction. Activity that results in the addition of 
forest classified or temporary road miles.
    Road. A motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, unless 
designated and managed as a trail. A road may be classified, 
unclassified, or temporary.
    (1) Classified Roads. Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent 
to National Forest System lands that are determined to be needed for 
long-term motor vehicle access, including State roads, county roads, 
privately owned roads, National Forest System roads, and other roads 
authorized by the Forest Service.
    (2) Temporary Roads. Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, 
other written authorization, or emergency operation not intended to be 
part of the forest transportation system and not necessary for long-
term resource management.
    (3) Unclassified Roads. Roads on National Forest System lands that 
are not managed as part of the forest transportation system, such as 
unplanned roads, abandoned travelways, and off-road vehicle tracks that 
have not been designated and managed as a trail; and those roads that 
were once under permit or other authorization and were not 
decommissioned upon the termination of the authorization.
    Road Decommissioning. Activities that result in the stabilization 
and restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state.
    Road Reconstruction. Activity that results in improvement or 
realignment of an existing classified road as defined below:
    (1) Road Improvement: Activity that results in an increase of an 
existing road's traffic service level, expands its capacity, or changes 
its original design function.
    (2) Road Realignment: Activity that results in a new location of an 
existing road or portions of an existing road and treatment of the old 
roadway.
* * * * *

    5. Amend Sec. 212.2 by removing paragraph (c) and revising 
paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec. 212.2  Forest transportation system.

    (a) For each national forest, national grassland, experimental 
forest, and any other unit of the National Forest System as defined in 
Sec. 212.1 and listed in 36 CFR part 200, subpart A, the Forest 
Supervisor or other responsible official must develop and maintain a 
forest transportation atlas, which is to be available to the public at 
administrative headquarters units. The purpose of the atlas is to 
display the system of roads, trails, and airfields of the unit. The 
atlas consists of the geo-spatial, tabular, and other data to support 
analysis needs and resource management objectives identified in land 
management plans. The atlas is a dynamic document that changes in 
response to new information on the existence and condition of roads, 
trails, and airfields of the unit. The atlas does not contain 
inventories of temporary roads, which are tracked by the project or 
activity authorizing the temporary road. The content and maintenance 
requirements for the atlas are identified in the Forest Service 
directive system (36 CFR 200.1).
* * * * *


Sec. 212.5, 212.6, 212.7, 212.10  [Amended]

    6. Remove the words ``forest development roads'' and, in their 
place, add the words ``National Forest System roads'' in the following 
places:
    (a) Sec. 212.5(a) text;
    (b) Sec. 212.6(b) text;
    (c) Sec. 212.6(c) text;
    (d) Sec. 212.7(a) text; and
    (e) Sec. 212.10 heading and text.

    7. Amend Sec. 212.5 by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 212.5  Road system management.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Road system--(1) Identification of road system. For each 
national forest, national grassland, experimental forest, and any other 
units of the National Forest System (Sec. 212.1), the responsible 
official must identify the minimum road system needed for safe and 
efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of 
National Forest System lands. In determining the minimum road system, 
the responsible official must incorporate a science-based roads 
analysis at the appropriate scale and, to the degree practicable, 
involve a broad spectrum of interested and affected citizens, other 
state and federal agencies, and tribal governments. The minimum system 
is the road system determined to be needed to meet resource and other 
management objectives adopted in the relevant land and resource 
management plan (36 CFR part 219), to meet applicable statutory and 
regulatory requirements, to reflect long-term funding expectations, to 
ensure that the identified system minimizes adverse environmental 
impacts associated with road construction, reconstruction, 
decommissioning, and maintenance.
    (2) Identification of unneeded roads. Responsible officials must 
review the road system on each National Forest and Grassland and 
identify the roads on lands under Forest Service jurisdiction that are 
no longer needed to meet forest resource management objectives and 
that, therefore, should be decommissioned or considered for other uses, 
such as for trails. Decommissioning roads involves restoring roads to a 
more natural state. Activities used to decommission a road include, but 
are not limited to, the following: reestablishing former drainage 
patterns, stabilizing slopes, restoring vegetation, blocking the 
entrance to the road, installing water bars, removing culverts, 
reestablishing drainage-ways, removing unstable fills, pulling back 
road shoulders, scattering slash on the roadbed, completely eliminating 
the roadbed by restoring natural contours and slopes, or other methods 
designed to meet the specific conditions associated with the unneeded 
road. Forest officials should

[[Page 3218]]

give priority to decommissioning those unneeded roads that pose the 
greatest risk to public safety or to environmental degradation.
* * * * *


Sec. 212.13  [Removed]

    8. Remove entire Sec. 212.13.
    9. Amend Sec. 212.20 by revising the heading and paragraph (a) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 212.20  National Forest trail system operation.

    (a) National Forest System trails. National Forest System trails 
must be identified in the forest trail atlas and on maps, which are to 
be available to the public at Forest Supervisor and District Ranger 
offices. Trails must be clearly marked on the ground.
* * * * *

PART 261--PROHIBITIONS

    10. The authority citation for Part 261 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 551, 16 U.S.C. 472.

    11a. Remove the words ``forest development'' and in their place add 
the words ``National Forest System'' in the following:

Subpart A--General Prohibitions

    a. 261.1(a)(1) text;
    b. 261.1(a)(3) text;
    c. 261.10(d)(2) text;
    d. 261.12 heading;
    e. 261.13 introductory text;

Subpart B--Prohibitions in Areas Designated by Order

    f. 261.50(b) text;
    g. 261.50(f) text;
    h. 261.54 heading;
    i. 261.56 heading and text.

    11b. In Sec. 261.2, remove the definitions for ``forest development 
road'' and ``forest development trail,'' and add the following 
definitions in correct alphabetical order:


Sec. 261.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    National Forest System road means a road wholly or partly within or 
adjacent to and serving a part of the National Forest System and which 
has been included in a forest transportation atlas.
    National Forest System trail means a trail wholly or partly within 
or adjacent to and serving a part of the National Forest System and 
which has been included in a forest transportation atlas.
* * * * *

PART 295--USE OF MOTOR VEHICLES OFF FOREST SERVICE ROADS

    12. Revise the heading for Part 295 as set out above.

    13. The authority citation for Part 295 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 30 Stat. 35, as amended (16 U.S.C. 551): 50 Stat. 
525, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1011) E.O. 11644, 11989 (42 FR 26959).


Sec. 295.1  [Amended]

    14. In Sec. 295.1, replace the words ``National Forest development 
roads'' with ``National Forest System roads.''

    15. Replace the words ``forest development roads'' with ``National 
Forest System roads'' in the following places:


Sec. 295.2  [Amended]

    (a) Sec. 295.2 heading, and


Sec. 295.5  [Amended]

    (a) Sec. 295.5 heading.

    Dated: January 4, 2001.
Mike Dombeck,
Chief, Forest Services.
[FR Doc. 01-552 Filed 1-5-01; 4:30 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-U