[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3244-3273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-726]



[[Page 3243]]

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

Part VI





Department of Agriculture





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



Forest Service



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



36 CFR Part 294



Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Final Rule

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

[[Page 3244]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 294

RIN 0596-AB77


Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule and record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture is adopting this final rule to 
establish prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and 
timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas on National Forest 
System lands. The intent of this final rule is to provide lasting 
protection for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest 
System in the context of multiple-use management.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective March 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: For additional information, refer to the Roadless Area 
Conservation website (roadless.fs.fed.us). Written inquiries may be 
directed to USDA Forest Service, National Forest System Roadless 
Project, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC 20090-6090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Conroy, Project Director, Forest 
Service (703) 605-5299 or (800) 384-7623.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following outline displays the contents 
of the preamble for this regulation.

Introduction

Purpose and Need for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule

Roadless Area Values and Characteristics
Fiscal Considerations
National Direction vs. Local Decisionmaking
Importance of Watershed Protection
Improving Ecosystem Health
Need for Action

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

How Was Public Involvement Used in the Rulemaking Process?
What General Issues Were Identified Regarding the Proposed Rule and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement?
    Overview Issues Raised by Those Opposed to Prohibitions
    Issues Raised by Those Who Favor Prohibitions
    Issues Raised by Federal, Tribal, State, and Local Public 
Officials
What Specific Issues Were Raised on the Proposed Rule and What 
Changes Did the Agency Make From Proposed to Final Rules?
    Proposed Sec. 294.10. Purpose
    Proposed Sec. 294.11. Definitions
    Proposed Sec. 294.12. Prohibition on road construction and 
reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas
    Final Sec. 294.13. Prohibition on timber cutting, sale, or 
removal in inventoried roadless areas
    Proposed Sec. 294.13. Consideration of roadless area 
conservation during forest plan revision
    Proposed Sec. 294.14. Scope and applicability
What Other Issues Were Considered in the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement?
    Environmental Effects
    Forest Dependent Communities
    Local Decisionmaking

The Final Rule and Alternatives Considered

What Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Were Considered by the 
Agency?
    Prohibition Alternatives
    Exceptions and Mitigation Measures
    Tongass National Forest Alternatives
What is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative?
What is the Final Rule and What Are the Reasons for Selecting that 
Alternative?
    Prohibition Alternatives
    Exceptions
    Tongass National Forest Alternatives
    Decision Summary

Regulatory Certifications

Regulatory Impacts
    Summary of the Results of the Regulatory Impact Analysis
    Summary of the Results of the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis
Environmental Impact
    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended
    Other Required Disclosures
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on The Public
    Unfunded Mandates Reform
    No Takings Implications
    Civil Justice Reform Act
    Federalism and Consultation with Tribal Governments

Introduction

    The Department of Agriculture is adopting this final rule to 
protect and conserve inventoried roadless areas on National Forest 
System lands. This preamble states the basis and purpose of the rule, 
includes responses to comments received on the proposed rule, and 
serves as the record of decision for this rulemaking. Preparation of 
the record of decision is required by the Council on Environmental 
Quality regulations (40 CFR 1505.2) implementing the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321). This document sets 
forth the reasons supporting the decision to adopt the final rule; the 
major policy issues that were raised in public comment; responses to 
public comment and changes adopted in response to comments; and the 
reasons this final rule was selected from among the alternatives 
considered to meet the agency's purpose and need, as described in the 
four volume final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and project 
record, which are incorporated by reference. Agency responses to 
comments on the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) are 
contained in Volume 3 of the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation 
FEIS (November 2000). Responses in Volume 3 relevant to the final rule 
are summarized in this document. Throughout this preamble and record of 
decision, citations to chapters and pages of the FEIS are provided for 
further information regarding the alternatives and effects analysis; 
for example, (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-237) refers to volume 1, chapter 3, page 
237.
    This final rule is available on the Forest Service website 
(roadless.fs.fed.us), along with the FEIS and much of the record 
supporting the decision for this final rule.

Purpose and Need for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule

    The Department of Agriculture is responsible for managing National 
Forest System resources to sustain the health, diversity, and 
productivity of the nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs 
of present and future generations. As noted in the USDA Forest Service 
Strategic Plan (2000 Revision) (www.fs.fed.us/plan, October 2000), 
demands for, and supplies of, renewable resources change over time in 
response to social values, new technology, and new information. In the 
future, expanding urban areas and increased fragmentation of private 
lands make it likely that the largest and most extensive tracts of 
undeveloped land will be those in public ownership.
    This final rule prohibits road construction, reconstruction, and 
timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas because they have the 
greatest likelihood of altering and fragmenting landscapes, resulting 
in immediate, long-term loss of roadless area values and 
characteristics. Although other activities may also compromise roadless 
area values, they resist analysis at the national level and are best 
reviewed through local land management planning. Additionally, the size 
of the existing forest road system and attendant budget constraints 
prevent the agency from managing its road system to the safety and 
environmental standards to which it was built. Finally, national 
concern over roadless area management continues to generate 
controversy, including costly and time-consuming appeals and litigation 
(FEIS Vol. 1, 1-16 to 1-17). This final rule addresses these needs in 
the context of a national rulemaking.

[[Page 3245]]

Roadless Area Values and Characteristics

    Inventoried roadless areas considered in this rule constitute 
roughly one-third of all National Forest System lands, or approximately 
58.5 million acres. Although the inventoried roadless areas comprise 
only 2% of the land base in the continental United States, they are 
found within 661 of the over 2,000 major watersheds in the nation (FEIS 
Vol. 1, 3-50) and provide many social and ecological benefits.
    As urban areas grow, undeveloped private lands continue to be 
converted to urban and developed areas, and rural infrastructure (such 
as roads, airports, and railways). An average of 3.2 million acres per 
year of forest, wetland, farmland, and open space were converted to 
more urban uses between 1992 and 1997. In comparison, 1.4 million acres 
per year were developed between 1982 and 1992. The rate of land 
development and urbanization between 1992 and 1997 was more than twice 
that of the previous decade, while the population growth rate remained 
fairly constant (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-12). In an increasingly developed 
landscape, large unfragmented tracts of land become more important. For 
example, from 1978 to 1994, the proportion of private forest ownerships 
of less than 50 acres nearly doubled (Birch, T.W. 1996. Private forest-
land owners of the United States, 1994. Resource Bulletin NE-134. 
Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Experiment Station. 183 
p). Subdivision and other diminishment of tract size of these lands can 
discourage long-term stewardship and conservation.
    Inventoried roadless areas provide clean drinking water and 
function as biological strongholds for populations of threatened and 
endangered species. They provide large, relatively undisturbed 
landscapes that are important to biological diversity and the long-term 
survival of many at risk species. Inventoried roadless areas provide 
opportunities for dispersed outdoor recreation, opportunities that 
diminish as open space and natural settings are developed elsewhere. 
They also serve as bulwarks against the spread of non-native invasive 
plant species and provide reference areas for study and research (FEIS 
Vol. 1, 1-1 to 1-4).
    The following values or features often characterize inventoried 
roadless areas (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-3 to 3-7):
    High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air. These three key 
resources are the foundation upon which other resource values and 
outputs depend. Healthy watersheds catch, store, and safely release 
water over time, protecting downstream communities from flooding; 
providing clean water for domestic, agricultural, and industrial uses; 
helping maintain abundant and healthy fish and wildlife populations; 
and are the basis for many forms of outdoor recreation.
    Sources of public drinking water. National Forest System lands 
contain watersheds that are important sources of public drinking water. 
Roadless areas within the National Forest System contain all or 
portions of 354 municipal watersheds contributing drinking water to 
millions of citizens. Maintaining these areas in a relatively 
undisturbed condition saves downstream communities millions of dollars 
in water filtration costs. Careful management of these watersheds is 
crucial in maintaining the flow and affordability of clean water to a 
growing population.
    Diversity of plant and animal communities. Roadless areas are more 
likely than roaded areas to support greater ecosystem health, including 
the diversity of native and desired nonnative plant and animal 
communities due to the absence of disturbances caused by roads and 
accompanying activities. Inventoried roadless areas also conserve 
native biodiversity by serving as a bulwark against the spread of 
nonnative invasive species.
    Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and 
sensitive species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed 
areas of land. Roadless areas function as biological strongholds and 
refuges for many species. Of the nation's species currently listed as 
threatened, endangered, or proposed for listing under the Endangered 
Species Act, approximately 25% of animal species and 13% of plant 
species are likely to have habitat within inventoried roadless areas on 
National Forest System lands. Roadless areas support a diversity of 
aquatic habitats and communities, providing or affecting habitat for 
more than 280 threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species. 
More than 65% of all Forest Service sensitive species are directly or 
indirectly affected by inventoried roadless areas. This percentage is 
composed of birds (82%), amphibians (84%), mammals (81%), plants (72%), 
fish (56%), reptiles (49%), and invertebrates (36%).
    Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, and Semi-Primitive 
Motorized classes of dispersed recreation. Roadless areas often provide 
outstanding dispersed recreation opportunities such as hiking, camping, 
picnicking, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing, 
and canoeing. While they may have many Wilderness-like attributes, 
unlike Wilderness the use of mountain bikes, and other mechanized means 
of travel is often allowed. These areas can also take pressure off 
heavily used wilderness areas by providing solitude and quiet, and 
dispersed recreation opportunities.
    Reference landscapes. The body of knowledge about the effects of 
management activities over long periods of time and on large landscapes 
is very limited. Reference landscapes of relatively undisturbed areas 
serve as a barometer to measure the effects of development on other 
parts of the landscape.
    Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality. High quality 
scenery, especially scenery with natural-appearing landscapes, is a 
primary reason that people choose to recreate. In addition, quality 
scenery contributes directly to real estate values in nearby 
communities and residential areas.
    Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites. Traditional 
cultural properties are places, sites, structures, art, or objects that 
have played an important role in the cultural history of a group. 
Sacred sites are places that have special religious significance to a 
group. Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites may be eligible 
for protection under the National Historic Preservation Act. However, 
many of them have not yet been inventoried, especially those that occur 
in inventoried roadless areas.
    Other locally identified unique characteristics. Inventoried 
roadless areas may offer other locally identified unique 
characteristics and values. Examples include uncommon geological 
formations, which are valued for their scientific and scenic qualities, 
or unique wetland complexes. Unique social, cultural, or historical 
characteristics may also depend on the roadless character of the 
landscape. Examples include ceremonial sites, places for local events, 
areas prized for collection of non-timber forest products, or 
exceptional hunting and fishing opportunities.

Fiscal Considerations

    The Department is also concerned about building new roads in 
inventoried roadless areas, when there presently exists a backlog of 
about $8.4 billion in deferred maintenance and reconstruction on the 
more than 386,000 miles of roads in the Forest Transportation System. 
The agency

[[Page 3246]]

estimates that at least 60,000 miles of additional unauthorized roads 
exist across National Forest System lands.
    The agency receives less than 20% of the funds needed annually to 
maintain the existing road infrastructure. As funding needs remain 
unmet, the cost of fixing deteriorating roads increases exponentially 
every year. Failure to maintain existing roads can also lead to erosion 
and water quality degradation and other environmental problems and 
potential threats to human safety. It makes little fiscal or 
environmental sense to build additional roads in inventoried roadless 
areas that have irretrievable values at risk when the agency is 
struggling to maintain its existing extensive road system (FEIS Vol. 1, 
1-5 and 3-22). The National Forest System was founded more than 100 
years ago to protect drinking water supplies and furnish a sustainable 
supply of timber. Neither objective is fully achievable given the 
present condition of the existing road system. The risks inherent in 
building new roads in presently roadless areas threaten environmental, 
social, and economic values.
    Development activities in inventoried roadless areas often cost 
more to plan and implement than on other National Forest System lands. 
Some planned timber sales in inventoried roadless areas are likely to 
cost more to prepare and sell than they realize in revenues received. 
Because of the level of public controversy and analytical complexity, 
projects in roadless areas often require development of costly 
environmental impact statements for most resource development 
activities, including timber harvesting, in inventoried roadless areas. 
In some cases, road construction costs are higher due to rugged terrain 
or sensitive ecological factors. Many development projects in 
inventoried roadless areas are appealed or litigated. These factors 
contribute to generally higher costs for the agency to plan and 
implement development activities in inventoried roadless areas.

National Direction vs. Local Decisionmaking

    At the national level, Forest Service officials have the 
responsibility to consider the ``whole picture'' regarding the 
management of the National Forest System, including inventoried 
roadless areas. Local land management planning efforts may not always 
recognize the national significance of inventoried roadless areas and 
the values they represent in an increasingly developed landscape. If 
management decisions for these areas were made on a case-by-case basis 
at a forest or regional level, inventoried roadless areas and their 
ecological characteristics and social values could be incrementally 
reduced through road construction and certain forms of timber harvest. 
Added together, the nation-wide results of these reductions could be a 
substantial loss of quality and quantity of roadless area values and 
characteristics over time.
    In 1972, the Forest Service initiated a review of National Forest 
System roadless areas generally larger than 5,000 acres to determine 
their suitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 
System. A second review process completed in 1979, known as Roadless 
Area Review and Evaluation II (RARE II), resulted in another nationwide 
inventory of roadless areas. In the more than 20 years since the 
completion of RARE II, Congress has designated some of these areas as 
Wilderness. Additional reviews have been conducted through the land 
management planning process and other large-scale assessments. The 58.5 
million acres of inventoried roadless areas used as the basis for this 
analysis were identified from the most recent analysis for each 
national forest or grassland, including RARE II, land and resource 
management planning, or other large-scale assessments such as the 
Southern Appalachian Assessment.
    Of the 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas considered 
in the FEIS, approximately 34.3 million acres have prescriptions that 
allow road construction and reconstruction. The remaining 24.2 million 
acres are currently allocated to management prescriptions that prohibit 
road construction; however, protections in these existing plans may 
change after future forest plan amendments or revisions.
    Over the past 20 years, roads have been constructed in an estimated 
2.8 million of those 34.3 million acres of inventoried roadless areas. 
The agency anticipates that the trend of building roads in inventoried 
roadless areas will gradually decrease in the future even without this 
rule due to economic and ecological factors already discussed, changes 
in agency policy, increasing controversy and litigation, and potential 
listings under the Endangered Species Act. While these anticipated 
changes may reduce some of the impact to inventoried roadless areas, 
they would not eliminate the future threat to roadless area values 
(FEIS Vol. 1, 1-14 to 1-15).
    On many national forests and grasslands, roadless area management 
has been a major point of conflict in land management planning. The 
controversy continues today, particularly on most proposals to harvest 
timber, build roads, or otherwise develop inventoried roadless areas. 
The large number of appeals and lawsuits, and the extensive amount of 
congressional debate over the last 20 years, illustrates the need for 
national direction and resolution and the importance many Americans 
attach to the remaining inventoried roadless areas on National Forest 
System lands (FEIS Vol. 1, 1-16). These disputes are costly in terms of 
both fiscal resources and agency relationships with communities of 
place and communities of interest. Based on these factors, the agency 
decided that the best means to reduce this conflict is through a 
national level rule.

Importance of Watershed Protection

    Watershed protection is one of the primary reasons Congress 
reserved or authorized the purchase of National Forest System lands. 
Watershed health and restoration is also one of four emphasis areas in 
the agency's Natural Resource Agenda. Protecting the remaining healthy 
components of a watershed provides multiple benefits and a strong base 
to anchor future restoration in unprotected portions of these 
watersheds. Rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands within a watershed are 
the circulatory system of ecosystems, and water is the vital fluid for 
inhabitants of these ecosystems, including people (FEIS Vol. 1, 1-1).
    Inventoried roadless areas comprise a small fraction of the 
national landscape, representing less than 2% of the land base of the 
continental United States. They are, however, disproportionately 
important to the small percentage of the land base they occupy. 
Overall, National Forest System watersheds provide about 14% of the 
total water flow of the nation, about 33% of water in the West (FEIS 
Vol. 1, 3-46). Of the watersheds on National Forest System land, 661 
contain inventoried roadless areas and 354 of those watersheds serve as 
source areas of drinking water used by millions of people across the 
nation. Therefore, the health of these watersheds is important to 
people's health throughout the United States.
    Roads have long been recognized as one of the primary human-caused 
sources of soil and water disturbances in forested environments (FEIS 
Vol. 1, 3-44). For example, while landslides are a natural process, 
extensive research and other investigations in the West have closely 
associated land management activities, particularly roading and timber 
harvest, with accelerated incidence of landslides by several orders of 
magnitude (FEIS Vol.

[[Page 3247]]

1, 3-58). A joint study by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management in Oregon and Washington found that of 1,290 landslides 
reviewed in 41 sub-watersheds, 52% were related to roads, 31% to timber 
harvest, and 17% occurred in undisturbed forest (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-59). 
Another evaluation of landslides initiated by the Siuslaw National 
Forest found that roads were the source of 41% of landslides, harvest 
units less than 20 years old were the source of 36%, while natural 
forest processes accounted for the remaining 23%. Without the 
disturbance caused by roads and associated activities, stream channels 
are more likely to function naturally (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-54). Current road 
construction and timber harvest practices reduce the potential for 
damage associated with the use of earlier and less sophisticated 
techniques. However, even with today's improved design standards for 
road construction and timber harvest, these activities can still result 
in adverse effects to watersheds. These effects include pollution, 
changes to water temperatures and nutrient cycles, and increased 
sediment from storm or runoff events that exceed road design standards 
(FEIS Vol. 1, 3-45 to 3-50).

Improving Ecosystem Health

    Inventoried roadless areas provide large, relatively undisturbed 
blocks of important habitat for a variety of terrestrial and aquatic 
wildlife and plants, including hundreds of threatened, endangered, and 
sensitive species. In addition to their ecological contributions to 
healthy watersheds, many inventoried roadless areas function as 
biological strongholds and refuges for a number of species and play a 
key role in maintaining native plant and animal communities and 
biological diversity (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-123 to 3-124). For example, about 
60% of unroaded or very low road density sub watersheds within the 
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) 
assessment area are aquatic strongholds for salmonid populations (FEIS 
Vol. 1, 3-161). Inventoried roadless areas are key to recovery of 
salmon and steelhead stocks in decline, providing habitat to protect 
species until longer-term solutions can be developed for migration, 
passage, hatchery, and harvest problems associated with the decline of 
anadromous fish.
    Species richness and native biodiversity are more likely to be 
effectively conserved in larger undisturbed landscapes, such as 
inventoried roadless areas (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-142). For example, 
inventoried roadless areas cover approximately 21% of the centers of 
biodiversity for animals and 10% for plants identified in ICBEMP (FEIS 
Vol. 1, 3-144 and 3-173). Inventoried roadless areas also provide 
reference landscapes that managers can use to gauge the health and 
condition of other land areas.
    Road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvesting activities 
can result in fragmentation of ecosystems, the introduction of non-
native invasive species, and other adverse consequences to the health 
and integrity of inventoried roadless areas (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-128 to 3-
136). As human-caused fragmentation increases, the amount of core 
wildlife habitat decreases. This fragmentation results in decreased 
connectivity of wildlife habitat and wildlife movement, isolating some 
species and increasing the risk of local extirpations or extinctions 
(FEIS Vol. 1, 3-133). The value of inventoried roadless areas as 
habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and as 
biological strongholds can also be diminished due to these activities. 
For example, 220 species that are listed as threatened, endangered, or 
proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act and 1,930 agency-
identified sensitive species rely on habitat within inventoried 
roadless areas (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-180). The Department of Agriculture 
believes that the risks associated with certain development activities 
in inventoried roadless areas should be minimized and that these areas 
should be conserved for present and future generations.

Need for Action

    Promulgating this rule is necessary to protect the social and 
ecological values and characteristics of inventoried roadless areas 
from road construction and reconstruction and certain timber harvesting 
activities. Without immediate action, these development activities may 
adversely affect watershed values and ecosystem health in the short and 
long term, expand the road maintenance backlog which would increase the 
financial burden associated with road maintenance, and perpetuate 
public controversy and debate over the management of these areas. The 
new planning rules provide for review of other activities and allow for 
additional protection of roadless areas, if warranted. Adoption of this 
final rule ensures that inventoried roadless areas will be managed in a 
manner that sustains their values now and for future generations.

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

How Was Public Involvement Used in the Rulemaking Process?

    In January 1998, Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck proposed to 
temporarily suspend road construction and reconstruction in most 
inventoried roadless areas and other adjacent unroaded areas, and 
provided advance notice of revisions to the regulations governing the 
management of the Forest Transportation System. After analyzing public 
comments on the proposal, the Agency issued an interim rule at 36 CFR 
part 212, Administration of the Forest Development Transportation 
System: Temporary Suspension of Road Construction and Reconstruction in 
Unroaded Areas (February 12, 1999; 64 FR 7290). This Interim Roads Rule 
suspended road construction and reconstruction in certain inventoried 
roadless areas for 18 months (March 1999 through August 2000), while a 
long-term forest transportation policy was developed. During the public 
comment period for the Interim Roads Rule, the Agency received 
approximately 119,000 public comments, many of which mentioned the need 
for ``permanent protection'' of inventoried roadless areas.
    On October 13, 1999, President William J. Clinton directed the 
Forest Service to develop and propose for public comment regulations 
that would provide appropriate long-term protection for currently 
inventoried roadless areas. The public, and all interested parties, 
were to have the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed 
regulations.
    To comply with this presidential directive, the agency published a 
notice of intent to prepare a DEIS in the Federal Register (64 FR 
56306) on October 19, 1999, and announced the initiation of the public 
rulemaking process to propose the protection of certain roadless areas 
within the National Forest System. Section 553(a) of the Administrative 
Procedures Act exempts public property rules from the public 
involvement requirements set forth in section 553. In 1971, the United 
States Department of Agriculture published a voluntary waiver of the 
exemption from the notice and comments requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) 
and (c) (36 FR 13804). Accordingly, the Forest Service published a 
proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and provided opportunity 
for public participation during the development of the proposed and 
final rules. (See Rodway v. USDA, 514 F.2d 809 (D.C. Cir. 1975)).

[[Page 3248]]

    On May 10, 2000, the Forest Service issued a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register (65 FR 30276). The notice of availability of the DEIS 
was published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2000 (65 FR 31898). 
The public comment period on the proposed rule and DEIS closed on July 
17, 2000. The notice of availability of the FEIS was published in the 
Federal Register on November 17, 2000 (65 FR 69513).
    The agency's notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact 
statement drew about 16,000 people to 187 public meetings and elicited 
more than 517,000 responses. Although the purpose of the notice of 
intent was merely to solicit issues that the public thought should be 
addressed in the development of a DEIS, the Forest Service provided 
maps and other information to address public concerns and questions. On 
March 15, 2000, two months before release of the proposed rule and 
DEIS, news releases and letters were sent to news media, other Federal, 
State, and local government agencies, libraries, and Forest Service 
units to explain how to obtain the proposed rule and DEIS in a variety 
of electronic and hardcopy formats. The proposed action and other 
alternatives, background information, and a schedule of public meetings 
were posted on the agency's Roadless Area Conservation website 
(roadless.fs.fed.us).
    The Forest Service hosted two cycles of meetings during the comment 
period on the DEIS and proposed rule--one for information sharing and 
discussion and the other to collect oral comments. Written comments 
were collected at both meetings. About 430 public meetings were held--
about 230 for information sharing and written comments and about 200 
for collecting oral and written comments. Every national forest and 
grassland hosted at least two meetings. These meetings drew over 23,000 
people nationwide.
    The Forest Service also received comments by postal and electronic 
mail and by telefax. By the close of the comment period, the agency 
received over 1 million postcards or other form letters; 60,000 
original letters; 90,000 electronic mail messages; and several thousand 
telefaxes (FEIS Vol. 1, 1-7). The Forest Service's Content Analysis 
Enterprise Team in Salt Lake City, Utah, organized and analyzed the 
comments on the proposal. Some respondents focused their remarks on 
provisions of the proposed rule, others concentrated on the 
alternatives and analyses contained in the DEIS, and many comments 
applied to both documents.
    Information from the formal public meetings, letters, emails, 
telefaxes, and other sources were all included in the FEIS analysis. 
The Forest Service reviewed, analyzed, and responded to those comments. 
Responses to comments directly related to the proposed rule are 
included in this preamble. An explanation of the comment analysis 
process and how the comments were used to clarify text, modify 
alternatives or analysis, or augment technical information is included 
in Volume 3 of the FEIS.
    One of the major process concerns expressed was that the agency did 
not give the public and governmental entities, such as Tribes, States, 
and counties adequate notice or time to comment on the proposed action. 
The agency recognizes that many groups would have preferred additional 
time for review and comment. However, the time period was adequate to 
allow for more than 1.6 million comments to be received throughout the 
process. Throughout the process, the agency's website has provided up-
to-date information for interested parties to learn about the proposed 
action. The straightforward nature of the proposed rule and the sheer 
volume of comments received are compelling evidence that there was an 
adequate opportunity for the public to be heard, and sufficient 
information for officials to make a reasoned and informed decision.
    Since the publication of the FEIS, the agency has received comments 
on the FEIS and the preferred alternative. Generally, these comments 
mirror comments received on the NOI and DEIS. The majority of these 
respondents asked for the prohibitions to immediately take effect on 
the Tongass National Forest, and for additional prohibitions on off-
highway vehicle use, grazing, and mining activities. Some respondents 
provided additional information on potential environmental and economic 
effects, which the agency has reviewed and determined fall within the 
range of effects disclosed in the FEIS. These comments were considered 
by the agency in the development of the final rule and are in the 
project record.

What General Issues Were Identified Regarding the Proposed Rule and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement?

    Overview. Comments on the notice of intent, the proposed rule, and 
the DEIS illustrated strongly held individual values and beliefs and a 
wide range of views on how to manage inventoried roadless areas. These 
comments can be divided into two basic and very different perspectives 
(FEIS Vol. 1, 1-8 to 1-9). One perspective is that decisions concerning 
management of inventoried roadless areas should be left to the local 
responsible official, without national intervention. The other 
perspective is that national prohibitions on road construction, 
reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas, along 
with a stop to other activities, must occur from a national level, as 
local decisionmaking does not always reflect the national significance 
of the issues involved. The agency considered and attempted to balance 
both perspectives throughout this rulemaking.
    These two viewpoints focused on six major categories of issues in 
the DEIS as follows: public access, identification of other unroaded 
areas, exemptions and exceptions, environmental effects, local 
involvement (decisionmaking), and the effect on forest dependent 
communities (FEIS Vol. 1, 1-9 to 1-14).
    After reviewing and analyzing the public comments received during 
the comment period for the proposed rule and DEIS, the agency found 
that these major issue categories were still valid. Public comment 
within these categories is incorporated in the discussions of specific 
issues and comments related to each section of the proposed rule. These 
issues also have been used for the following purposes in the rulemaking 
process: to determine the scope of the proposal (type of decision to be 
made); to develop a range of alternatives; to identify possible 
mitigation measures; to direct the analysis of potential environmental, 
social, and economic effects; and to ensure that the agency is 
operating within its legal authorities.
    Issues Raised by Those Opposed to Prohibitions. This group 
indicated that inventoried roadless areas should remain available for 
road construction and reconstruction to obtain resources, to provide 
increased motorized recreation opportunities, and for other uses. These 
individuals expressed the viewpoint that roadless areas, with active 
and prudent management, could support both intrinsic benefits and 
commodity uses, and that local responsible officials should make 
management decisions on inventoried roadless areas. This group also 
indicated that environmental concerns should not take precedence over 
human needs and desired uses, and that maintaining a healthy 
environment should not preclude resource production, motorized access, 
and developed recreation opportunities.
    Many members of this group also stated that conservation requires 
active management, such as providing roads for: thinning forest 
vegetation, insect and disease treatment, commodity resource 
production, hazardous fuels

[[Page 3249]]

reductions, and the development of recreation facilities. They stressed 
that the failure to actively manage forests and grasslands could result 
in insect infestations and uncharacteristic wildfire effects, and 
asserted that prudent management would benefit people and wildlife. 
They expressed concern for the impact this rule would have on future 
generations that would not be able to participate in a lifestyle that 
is dependent on resource use and production. They said that if future 
generations would not be able to access the land, they would not value 
the land.
    Issues Raised by Those Who Favor Prohibitions. These respondents 
indicated that they viewed forestlands as whole ecosystems and that 
they thought roadless areas should be conserved for their intrinsic 
values and for esthetic benefits to humans. In their view, roadless 
areas should be allowed to evolve naturally through their own dynamic 
processes, although some proponents agreed with the need for limited 
stewardship activity. This second group stressed that human desire for 
commodity production should take second place to needs for a healthy 
environment (both locally and globally), for quiet natural places, for 
spiritual and psychological regeneration, and to meet the needs of 
other living things. They indicated that the social and economic needs 
of forest-dependent users could be met through job retraining, through 
development of alternative materials, and by designating already 
developed areas for motorized recreation and other ground-disturbing 
activities.
    Most of the respondents in this second group maintained that the 
proposed rule did not prohibit enough development activities. They 
stated that the final rule should immediately ban timber harvest, other 
commodity production, and motorized recreation from roadless areas 
1,000 acres or larger, and that the agency should not defer 
conservation of roadless areas to future land management planning 
processes. They also stressed that the Tongass National Forest should 
be included in this conservation effort, an issue that the agency 
specifically requested comment on in the DEIS. Many respondents in this 
group expressed a desire that future generations receive the benefits 
of clean air and water, habitat adequate to assure species diversity, 
and other social and ecological values provided by inventoried roadless 
areas.
    Issues Raised by Federal, Tribal, State and Local Public Officials. 
The agency received many comments from Federal, Tribal, State and local 
public officials and agencies across the country. Letters received from 
these sources during the comment period on the DEIS are published in 
Volume 4 of the FEIS. These comments reflect a cross-section of the 
comments received from the public at large.
    Many public officials from States and counties concerned about 
access to and across National Forest System lands and concerned about 
forest dependent communities expressed strong opposition to the 
proposed rule, citing negative economic impacts to these communities 
and commodity production industries, as well as negative impacts to 
rural lifestyles. Access to State-owned lands and impacts to statutory 
rights-of-way across public lands were major concerns as well. In 
general, those Western States with the greatest roadless acreage (for 
example, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming) tended to generate 
the greatest number of negative comments from Governors, agencies, and 
officials. Public officials from areas with larger urban populations 
generally supported the proposed rule because of their expressed desire 
for recreation opportunities, protection of water quality, and 
undisturbed landscapes.
    The following examples illustrate these different views. In the 
State of Washington, some of the officials and agencies writing in 
support of the proposed rule included the Governor, King and Spokane 
Counties, and the Seattle City Council, while Stevens County, the City 
of Forks, and the City of Port Angeles were opposed (FEIS Vol. 4, 573, 
579, 583 to 588). In Missouri, the Dent County Commission was opposed 
to the proposal while the State's Department of Natural Resources was 
supportive (FEIS Vol. 4, 250 to 252).
    Comments from agencies also varied according to the anticipated 
effects to their management programs. For example, the Florida Fish and 
Wildlife Conservation Commission saw the proposed rule as resulting in 
positive benefits for native wildlife and plant communities, while the 
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries saw the proposal as 
harmful to wildlife and the management of wildlife (FEIS Vol. 4, 79 to 
81, 571). Most responding Department of Transportation offices were 
concerned over access and maintenance issues.
    Letters from Tribal officials provided mixed comments and concerns. 
Some Tribes were generally supportive of the proposed rule, with the 
provision that traditional uses of the land and access to cultural and 
sacred sites be allowed to continue. Other Tribes expressed concern 
about how the proposal might affect economic opportunities. Still 
others believed that the rule should further restrict certain 
activities in inventoried roadless areas that may affect adjacent 
Tribal lands.

What Specific Issues Were Raised on the Proposed Rule and What Changes 
Did the Agency Make From Proposed To Final Rules?

    The following is a section-by-section discussion of issues raised 
and comments received on the proposed rule, the agency's response, and 
a description of changes made to the rule.
    Proposed Sec. 294.10--Purpose. This proposed section identified the 
agency's goal of providing lasting protection for inventoried roadless 
areas and other unroaded areas of the National Forest System in the 
context of multiple-use management.
    Comment on Multiple-Use. Some respondents commented that the 
proposed rule did not provide for multiple-use of inventoried roadless 
areas, since resources cannot always be accessed and developed without 
roads and, therefore, for example, forest health issues could not be 
addressed.
    Response. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA) 
provides the Forest Service authority to manage national forest and 
grasslands ``for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and 
wildlife and fish purposes.'' The NFMA reaffirmed multiple-use and 
sustained-yield as the guiding principles for land management planning 
of National Forest System lands (16 U.S.C. 1600, 1604).
    In defining ``multiple use,'' the MUSYA, as amended, clearly 
provides that under multiple-use management some land will be used for 
less than all of the possible resource uses of the national forests and 
grasslands. The act also provides that even the establishment of 
wilderness areas is consistent with the purposes and provisions of the 
act. The Roadless Area Conservation rule, unlike the establishment of 
wilderness areas, will allow a multitude of activities including 
motorized uses, grazing, and oil and gas development that does not 
require new roads to continue in inventoried roadless areas.
    Currently, a wide range of multiple uses is permitted in 
inventoried roadless areas subject to the management direction in 
forest plans. A wide range of multiple uses will still be allowable 
under the provisions of this rule. The National Forest System contains 
an extensive system of roads measuring approximately 386,000 miles. 
This final rule will not close or otherwise block access to any of 
those roads; the final rule merely prohibits the construction of new 
roads and the

[[Page 3250]]

reconstruction of existing roads in inventoried roadless areas.
    Under this final rule, management actions that do not require the 
construction of new roads will still be allowed, including activities 
such as timber harvesting for clearly defined, limited purposes, 
development of valid claims of locatable minerals, grazing of 
livestock, and off-highway vehicle use where specifically permitted. 
Existing classified roads in inventoried roadless areas may be 
maintained and used for these and other activities as well. Forest 
health treatments for the purposes of improving threatened, endangered, 
proposed, or sensitive species habitat or maintaining or restoring the 
characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as 
reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, will be allowed 
where access can be gained through existing roads or by equipment not 
requiring roads. Also, see the response to proposed Sec. 294.12 for 
further discussion of the MUSYA.
    Comment on Forest Plan Amendments. Many respondents asserted that 
the rule would supersede forest plans, the National Forest Management 
Act, and land management planning regulations, and thus exceed existing 
statutory authority. Others contended that the rule would require an 
amendment to forest plans.
    Response. The preamble to the recent NFMA planning regulations 
identify that ``[p]lanning will be conducted at the appropriate level 
depending on the scope and scale of the issues.'' The Department went 
on to note that ``[f]undamental to this rule is the notion that there 
is a hierarchy of scale to be considered when addressing resource 
management issues, and that it is the nature of the issue that guides 
the selection of the appropriate scale and level of the organization to 
address it'' (65 FR 67523). The use of rulemaking to address the 
conservation of inventoried roadless areas is both appropriate and 
consistent with the NFMA implementing regulations.
    Just as development and approval of forest plans must conform to 
existing laws and regulations, new laws or regulations, including this 
rule, can supersede existing forest plan management direction. This 
rulemaking process does not require amendments or revisions to forest 
plans. However, a Forest or Grassland Supervisor may consider whether 
an amendment or revision is appropriate given overall circumstances for 
a particular administrative unit.
    Comment on Roadless Areas in Forest Planning. A few respondents 
stated that the purposed section should require the incorporation of 
roadless area protection into forest plans.
    Response. The recently revised regulations at 36 CFR part 219 
guiding the development of forest plans (November 9, 2000; 65 FR 67571) 
contain a requirement at Sec. 219.9(b)(8) that provides additional 
protection for unroaded and inventoried roadless areas. During the plan 
revision process, or at other times as deemed appropriate, the 
responsible official must identify and evaluate inventoried roadless 
areas and unroaded areas and then determine which, if any, of those 
areas warrant additional protection and the level of protection to be 
afforded. For this reason, there is no need to add the suggested 
language to the purpose section of the final rule. In fact, inclusion 
of these procedures in the new planning regulations is why the 
procedures proposed at Sec. 294.13 have been removed from this rule.
    Summary of Changes in Section 294.10 of the Final Rule. Having 
considered the comments received, the agency has retained the purpose 
section with two changes: (1) The sentence has been reorganized to 
emphasize that the goal of providing lasting protection of roadless 
areas must occur within the context of multiple-use management; and (2) 
the agency has removed the reference to ``other unroaded areas'' in 
this section, since, as already noted, the new land and resource 
management planning regulations at 36 CFR part 219 provide for 
evaluation of these areas at the time of land and resource management 
plan revision (FEIS Vol. 1, 1-16).
    Proposed Section 294.11 Definitions. This section set out the terms 
and definitions used in the proposed rule. The proposed rule contained 
definitions for the following terms: ``inventoried roadless areas, 
responsible official, road, classified road, unclassified road, road 
construction, road maintenance, road reconstruction, (road) 
realignment, (road) improvement, (road) rebuilding, unroaded area, 
unroaded portion of an inventoried roadless area.''
    Comment on ``Inventoried Roadless Area'' Definition. Some 
respondents requested a modification of the definition for 
``inventoried roadless area'' to include ``undeveloped areas of 1,000 
acres and larger'' rather than ``undeveloped areas exceeding 5,000 
acres.'' Others thought that including references to the minimum 
criteria for wilderness made the definition too restrictive, 
eliminating otherwise deserving areas from protection. Some expressed 
confusion over which inventories were used to determine inventoried 
roadless areas, and the possibility of error in identifying inventoried 
roadless areas.
    Response. The proposed definition of inventoried roadless area was 
based on a group of roadless areas that were evaluated for wilderness 
consideration beginning in the 1970's and through subsequent planning 
efforts. With the publication of the DEIS and now the FEIS, the agency 
can now define these inventoried roadless areas as those areas 
identified in the set of maps contained in Volume 2 of the FEIS or 
subsequent revisions. These maps are maintained at the national 
headquarters of the Forest Service and are the official maps for the 
final rule. In the event a modification to correct any clerical, 
typographical, or other technical error is needed, the change will be 
made to the national headquarters maps and corrected copies of the maps 
made available to other administrative units. This definition does not 
apply to future areas that may be inventoried for wilderness 
consideration or other purposes. This modification, which removed the 
historical context for the definition of inventoried roadless area, has 
been included in the final rule.
    Comment on ``Unroaded Area'' Definition. The identification of 
unroaded areas other than those already inventoried was a major issue. 
It was unclear to some respondents whether the presence of unclassified 
roads would be a factor in determining whether an area qualified as an 
unroaded area. Others thought that the definition of ``unroaded area'' 
should not include unclassified roads because such areas could not 
foster isolation, independence, or an undisturbed setting. Others 
suggested that these issues are better resolved through local land 
management planning. The public suggested various criteria and 
processes for the protection and management of these other unroaded 
areas.
    Response. These suggestions were considered under procedural 
alternatives A through D in the DEIS. Since the comment period on the 
DEIS closed, the consideration of other unroaded areas has been 
addressed in the context of the final planning regulations at 36 CFR 
part 219. The agency agreed with the respondents who believed these 
types of planning issues were more appropriately addressed in the 
context of the planning rule and local land management planning. Thus, 
comments on how to consider and manage these other unroaded areas were 
considered in the preparation of the planning rule. As explained in the 
discussion of the agency's response to proposed Sec. 294.13

[[Page 3251]]

later in this preamble, the provisions of the proposed rule relevant to 
unroaded areas have been removed. Therefore, the term ``unroaded area'' 
is no longer needed.
    Comment on ``Responsible Official'' Definition. Some respondents 
wanted to know whether the responsible official for activities within 
an inventoried roadless area would be a District Ranger, Forest 
Supervisor, or Regional Forester.
    Response. The appropriate responsible official, as defined in the 
proposed rule, depends on the decision under consideration. For 
example, District Rangers often make decisions regarding trail 
construction, special use authorizations, and wildlife habitat 
improvement projects. Forest Supervisors typically make decisions on 
major developed recreation sites, large timber sales, and ski area 
developments. This rule does not alter existing delegations of 
authority for Forest Service responsible officials. Because the scope 
of a proposed decision determines who will make the decision, the 
definition of ``responsible official'' must be broad enough to embrace 
the various possibilities. Therefore, the final rule retains, without 
change, the definition in the proposed rule.
    Comment on ``Road'' Definition. Respondents expressed concern that 
the definition of a road was ambiguous and failed to recognize the 
primitive travelways used by motorized recreationists. Some respondents 
were concerned that the definition indicated permission for the 
construction of a travelway over 50 inches wide for off-road vehicles 
if the road was determined to be a trail. Other respondents thought 
that the definition of classified roads should include Revised Statute 
(R.S.) 2477 roads.
    Response. For agency consistency, this final rule includes the same 
definitions of ``road,'' ``classified road,'' ``unclassified road,'' 
and ``temporary road'' that are contained in the National Forest System 
Road Management regulations (36 CFR part 212) and policy (Forest 
Service Manual 7700 and 7710) transmitted on January 4, 2001 for 
publication in the Federal Register. Based on consideration of public 
comment received on the road management proposal, these definitions 
were revised for clarity and a definition for ``temporary road'' was 
added.
    A trail is established for travel by foot, stock, or trail vehicle, 
and can be over, or under, 50 inches wide. Nothing in this paragraph as 
proposed was intended to prohibit the authorized construction, 
reconstruction, or maintenance of motorized or non-motorized trails 
that are classified and managed as trails pursuant to existing 
statutory and regulatory authority and agency direction (FSM 2350). Nor 
was anything in this paragraph intended to condone or authorize the use 
of user created or unauthorized roads or trails. These decisions are 
made subject to existing agency regulations and policy and that intent 
has been retained in the final rule.
    Future claims and existing rights for R.S. 2477 roads would not be 
affected by this rule. The agency recognizes valid R.S. 2477 rights-of-
way. However, the validity of R.S. 2477 assertions must be evaluated on 
a case-by-case basis. Therefore, there is no need to modify the 
definition of classified road for this purpose.
    Comment on Road Management Terms. Some respondents thought the 
definitions of ``road construction,'' ``maintenance,'' 
``reconstruction,'' ``realignment,'' ``improvement,'' and 
``rebuilding'' were confusing. Others wanted clarification on whether 
the terms applied only to classified roads, or to unclassified roads as 
well.
    Response. As previously noted in this preamble, this final rule 
includes the definitions of road management terms adopted in the final 
National Forest System Road Management Rule and policy. The definition 
of ``rebuilding'' has been removed; the definition of ``road'' has 
expanded to include ``temporary road;'' and the other terms were 
revised in the final road management policy and are used verbatim in 
this rule for consistency.
    Comment on ``Unroaded Portion of an Inventoried Roadless Area'' 
Definition. Many respondents considered the term and definition of 
``unroaded portion of an inventoried roadless area'' confusing and 
remarked that they did not understand how it would be applied. In 
response to the identified preferred alternative in the FEIS, which 
would have applied the prohibitions to developed portions of 
inventoried roadless areas, respondents questioned why the agency would 
seek to protect roadless area values and characteristics in areas that 
have already been roaded and had timber harvest, thereby negating the 
very characteristics this rule seeks to protect.
    Response. One of the primary objectives of this rulemaking was to 
resolve the longstanding controversies surrounding management of 
inventoried roadless areas. Without additional clarification, the 
definition of ``unroaded portion of an inventoried roadless area'' 
could have begun a new round of land management plan inventories and 
controversy about how to identify the boundary between the roaded and 
unroaded portions of these areas. This had the potential to increase 
rather than reduce the number of appeals and lawsuits surrounding 
inventoried roadless area management.
    The agency agreed that the terminology and definition in the 
proposed rule were confusing. Therefore, it proposed in the FEIS 
eliminating this definition and applying the prohibitions to the entire 
area within an inventoried roadless area boundary.
    To resolve the agency's concern about extending the controversy to 
future land management planning and to address the public concern about 
precluding timber harvesting in the portions of inventoried roadless 
areas that no longer possess roadless characteristics, 
Sec. 294.13(b)(4) has been added. This paragraph allows timber to be 
cut, sold, or removed in the portions of inventoried roadless areas 
where roadless values and characteristics have been substantially 
altered due to road construction and subsequent timber harvest after 
the area was inventoried. No new road construction would be allowed. 
Decisions on whether or not an inventoried roadless area's 
characteristics have been substantially altered would occur during 
project planning and decisionmaking.
    In response to the proposed rule, some respondents questioned why 
the agency would only exempt those portions developed after an area was 
inventoried, rather than exempting all developed portions regardless of 
when the road construction and timber harvest occurred. Some 
inventoried roadless areas, particularly those in the East, contained 
roads at the time of their inventory and timber may also have been 
harvested in these areas. However, the agency assumes that these prior 
existing developments and activities did not substantially alter the 
areas' roadless values and characteristics, or they would not have been 
inventoried for possible wilderness consideration.
    For the reasons described, the term ``unroaded portion of an 
inventoried roadless area'' is no longer necessary and has been removed 
from the definitions in the final rule.
    Comment on ``Roadless Area Characteristics.'' Some respondents 
wanted additions to the list of roadless area characteristics 
identified in proposed Sec. 294.13(a), more specific characteristics 
for each inventoried roadless area, clarification as to their meaning, 
and to know how they would be used in the evaluation of inventoried 
roadless areas and unroaded areas during forest plan revision.

[[Page 3252]]

    Response. Although the term ``roadless area characteristics'' was 
not defined in the proposed rule, proposed Sec. 294.13 did include the 
list of characteristics. While proposed Sec. 294.13 was not retained in 
the final rule for reasons described in the section of this preamble 
entitled ``Consideration of Roadless Area Conservation During Forest 
Plan Revision,'' the roadless area characteristics remain fundamental 
to the environmental analysis of the alternatives considered in this 
rulemaking and are critical to evaluating whether trees may be cut, 
removed, or sold from inventoried roadless areas pursuant to the 
provisions at Sec. 294.13(b). For these reasons, the list of roadless 
area characteristics has been reformatted with minor changes for 
clarification and added to the definitions in Sec. 294.11 of the final 
rule.
    The definition of roadless area characteristics includes ``other 
locally identified unique characteristics'' to capture unique 
characteristics specific to individual inventoried roadless areas 
identified during local land management planning. Therefore, it is not 
necessary to identify, in this rule, characteristics for each 
inventoried roadless area or to add to the list in the definition. A 
more detailed description of these characteristics is in the section of 
this preamble entitled ``Roadless Area Values and Characteristics''.
    Summary of Changes in Sec. 294.11 of the Final Rule. The 
definitions section of the final rule reflects the preceding responses 
to comments received. Revisions have been made in the road management 
definitions included in Sec. 294.11 to achieve consistency with the 
final National Forest System Road Management Rule as well as with the 
provisions of the final National Forest System Land and Resource 
Management Planning Rule. The terms ``unroaded portion of an 
inventoried roadless area'' and ``unroaded area'' were removed from the 
definitions. The first sentence was removed from the proposed rule's 
definition of ``inventoried roadless area'' because, while the sentence 
provided historical context, it was not necessary for the definition. 
The definition of ``roadless area characteristics'' has been added.
    Proposed Section 294.12. Prohibition on road construction and 
reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas. This section of the 
proposed rule identified the road construction and reconstruction 
prohibitions, and exemptions and exceptions to the prohibitions. 
Paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 294.12 prohibited road construction and 
reconstruction in the unroaded portions of inventoried roadless areas, 
except for the circumstances listed in proposed paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (b)(4) and paragraph (c).
    Comment on Agency Authority. The agency received many comments 
questioning whether the Forest Service had the authority to prohibit 
road construction through this rulemaking process, and whether the 
proposed rule was in conflict with existing environmental and land 
management laws and policies.
    Response. The Forest Service routinely makes decisions to construct 
or not construct roads for a variety of purposes. The Secretary has 
clear authority to promulgate this rule, and this rule does not 
conflict with existing law and policy. The foundation for any exercise 
of power by the Federal government is the United States Constitution. 
The Constitutional provision that provides authority for management of 
public lands is the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3). The 
Property Clause states that Congress has the power to dispose of and 
make all needful rules and regulations respecting land or other 
property belonging to the United States. Using this authority, Congress 
entrusted the Secretary of Agriculture with broad powers to protect and 
administer the National Forest System by passing laws, such as the 
Organic Administration Act of 1897 (the Organic Act), the Multiple-Use 
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA), and the National Forest Management 
Act of 1976 (NFMA).
    The duties that Congress assigned to the Secretary include 
regulating the occupancy and use of National Forest System lands and 
preserving the forests from destruction (16 U.S.C. 551). Through the 
MUSYA, Congress directed the Secretary to administer the National 
Forest System for multiple-use and sustained-yield of renewable 
resources without impairment of the productivity of the land (16 U.S.C. 
528-531), thus establishing multiple-use as the foundation for 
management of national forests and grasslands. These multiple uses 
include outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and 
fish purposes. The statute defines ``multiple use'' broadly, calling 
for management of the various uses in the combination that will best 
meet the needs of the American people (16 U.S.C. 531). Under this 
framework, courts have recognized that the MUSYA does not envision that 
every acre of National Forest System land be managed for every multiple 
use, and does envision some lands being used for less than all of the 
resources. As a consequence, the agency has wide discretion to weigh 
and decide the proper uses within any area (Wind-River Multiple-use 
Advocates v. Espy, 835 F. Supp. 1362, 1372 (D.Wyo.1993)).
    In passing the MUSYA, Congress also affirmed the application of 
sustainability to the broad range of resources the Forest Service 
manages, and did so without limiting the agency's broad discretion in 
determining the appropriate resource emphasis and mix of uses. Some of 
the agency's past decisions have been challenged in court, leading to 
judicial decisions interpreting the extent of Forest Service 
discretion, or judgment, in managing National Forest System lands. 
Courts have routinely held that the Forest Service has wide discretion 
in deciding the proper mix of uses within any area of National Forest 
System lands. In the words of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the 
agency's authority pursuant to the MUSYA ``breathes discretion at every 
pore.'' (Perkins v. Bergland, 608 F.2d 803, 806 (9th Cir.1979)).
    The NFMA reaffirmed multiple-use and sustained-yield as the guiding 
principles for land management planning of National Forest System lands 
(16 U.S.C. 1600, 1604). Together with other applicable laws, the NFMA 
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate regulations 
governing the administration and management of the National Forest 
Transportation System (16 U.S.C. 1608) and other such regulations as 
the Secretary determines necessary and desirable to carry out the 
provisions of the NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1613). These laws complement the 
long-standing authority of the Secretary to regulate the occupancy and 
use of the National Forest System (16 U.S.C. 551).
    Comment on National Prohibitions vs. Local Decisionmaking. Many 
respondents supported the proposed national prohibition on new road 
construction in inventoried roadless areas. Other respondents felt 
there should not be a national prohibition because this would eliminate 
the option of making local decisions based on public input. Others felt 
the decisions regarding construction of roads in inventoried roadless 
areas should be made when forest plans are revised.
    Response. The agency has addressed this issue in detail at the 
outset of this final rule. At the national level, Forest Service 
officials have the responsibility to consider the ``whole picture'' 
regarding the management of the National Forest System, including 
inventoried roadless areas. Local land management planning efforts may 
not always recognize the national significance of inventoried roadless 
areas and the values they represent in an increasingly developed 
landscape. If

[[Page 3253]]

management decisions for these areas were made on a case-by-case basis 
at a forest or regional level, inventoried roadless areas and their 
ecological characteristics and social values could be incrementally 
reduced through road construction and certain forms of timber harvest. 
Added together, the nation-wide results of these reductions could be a 
substantial loss of quality and quantity of roadless area values and 
characteristics over time.
    On many national forests and grasslands, roadless area management 
has been a major point of conflict in land management planning. The 
controversy continues today, particularly on most proposals to harvest 
timber, build roads, or otherwise develop inventoried roadless areas. 
The large number of appeals and lawsuits, and the extensive amount of 
congressional debate over the last 20 years illustrates the need for 
national direction and resolution and the importance many Americans 
attach to the remaining inventoried roadless areas on National Forest 
System lands (FEIS Vol. 1, 1-16). These disputes are costly in terms of 
both fiscal resources and agency relationships with communities of 
place and communities of interest. Based on these factors, the agency 
decided that the best means to reduce this conflict is through a 
national level rule.
    Comment on Access. The agency received many comments questioning 
how the proposed rule would affect access to lands that the agency does 
not manage, such as State lands or private inholdings, and access 
pursuant to the General Mining Law of 1872.
    Response. This rule does not affect a State's or private 
landowner's right of access to their land. The proposed rule did not 
close any roads or off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails. The proposed rule 
provided for the construction and reconstruction of roads in 
inventoried roadless areas where needed pursuant to existing or 
outstanding rights, or as provided for by statute or treaty, including 
R.S. 2477 rights, access to inholdings under the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) provisions, or circumstances 
where a valid right-of-way exists.
    The most common right of access to non-federally owned property 
surrounded by National Forest System lands is a road constructed or 
reconstructed on those National Forest System lands. The final rule at 
Sec. 294.12(b)(3) provides for construction or reconstruction of a road 
in an inventoried roadless area ``if the Responsible Official 
determines that * * *  a road is needed pursuant to reserved or 
outstanding rights, or as provided for by statute or treaty.'' For 
example, the ANILCA provides a landowner a right of access across 
National Forest System lands in certain circumstances, and this rule 
does not amend or modify that statute.
    Title 36 part 251 of the Code of Federal Regulations implements the 
ANILCA access provisions and sets forth the procedures by which 
landowners may apply for access across National Forest System lands; 
this rule does not amend or modify that regulation. Access to non-
Federal land does not have to be a road in all cases, nor does it have 
to be the most economical, direct, or convenient for the landowner, 
although the agency tries to be sensitive to the cost in time and money 
to the inholder. The cost to construct or reconstruct road access to 
non-Federal lands is usually the responsibility of the inholder, not 
the Forest Service. During the application process for such access, 
applicable laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the 
Endangered Species Act, still must be considered.
    Access for the exploration of locatable minerals pursuant to the 
General Mining Law of 1872 is not prohibited by this rule. Nor is 
reasonable access for the development of valid claims pursuant to the 
General Mining Law of 1872 prohibited. In some cases, access other than 
roads may be adequate for mineral activities. This access may include, 
but is not limited to, helicopter, road construction or reconstruction, 
or non-motorized transport. Determination of access requirements for 
exploration or development of locatable minerals is governed by the 
provisions of 36 CFR part 228.
    Comments on Effect on Fire Suppression. Numerous respondents 
expressed concern with the effect of a road construction prohibition on 
fire fighter safety and access to suppress wildland fires.
    Response. Proposed Sec. 294.12(b)(1) allowed road construction and 
reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas when a road is needed to 
protect public health and safety in cases of an imminent threat of 
flood, fire, or other catastrophic event. In addition, using such 
suppression resources as smokejumpers and fire crews delivered by 
helicopters, the current fire suppression organization has been 
effective in suppressing at a small size approximately 98% of wildland 
fire starts in inventoried roadless areas. The agency also typically 
prioritizes fighting roadless and wilderness fires lower than fighting 
fires in more accessible and populated areas. The Agency has a long 
history of successfully suppressing fires in inventoried roadless areas 
and this high level of suppression performance is expected to continue. 
Furthermore, the agency rarely builds new roads to suppress fires. 
Building roads into inventoried roadless areas would likely increase 
the chance of human-caused fires due to the increased presence of 
people. Fire occurrence data indicates that prohibiting road 
construction and reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas would not 
cause an increase in the number of acres burned by wildland fires or in 
the number of large fires (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-115).
    Comment on Including Other Unroaded Areas. Some respondents 
asserted that prohibitions should be applied to all roadless areas, not 
just inventoried roadless areas.
    Response. The agency had adequate information to assess the effects 
of implementing the prohibition of road construction and limited timber 
harvesting in inventoried roadless areas. There was not sufficient 
information to make a decision regarding other uninventoried unroaded 
areas. Furthermore, the agency decided that these uninventoried 
unroaded areas would be better evaluated in the context of the new 
planning regulations at 36 CFR part 219.
    Comment on Relationship to Other Rulemakings. Some respondents have 
questioned whether the agency has adequately integrated the decision to 
prohibit road construction and timber harvesting in inventoried 
roadless areas with other agency rulemaking efforts.
    Response. The objective of conserving inventoried roadless areas 
reflects current scientific understanding of the importance of 
inventoried roadless area ecosystems and changing values of society as 
evidenced by comments received on this proposal.
    This final roadless area conservation rule is entirely consistent 
with other Forest Service rulemaking and policy efforts, including the 
agency's final planning rule at 36 CFR part 219 (November 9, 2000; 65 
FR 67514) and newly adopted National Forest System Road Management 
regulations (36 CFR part 212) and policy (Forest Service Manual 7700 
and 7710). It is also consistent with the report of Secretaries Babbitt 
and Glickman to the President, Managing the Impacts of Wildfire on 
Communities and the Environment (September 8, 2000), the agency's 
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems: 
A Cohesive Strategy (November 9, 2000; 65 FR 67480), and ongoing 
efforts to reduce the risk of fire to communities and the environment.

[[Page 3254]]

    The planning rule provides the overall framework for planning and 
management of the National Forest System. No provisions in the Roadless 
Area Conservation rule would require land management or project 
planning, although managers may decide to initiate plan revisions. 
However, this final rule does complement the key sustainability, 
science, and spatial decisionmaking issues raised by the planning rule.
    The planning rule also requires that during the plan revision 
process, or at other times as deemed appropriate, the responsible 
official must identify and evaluate inventoried roadless areas and 
unroaded areas and then determine which inventoried roadless areas and 
unroaded areas warrant additional protection and the level of 
protection to be afforded. This provision is similar to the procedural 
requirements proposed in May 2000, as part of the proposed Roadless 
Area Conservation Rule. Given their inclusion in the final planning 
rule, the procedural provisions have been removed from this final rule. 
As disclosed in the DEIS, the proposed procedures do not directly 
result in adverse physical or biological environmental effects, nor do 
the procedures cause irreversible or irretrievable resource commitments 
(DEIS Vol. 1, 3-223). The FEIS disclosed the combined effects of the 
final planning rule and the final roadless rule as being complementary, 
not additive (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-397; see also 65 FR 67529).
    The National Forest System Road Management regulations and policy 
are designed to make the agency's existing road system more safe, 
responsive to public needs, environmentally sound, and affordable to 
manage. Elements of the regulation and policy requiring planning would 
be completed using the new planning rules. For example, under the road 
management policy, national forests and grasslands would have to 
complete an analysis of their existing road system and then incorporate 
this analysis into their land management plans. Consistent with the 
planning rule, this would be accomplished by using a science-based 
analysis procedure and by working cooperatively with other agency 
partners and the public.
    Together, these requirements ensure that roadless areas and their 
important social and ecological characteristics will be conserved for 
present and future generations based on the principles of 
sustainability, sound science, and collaboration. The Forest Service 
has coordinated development of each of these rulemakings to ensure that 
the rules are integrated and consistent. In addition, consistency in 
the definitions and program emphases has been assured. The resulting 
rulemaking efforts efficiently align priorities and resources to 
implement the agency's statutory responsibilities (FEIS Vol. 1, 1-18 to 
1-20).
    Comment on Application to the Tongass National Forest. The agency 
received many comments regarding the Tongass National Forest. Many 
respondents stated that the Tongass should not be exempt from the 
provisions of the proposed rule. Others, concerned that local 
communities had already experienced substantial social and economic 
effects due to the recent revision of the Tongass Land and Resource 
Management Plan and other factors, thought that the Tongass should be 
exempt from the provisions of the proposed rule. Some respondents 
stated that the Forest Service should defer action on the Tongass 
National Forest until the next plan revision.
    Response. In both the DEIS and FEIS, using the best available 
science and data, the agency has considered the alternatives of 
exempting and not exempting the Tongass National Forest, as well as 
deferring a decision per the proposed rule. Social and economic 
considerations were key factors in analyzing those alternatives, along 
with the unique and sensitive ecological character of the Tongass 
National Forest, the abundance of roadless areas where road 
construction and reconstruction are limited, and the high degree of 
ecological health. In developing the proposed action, the agency sought 
to balance the extraordinary ecological values of the Tongass National 
Forest against the needs of the local forest dependent communities in 
Southeast Alaska.
    With the recent closure of pulp mills and the ending of long-term 
timber sale contracts, the timber economy of Southeast Alaska is 
evolving to a competitive bid process. About two-thirds of the total 
timber harvest planned on the Tongass National Forest over the next 5 
years is projected to come from inventoried roadless areas. If road 
construction were immediately prohibited in inventoried roadless areas, 
approximately 95 percent of the timber harvest within those areas would 
be eliminated (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-202).
    The Tongass National Forest is part of the northern Pacific coast 
ecoregion, an ecoregion that contains one fourth of the world's coastal 
temperate rainforests. As stated in the FEIS, the forest's high degree 
of overall ecosystem health is due to its largely undeveloped nature 
including the quantity and quality of inventoried roadless areas and 
other special designated areas. Alternatives that would immediately 
prohibit new road construction and timber harvest in all inventoried 
roadless areas would most effectively protect those values. Other 
alternatives that exempt, delay, or limit the application of the 
prohibitions would offer less protection. The environmental impacts of 
these alternatives are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.
    The proposed rule would have deferred a decision on whether or not 
the prohibitions should be applied to the Tongass National Forest until 
April 2004. This would have allowed an adjustment period for the timber 
program in Southeast Alaska to occur under provisions of the 1999 
Record of Decision for the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan 
Revision, but would not have assured long-term protection of the 
Forest's unique ecological values and characteristics.
    In response to public comments, an optional social and economic 
mitigation measure was considered under the Tongass Not Exempt 
alternative that would require implementation of the final rule on the 
Tongass, but delay this implementation until April 2004, to provide a 
transition period for local communities to adjust to changes that would 
occur when the prohibitions take effect.
    The final rule applies immediately to the Tongass National Forest 
but adopts a mitigation measure that both assures long-term protection 
and a smooth transition for forest dependent communities. The final 
rule provides that the prohibitions do not apply to road construction, 
reconstruction, and the cutting, sale or removal of timber from 
inventoried roadless areas on the Tongass National Forest where a 
notice of availability for a draft environmental impact statement for 
such activities has been published in the Federal Register prior to the 
date of publication of this rule in the Federal Register. This 
mitigation measure allows an adjustment period for the timber program 
in Southeast Alaska, but will also assure more certain long-term 
protection of the Forest's unique ecological values and 
characteristics.
    Allowing road construction and reconstruction on the Tongass 
National Forest to continue unabated would risk the loss of important 
roadless area values. The agency had sufficient information to analyze 
the environmental, social, and economic effects of prohibiting road 
construction, reconstruction, and limited timber harvesting on the 
Tongass National Forest and did not see the value in

[[Page 3255]]

deferring the issue to further study prior to making a decision.
    Moreover, this course of action is consistent with the provisions 
of the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA). While the TTRA urges the 
Forest Service to ``seek to meet market demand'' for timber from the 
Tongass National Forest, the TTRA does not envision an inflexible 
harvest level, but a balancing of the market, the law, and other uses, 
including preservation. (Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Ass'n 
v. Morrison, 67 F.3d 723, 731 (9th Cir. 1995)). The record for this 
rulemaking fully supports the imposition of the prohibitions on the 
Tongass National Forest. However, in inventoried roadless areas the 
Tongass National Forest has 261 MMBF of timber under contract and 386 
MMBF under a notice of availability for a DEIS, FEIS, or Record of 
Decision. In addition, the Tongass has 204 MMBF available in roaded 
areas that is sold, has a Record of Decision, or is currently in the 
planning process. This total of 851 MMBF is enough timber volume to 
satisfy about 7 years of estimated market demand.
    Based on the analysis contained in the FEIS, a decision to 
implement the rule on the Tongass National Forest is expected to cause 
additional adverse economic effects to some forest dependent 
communities (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-326 to 3-350). During the period of 
transition, an estimated 114 direct timber jobs and 182 total jobs 
would be affected. In the longer term, an additional 269 direct timber 
jobs and 431 total jobs may be lost in Southeast Alaska. However, the 
Department believes that the long-term ecological benefits to the 
nation of conserving these inventoried roadless areas outweigh the 
potential economic loss to those local communities and that a period of 
transition for affected communities would still provide certain and 
long term protection of these lands.
    The special provision at Sec. 294.14(d) of the final rule allowing 
road construction, reconstruction, and the cutting, sale, or removal of 
timber from inventoried roadless areas on the Tongass National Forest 
where a notice of availability of a draft environmental impact 
statement for such activities has been published in the Federal 
Register prior to the date of publication of this rule in the Federal 
Register is considered necessary because of the unique social and 
economic conditions where a disproportionate share of the impacts are 
experienced throughout the entire Southeast Alaska region and 
concentrated most heavily in a few communities.
    Comment on Exceptions and Conflict with Purpose of the Rule. 
Another major issue was whether there should be exemptions or 
exceptions from the prohibitions. A few respondents stated that the 
exceptions and exemptions to the prohibitions set out in proposed 
Sec. 294.12 conflicted with the stated purpose of the rule. A summary 
of the major comments on this issue and the agency's responses follow.
    Response. The exceptions to the prohibitions on road construction 
in inventoried roadless areas found at proposed Sec. 294.12 responded 
to specific circumstances where the prohibitions might conflict with 
legal responsibilities to provide for public health and safety or 
environmental protection (FEIS Vol. 1, 2-13 to 2-14). In some cases, 
the exceptions could result in effects contrary to the purpose stated 
in the proposed rule, but the agency determined that they were 
necessary to honor existing law or address social or economic concerns. 
While the exceptions and exemptions place limited restrictions on the 
application of the prohibition, the stated purpose of the rule remains 
valid. These exceptions were only relevant to FEIS action Alternatives 
2 through 4, as Alternative 1 (no action) did not prohibit any 
activities.
    The public health and safety exception at paragraph (b)(1) in the 
final rule applies only when needed to protect public health and safety 
in cases of an imminent threat of a catastrophic event that might 
result in the loss of life or property. It does not constitute 
permission to engage in routine forest health activities, such as 
temporary road construction for thinning to reduce mortality due to 
insect and disease infestation.
    The exception in paragraph (b)(2) permits entry for activities 
undertaken pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and other identified statutes. 
An example of an allowable CERCLA activity is mitigating the leaching 
of toxic chemicals from an abandoned mine.
    Paragraph (b)(3) permits the construction and reconstruction of a 
road pursuant to rights granted in statute or treaty, or pursuant to 
reserved or outstanding rights. These include, but are not limited to, 
rights of access provided in ANILCA, highway rights-of-way granted 
under R.S. 2477, and rights granted under the General Mining Law of 
1872, as amended. Rights of reasonable access for mineral exploration 
and development of valid claims would be governed by the General Mining 
Law under any of the alternatives considered in the FEIS. These rights 
of access may or may not include new road construction as discussed 
elsewhere in this preamble. Therefore, rights of access to locatable 
mineral exploration and development of valid claims would not be 
affected by the final rule or any of the alternatives analyzed in the 
FEIS (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-254).
    Paragraph (b)(4) in the final rule permits realignment of an 
existing classified road when it is found to cause irreparable resource 
damage because of its design, location, use, or deterioration. The road 
must be essential for public or private access, natural resource 
management, or public health and safety. For the realignment exception 
to apply, the original road must have caused the resource damage and 
the resource damage cannot be corrected or mitigated by maintenance 
alone. Following realignment, treatment of the old roadway may include 
a variety of methods, such as decommissioning or by converting it to 
another use. An example of a situation where realignment may be 
appropriate is the presence of a classified road contributing sediment 
to a stream that is important spawning or rearing habitat for an 
endangered species of fish, and the sediment is having an adverse 
impact on the fish or its habitat. Realignment of the classified road 
and decommissioning the old roadway to eliminate the sediment caused by 
the old roadway is appropriate.
    After considering the public comment on the proposed rule and 
conducting further analysis, three other exceptions were added to the 
final rule at Sec. 294.12(b). New paragraph (5) is an exception to the 
prohibition to allow for reconstruction of a classified road if needed 
for safety based on accident experience or accident potential on that 
road. This exception allows for realignment or improvement in 
situations where road location or design is a threat to health or 
safety, and reconstruction would reduce that threat. New paragraph (6) 
was added to mitigate potential social and economic impacts in response 
to comments on the effects this rule might have on some State highway 
projects proposed as part of the National Highway System. These 
exceptions were not a major consideration in evaluating differences 
among the FEIS action alternatives because they apply to all of the 
prohibition alternatives. The agency considered other exemptions and 
exceptions, but eliminated them from detailed study (FEIS Vol. 1, 2-21 
to 2-22).

[[Page 3256]]

    An additional optional exception was considered in detail in the 
FEIS as a social and economic mitigation measure and was available for 
selection with any alternative. This exception would have allowed road 
construction or reconstruction where a road is needed for prospective 
mineral leasing activities in inventoried roadless areas (FEIS Vol. 1, 
2-9). If road construction and reconstruction were allowed for all 
future mineral leasing, an estimated 59 miles of new roads could be 
constructed in inventoried roadless areas over the next five years. 
Road construction or reconstruction in support of future mineral 
leasing could continue at this level or in greater amounts into the 
foreseeable future. The agency estimates more than 10 million acres of 
inventoried roadless area could be roaded for exploration and 
development of leasable minerals, although the agency believes it is 
unlikely that more than a small percentage of these acres would contain 
minerals sufficient for economic development (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-250 to 260 
and 313 to 321). Mineral leasing activities not dependent on road 
construction, such as directional (slant) drilling and underground 
development, would not be affected by the prohibition.
    The Department has decided not to adopt the exception for future 
discretionary mineral leasing as identified in the FEIS because of the 
potentially significant environmental impacts that road construction 
could cause to inventoried roadless areas. Existing leases are not 
subject to the prohibitions. The Department has decided to adopt a more 
limited exception at 36 CFR 294.12(b)(7) to allow road construction 
needed in conjunction with the continuation, extension, or renewal of a 
mineral lease, on lands that were under lease by the Secretary of the 
Interior as of the date of publication of this rule in the Federal 
Register. Additionally, road construction needed in conjunction with a 
new lease may be allowed on these same lands if the lease is issued 
immediately upon expiration of the existing lease. The lessee would be 
required to start the process for issuance of a new lease prior to the 
expiration of the existing lease. Such road construction or 
reconstruction must be conducted in a manner that minimizes effects on 
surface resources, prevents unnecessary or unreasonable surface 
disturbance, and complies with all applicable lease requirements, land 
and resource management plan direction, regulations, and laws. Roads 
constructed or reconstructed pursuant to this paragraph must be 
obliterated when no longer needed for the purposes of the lease or upon 
termination or expiration of the lease, whichever is sooner.
    This provision allows, but does not require, road construction and 
reconstruction. These decisions would be made through the regular NEPA 
process. For example, this paragraph does not supersede land management 
plan prescriptions that prohibit road construction. This exception only 
applies to lands in inventoried roadless areas that are currently under 
mineral lease. The agency has less than 1 million acres of high 
potential oil and gas currently under mineral lease. This provision 
maintains the status quo for entities that currently hold mineral 
leases, while at the same time limiting the potential impacts on 
roadless area characteristics within this identified set of lands.
    Comment on Potential Misuse of Exceptions. Some respondents felt 
there should not be any exceptions to the prohibition on construction 
of roads in inventoried roadless areas, out of fear that the exceptions 
would be used in situations not intended. These respondents wanted to 
know who would review decisions granting the exceptions.
    Response. The Department believes that exceptions to the 
prohibitions on road construction and reconstruction are warranted to 
address legal, social, economic, and environmental concerns. Projects 
proposed under any of the exceptions would still have to comply with 
all legal requirements and agency policy related to environmental 
analysis and public involvement. Depending on the specific 
circumstances of a particular exception, decisions would be subject to 
administrative appeal or internal review.
    Comment on Multiple-Use Exception. Some respondents requested an 
additional exception to the road construction prohibition, whereby the 
Department would insert ``A road is needed to carry out the multiple-
uses provided for in the authorities cited for these regulations.'' in 
Sec. 294.12(b) of the proposed rule.
    Response. The addition of the proposed exception would allow road 
construction in inventoried roadless areas for any multiple-use 
purpose, which would be counter to the purpose of protecting roadless 
areas.
    Comment on Private Land and Utility Company Exceptions. Some 
respondents stated that the construction of roads should be allowed to 
access State or private lands and water diversions and dams. Utility 
companies expressed concern that they would be unable to access 
existing facilities in an emergency, such as a pipeline rupture or a 
transmission line toppled by a landslide, and that the exception at 
proposed paragraph (b)(1) should be expanded to accommodate access to 
utility facilities in order to ensure their safe operation.
    Response. The proposed rule did not suspend or modify existing 
permits, contracts, or other legal instruments authorizing the use and 
occupancy of National Forest System lands. Existing roads or trails 
would not have been closed by the proposed rule, and existing rights of 
access were recognized. The final rule retains all of the provisions 
that recognize existing rights of access and use. Where access to these 
facilities is needed to ensure safe operation, a utility company may 
pursue necessary authorizations pursuant to the terms of the existing 
permit or contract. Additionally, the examples described by the utility 
companies could qualify for an emergency exception under paragraph 
(b)(1) of the final rule depending on local circumstances and risk to 
public health and safety.
    Comment on Federal and State Highway Exceptions. Some respondents 
stated that the final rule should permit road construction, 
realignment, and reconstruction of Federal and State highways.
    Response. In response to public comments, the agency has included 
an exception that would allow road projects funded under Title 23 of 
the United States Code (23 U.S.C. 317) to occur in inventoried roadless 
areas. The final rule at Sec. 294.12(b)(6) allows for construction, 
reconstruction, or realignment of a Federal Aid Highway where the 
Secretary determines that the project is in the public interest or 
consistent with the purposes for which the land was reserved or 
acquired, is reasonable and prudent, and no other feasible alternative 
exists (FEIS Vol. 1, 2-9 to 2-14).
    Summary of Changes in section 294.12 of the Final Rule. Paragraph 
(a) of the final rule has been revised consistent with the changes in 
the definitions of ``inventoried roadless areas'' and ``road'', to 
remove the phrases ``the unroaded portions of'' and ``This prohibition 
covers classified and unclassified roads,'' respectively.
    Paragraph (b) in the final rule sets out certain limited exceptions 
to the prohibition on road construction and road reconstruction. The 
first four exceptions were adopted essentially as proposed with minor 
editing for clarity and three more exceptions were added.

[[Page 3257]]

    Paragraph (c) of the proposed rule, which described the rule's 
application to the Tongass National Forest, has been removed. This 
change immediately applies the prohibitions in the rule to the Tongass 
National Forest, except as provided in a new paragraph applicable to 
the Tongass National Forest, which is added at Sec. 294.14(d).
    Proposed paragraph (d) is redesignated as paragraph (c) in the 
final rule. This paragraph permits maintenance activities for 
classified roads included in an inventoried roadless area, and is 
adopted essentially as proposed but with minor editing for clarity.
    Final section 294.13. Prohibition on timber cutting, sale, or 
removal in inventoried roadless areas. The final rule adds a new 
prohibition on timber harvesting (the cutting, sale, or removal of 
timber): except for clearly defined, limited purposes; when incidental 
to the implementation of an activity not otherwise prohibited by this 
rule; for personal and administrative uses; or where roadless 
characteristics have been substantially altered in a portion of an 
inventoried roadless area due to the construction of a classified road 
and subsequent timber harvest. Both the road construction and 
subsequent timber harvest must have occurred after an area was 
designated an inventoried area. Even though this provision was not in 
the proposed rule, the DEIS analyzed timber harvesting prohibition 
alternatives for public comment and the FEIS identified a preferred 
alternative that included both timber harvesting and road construction 
prohibitions. Therefore, the public had sufficient opportunity to 
comment on this provision and there is adequate information to make a 
reasoned and informed decision.
    Alternative 3 in the FEIS would prohibit timber harvesting except 
for stewardship and other limited purposes. Concerns over potential 
confusion of the interpretation of ``stewardship'' have led the agency 
to clearly define at Sec. 294.13(b)(1) through (b)(4) the limited 
circumstances where the cutting, sale, or removal of timber in 
inventoried roadless areas is permitted. The final rule embodies 
Alternative 3, but, in contrast to the FEIS, the term ``stewardship'' 
does not appear in the final rule.
    The cutting, sale, or removal of trees must be clearly shown 
through project level analysis to contribute to the ecological 
objectives described in Sec. 294.13(b)(1), or under the circumstances 
described in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4). Such management 
activities are expected to be rare and to focus on small diameter 
trees. Thinning of small diameter trees, for example, that became 
established as the result of missed fire return intervals due to fire 
suppression and the condition of which greatly increases the likelihood 
of uncharacteristic wildfire effects would be permissible.
    Because of the great variation in stand characteristics between 
vegetation types in different areas, a description of what constitutes 
``generally small diameter timber'' is not specifically included in 
this rule. Such determinations are best made through project specific 
or land and resource management plan NEPA analyses, as guided by 
ecological considerations such as those described below.
    The intent of the rule is to limit the cutting, sale, or removal of 
timber to those areas that have become overgrown with smaller diameter 
trees. As described in the FEIS (Vol. 1, 3-76), areas that have become 
overgrown with shrubs and smaller diameter trees creating a fuel 
profile that acts as a ``fire ladder'' to the crowns of the dominant 
overstory trees may benefit ecologically from thinning treatments that 
cut and remove such vegetation. The risk of uncharacteristic fire 
intensity and spread may thus be reduced, provided the excess ladder 
fuels and unutilized coarse and fine fuels created by logging are 
removed from the site (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-91). Also, in some situations, 
cutting or removal of small diameter timber may be needed for recovery 
or conservation of threatened, endangered, proposed or sensitive 
species to improve stand structure or reduce encroachment into meadows 
or other natural openings.
    In any event, all such determinations of what constitutes 
``generally small diameter timber'' will consider how the cutting or 
removal of various size classes of trees would affect the potential for 
future development of the stand, and the characteristics and inter-
relationships of plant and animal communities associated with the site 
and the overall landscape. Site productivity due to factors such as 
moisture and elevational gradients, site aspect, and soil types will be 
considered, as well as how such cutting or removal of various size 
classes of standing or down timber would mimic the role and legacies of 
natural disturbance regimes in providing the habitat patches, 
connectivity, and structural diversity critical to maintaining 
biological diversity. In all cases, the cutting, sale, or removal of 
small diameter timber will be consistent with maintaining or improving 
one or more of the roadless area characteristics as defined in 
Sec. 294.11.
    Comment on Scope of the Prohibitions. Many respondents urged the 
agency to expand the prohibitions to prohibit timber harvesting, 
mining, and other activities that harm the undeveloped characteristics 
of inventoried roadless areas.
    Response. In preparing the FEIS, the scope of prohibited actions 
considered in detail was limited to road construction, road 
reconstruction, and timber harvesting, because these activities pose 
disproportionately greater risks of altering and fragmenting natural 
landscapes at regional and national scales (FEIS Vol. 1, 1-15 to 1-16). 
In addition, the agency can analyze potential social and ecological 
effects based on the five-year timber sale program of each national 
forest. Other uses, although potentially as harmful to roadless area 
values and characteristics, are not scheduled in such a fashion and are 
more appropriately reviewed through land and resource management 
planning.
    The agency has decided to prohibit timber harvesting because it 
provides additional protection for roadless area characteristics beyond 
that provided by a prohibition on road construction alone. However, the 
agency agrees with those respondents who asserted that science-based 
forest management might require some level of vegetative management in 
inventoried roadless areas. Thus, the agency has decided to allow some 
timber harvesting for clearly defined purposes in the final rule at 
294.13(b)(1) through (b)(4).
    Comment on Wildlife Habitat Management. Many respondents, including 
some State wildlife management agencies, were concerned that a timber 
harvest prohibition would preclude all wildlife habitat management 
opportunities.
    Response. As provided by final 294.13(b)(1), tree cutting for 
wildlife habitat improvement could proceed if it is designed to 
maintain or help restore ecosystem composition or structure to 
conditions within the range of variability that would be expected to 
occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period. 
This will allow the agency to manage for the full range of habitat 
types needed to support the diversity of native and desired non-native 
species.
    Comments on Uncharacteristic Wildfire Effects. Of particular 
interest to many respondents because of the severity of the 2000 fire 
season, was how the agency would manage inventoried roadless areas to 
reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects.

[[Page 3258]]

    Response. The effects of uncharacteristic wildfires often include 
unnatural increases in wildfire size, severity, and resistance to 
control and the associated impacts to people and property. These 
uncharacteristic effects have been caused primarily by past wildfire 
suppression, and past timber harvesting and grazing practices. These 
have contributed to often-dramatic changes in some areas in wildfire 
frequency, size, and severity (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-72 to 3-73). The 
vegetative structure, density, and composition of these areas have 
changed when compared to less altered ecosystems (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-144).
    The use of timber harvesting, as permitted by this rule, and other 
fuel management techniques will help maintain ecosystem composition and 
structure within its historic range of variability at the landscape 
scale. Treatment priorities will be consistent with those identified in 
the report Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted 
Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy (November 9, 2000; 65 FR 67480). These 
include wildland-urban interface areas, readily accessible municipal 
watersheds, and threatened and endangered species habitat. Since 
wildland-urban interface areas and readily accessible municipal 
watersheds rarely occur in or adjacent to inventoried roadless areas, 
most fire hazard reduction work would not begin in inventoried roadless 
areas for at least 20 years, the estimated time it would take to 
address the extremely hazardous fuel situations outside inventoried 
roadless areas (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-78). However, hazardous fuels treatment 
in inventoried roadless areas is not prohibited by this rule, so long 
as road construction or reconstruction is not necessary. Vegetative 
management would focus on removing generally small diameter trees while 
leaving the overstory trees intact. The cutting, sale, or removal of 
trees pursuant to 294.13(b)(1) must be clearly shown through project 
level analysis to contribute to the ecological objectives described. 
Such management activities are expected to be rare and to focus on 
small diameter trees. Thinning of small diameter trees, for example, 
that became established as the result of missed fire return intervals 
due to fire suppression and the condition of which greatly increases 
the likelihood of uncharacteristic wildfire effects would be 
permissible.
    Summary of Changes in new section 294.13 of the Final Rule. The 
final rule adds a new prohibition on timber harvesting except for 
clearly defined, limited purposes, when incidental to the 
implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited by 
this rule; for personal or administrative use; or where roadless 
characteristics have been substantially altered in a portion of an 
inventoried roadless area due to the construction of a classified road 
and subsequent timber harvest. Paragraph (a) establishes a prohibition 
on timber cutting, sale, or removal in inventoried roadless areas 
except as provided in paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) makes clear that the 
cutting, sale, or removal of timber in inventoried roadless areas is 
expected to be infrequent, but allows timber cutting, sale, or removal 
as identified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4).
    Paragraph (b)(1) allows generally small diameter timber to be cut, 
sold, or removed in inventoried roadless areas where it maintains one 
or more of the roadless area characteristics as defined in Sec. 294.11 
and: (1) improves habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed or 
sensitive species or (2) maintains or restores the characteristics of 
ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce uncharacteristic 
wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would be 
expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current 
climatic period.
    Paragraph (b)(2) allows timber cutting, sale, or removal in 
inventoried roadless areas when incidental to implementation of a 
management activity not otherwise prohibited by this rule. Examples of 
these activities include, but are not limited to trail construction or 
maintenance; removal of hazard trees adjacent to classified roads for 
public health and safety reasons; fire line construction for wildland 
fire suppression or control of prescribed fire; survey and maintenance 
of property boundaries; other authorized activities such as ski runs 
and utility corridors; or for road construction and reconstruction 
where allowed by this rule.
    Paragraph (b)(3) allows timber cutting, sale, or removal for 
personal or administrative use as provided for at 36 CFR part 223. 
Personal use includes activities such as Christmas tree and firewood 
cutting. Administrative use includes providing materials for activities 
such as construction of footbridges and fences.
    Paragraph (b)(4) allows the cutting, sale, or removal of timber 
where roadless characteristics have been substantially altered in a 
portion of an inventoried roadless area due to the construction of a 
classified road and subsequent timber harvest. The road construction 
and subsequent timber harvest must have occurred after the area was 
designated an inventoried roadless area and prior to the date of 
publication of this rule in the Federal Register. Timber may be cut, 
sold, or removed only in the substantially altered portion of the 
inventoried roadless area. This exception recognizes that road 
construction and timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas may 
have altered the roadless characteristics to the extent that the 
purpose of protecting those characteristics cannot be achieved. Timber 
harvest should not expand the area already substantially altered by 
past management. This exception is subject to applicable laws, 
regulations, and land and resource management planning direction. Refer 
to the previous discussion in ``Comment on Unroaded Portion of an 
Inventoried Roadless Area'' in the ``Proposed Sec. 294.11 Definitions'' 
section of this preamble for more information on this subject.
    Proposed 294.13. Consideration of roadless area conservation during 
forest plan revision. This section of the proposed rule would have 
required the responsible official to evaluate the quality and 
importance of roadless area characteristics and determine whether and 
how to protect these characteristics in the context of multiple-use 
objectives during forest plan revision.
    Comment on Integration with the Planning Rule. Respondents from a 
cross section of timber industry and business interests, State, county 
and Federal representatives, professional associations, and the public 
expressed concern that this section did not provide adequate direction 
on how to consider and implement the criteria and procedures during 
forest plan revision, leading to confusion over integration of this 
section with the proposed planning and road management rulemaking 
initiatives.
    Response on Proposed Section 1294.13. The Department has decided 
that the appropriate place for considering protections for inventoried 
roadless areas, in addition to those in this rule, and protections for 
uninventoried unroaded areas is during the planning process pursuant to 
the new planning regulations at 36 CFR part 219, Subpart A.
    The framework for planning allows for the development of issues 
leading to the proposal of special designations, and also gives ample 
opportunity for the public and others to collaborate on the issue at 
all levels of planning. Based on public comment, specific requirements 
for evaluating inventoried roadless areas and unroaded areas are 
included in Sec. 219.9(b)(8) of the final planning rule (65 FR 67571) 
to emphasize that the

[[Page 3259]]

responsible official must evaluate these areas during the plan revision 
process.
    The new planning regulations provide for consideration of roadless 
areas in the forest planning process in a fashion similar to that set 
out in the proposed rule at Sec. 294.13. Based on the comments received 
and reasons stated previously, the Department has determined that those 
requirements are better considered in the context of 36 CFR part 219. 
Elimination of proposed Sec. 294.13 from the final rule will not have a 
significant effect on the purpose or scope of the final rule or on the 
protections provided to inventoried roadless areas because evaluation 
of inventoried roadless areas and unroaded areas are now integrated 
into the final planning rule.
    Proposed Section 294.14. Scope and applicability. Proposed 
paragraph (a) of this section of the proposed rule provided that 
existing contracts, permits, or other legal instruments authorizing the 
occupancy and use of National Forest System land would not be suspended 
or modified by the rule.
    Comment on Existing Authorized Activities. Some respondents were 
concerned about the impact of the rule on special uses and requested 
clarification regarding the ability to construct or maintain roads in 
inventoried roadless areas to access electric power or telephone lines, 
pipelines, hydropower facilities, and reservoirs. Some suggested that 
proposed Sec. 294.12(b)(3) be revised to read, ``A road is needed 
pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights or as permitted by statute, 
treaty or other authorities.''
    Response. Section 294.14(a) of the proposed rule stated that the 
rule would not suspend or modify any existing permit, contract, or 
other legal instrument authorizing the use and occupancy of National 
Forest System lands. Existing authorized uses would be allowed to 
maintain and operate within the parameters of their current 
authorization, including any provisions regarding access. Adding the 
wording ``other authorities'' to this paragraph is not necessary as the 
term ``other legal instrument'' adequately covers other existing 
authorizations.
    Under paragraph (a), road construction or reconstruction associated 
with ongoing implementation of special use authorizations would not be 
prohibited. For example, all activities anticipated and described in an 
authorized ski area's master plan, such as construction or maintenance 
of ski trails and ski runs, the use of over snow vehicles or off-
highway vehicles necessary for ski area operations, including 
associated road construction, would not be prohibited even if a 
specific decision authorizing road construction has not been made as of 
the date of publication of this rule in the Federal Register. Likewise, 
activities necessary to a mineral lease authorization issued prior to 
the date of publication of this rule would not be prohibited even if a 
specific decision authorizing road construction has not been made as of 
the date of publication of this rule in the Federal Register. A phrase 
has been added to clarify that this paragraph only applies to permits, 
contracts, or other legal instruments issued before the date of 
publication of this rule in the Federal Register. The term ``revoke'' 
has been added to this provision to clarify that this final rule will 
not revoke existing permits, contracts, or other legal instruments.
    Proposed Sec. 294.14(b) made clear that the final rule would not 
require units to initiate land management plan amendments or revisions.
    Comment on Land Management Plan Amendments. Some respondents 
commented that the proposed rule is a ``massive change'' in existing 
land management plan direction or land allocation, without amendment or 
revision of land management plans as required by the National Forest 
Management Act. Some respondents suggested that amendments were 
necessary in order to consider site-specific biological and socio-
economic information.
    Response. The Secretary has extensive rulemaking authority 
governing forest management and development of land management plans. 
Just as development and approval of land management plans must conform 
to existing laws and regulations, new laws or regulations can supersede 
land management plan management direction. Requiring ``conforming 
amendments'' to land management plans would be redundant of the 
rulemaking process.
    Local responsible officials' discretion to initiate land and 
resource management plan amendments, as deemed necessary, would not be 
limited by this provision. There may be instances where a local 
responsible official elects to initiate amendment or revision of forest 
and grassland plans following final promulgation of this final rule. 
While the analysis undertaken at the national scale is sufficient for 
the prohibitions established pursuant to this rulemaking, the 
Department appreciates that additional management issues may need to be 
addressed, both within and outside of inventoried roadless areas. The 
local official is best positioned to assess whether any such adjustment 
is necessary. For example, although the local official is not free to 
re-examine the prohibitions established by this rule, it may be 
appropriate to consider amendments to land and resource management 
plans regarding plan decisions that guide the use of inventoried 
roadless areas in light of the final rule.
    Forest Service officials have several mechanisms that allow for 
evaluation of forest and grassland plan implementation, including plan-
specific monitoring provisions, the amendment and revision process, and 
project-level decisionmaking. A determination to amend or revise a land 
and resource management plan is based on a variety of factors. Forest 
Supervisors and Regional Foresters have substantial discretion in 
determining whether or not to initiate plan amendments or revisions.
    In the early stages of forest plan amendment or revision, or any 
decisionmaking process involving land management practices, Regional 
Foresters, Forest Supervisors, and District Rangers must actively seek 
input and participation by State, local, and Tribal officials and other 
affected or interested parties. Therefore, this provision is retained 
without change in the final rule.
    Paragraph (c), as proposed, provided that the regulation, if 
adopted, would not suspend or modify any decision made prior to the 
effective date of the final rule.
    Comment on Effect on Project Planning. Some respondents questioned 
whether implementation of the rule would prohibit projects where 
planning is already underway. Most of the comments on this paragraph 
were related to current and future ski area development, although other 
land uses would be treated in a similar manner. Some respondents 
asserted that exemptions from the rule should include all lands or 
activities described in existing ski area special use permits or master 
development plans. Specifically listed were White Pass, Arapahoe Basin, 
Sierra at Tahoe, Pallavicini, Alleys Trails, Mammoth Mountain, June 
Mountain, Tamarack Resort and Cross Country Skiing Center, and Mammoth 
Snowmobile Adventures. Respondents also stated that the proposed 
Pelican Butte Ski Area and expansion of the Sipapu Ski Area should be 
allowed to continue their current planning processes and that the 
agency should also allow expansion of commercial recreation activities 
to benefit local people. Others took an opposing view, stating that the 
agency should not exempt from the rule any

[[Page 3260]]

new ski areas or expansion of any existing ski areas at Pelican Butte, 
Mount Ashland, Copper Creek, Sherwin, Beaver Creek, Mammoth Mountain, 
June Mountain, and others.
    Response. Road construction and timber harvest for expansion of ski 
areas, resorts, or other recreation developments in inventoried 
roadless areas would be allowed under paragraph (a) as previously 
discussed, subject to existing Forest Service procedures, if special 
use permits are in existence prior to the date of publication of this 
rule in the Federal Register and proposed activities take place within 
the boundaries established by the special use authorization (FEIS Vol. 
1, 3-226). The requirement that a permit be in existence prior to the 
effective date of this rule has been changed in the final rule to 
require that the permit be in existence prior to the date of 
publication of this rule in the Federal Register. This change was 
necessary because the effective date of this rule is delayed 60 days 
from the date of publication.
    Road construction and timber harvest would also be allowed for new 
ski areas, or expansions of existing ski areas outside the existing 
special use permit boundaries, in inventoried roadless areas provided 
that the expansion or construction was approved by a signed Record of 
Decision, Decision Notice, or Decision Memorandum before the date of 
publication of the rule in the Federal Register (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-226). 
Under paragraph (c), project decisions for any activity made prior to 
the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register would 
be altered.
    Summary of Changes in Sec. 294.14 of the Final Rule. Under 
paragraph (a) of the final rule, road construction, road 
reconstruction, and timber harvest associated with ongoing 
implementation of special use authorizations are not prohibited. The 
term ``revoke'' and the date of publication of this rule in the Federal 
Register were added to clarify agency intent.
    Paragraph (b) makes clear that the final rule would not require 
units to initiate land management plan amendments or revisions and is 
adopted without change.
    Paragraph (c) states that project decisions made prior to the date 
of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register would not be 
altered. The term revoke was added to clarify agency intent. The 
requirement in the proposed rule that a project decision be in 
existence prior to the effective date of this rule has been changed in 
the final rule to require that the project decision be in existence 
prior to the date of publication of this rule in the Federal Register. 
This change was necessary because the effective date of this rule is 
delayed 60 days from the date of publication.
    Proposed paragraph (d) was a ``severability'' or ``savings'' 
clause. This provision identifies the Department's intention that, in 
the event any provision is determined invalid, the remaining portions 
of the rule would remain in force. No comments were received on this 
provision; it has been redesignated as paragraph (f) in the final rule 
and retained without change.
    A new paragraph (d) has been added to the final rule which provides 
that the prohibitions in the final rule do not apply to road 
construction, reconstruction, or the cutting, sale or removal of timber 
from inventoried roadless areas on the Tongass National Forest where a 
notice of availability for a draft environmental impact statement for 
such activities has been published in the Federal Register prior to the 
date of publication of this rule in the Federal Register. This 
mitigation measure allows an adjustment period for the timber program 
in Southeast Alaska, but will also assure the long-term protection of 
the Forest's unique ecological values and characteristics. Refer to the 
previous discussion in the section entitled, ``Comment on Application 
to the Tongass National Forest,'' in, ``Proposed Sec. 294.12. 
Prohibition on road construction and reconstruction in inventoried 
roadless areas.''
    To replace and serve the same purpose as proposed Sec. 294.13(f), a 
new Sec. 294.14(e) has been added to the final rule to address the 
recently adopted planning regulations at 36 CFR part 219, which require 
the responsible official to determine which inventoried roadless areas 
warrant additional protection. Consistent with the original proposal, 
this new paragraph (e) makes clear that, in determining whether 
additional protections are needed for any inventoried roadless area, 
the responsible official cannot reconsider or set aside the 
prohibitions established in Sec. 294.12 or Sec. 294.13.

What Other Issues Were Considered in the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement?

    Environmental Effects. Another major issue among those who 
commented on the proposed rule and DEIS was the environmental effects 
of the alternatives on inventoried roadless area characteristics. It 
was also the most important consideration in selection of an 
alternative. The purpose and need for this proposed action is based on 
the premise that inventoried roadless areas have characteristics that 
should be conserved and maintained. Road construction, reconstruction, 
and timber harvesting are the activities most likely to harm the 
characteristics that the agency is seeking to protect. The FEIS 
documents the contribution of inventoried roadless area characteristics 
to watershed health and water quality, to biological strongholds for 
terrestrial and aquatic species, and to habitat for threatened, 
endangered, and sensitive species. The effects of road construction, 
reconstruction, and timber harvesting on those characteristics are also 
documented.
    Additionally, some respondents commented on the discussion of 
spiritual values of inventoried roadless areas in chapter 3 of the 
DEIS. Some thought it was inappropriate to discuss spiritual values in 
an environmental analysis produced by the Federal government. Others 
thought these values were important to consider in the rulemaking 
process because inventoried roadless areas provided an important 
setting for their personal spiritual renewal. Reconciling divergent 
viewpoints on spiritual values is beyond the scope of this proposal. 
The decision for this rulemaking was not based on the beliefs or 
principles of one religion or another, but based on the science, 
policies and laws that guide the decisionmaking process.
    Alternative 1 in the FEIS is the no action alternative and, if 
selected, would not have restricted activities in inventoried roadless 
areas. While it would not fund, authorize, compel, or carry out any 
activity in an inventoried roadless area, this alternative does have 
the greatest potential for adverse impact on the characteristics the 
agency seeks to protect. It allows the most roads to be constructed and 
reconstructed and the most timber to be harvested.
    Action Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 in the FEIS all provide ecological 
benefits from prohibiting road construction and reconstruction. The 
major difference among these alternatives is that Alternative 2 does 
not restrict timber harvesting; Alternative 3 prohibits timber 
harvesting for commodity purposes, but allows timber harvesting for 
clearly defined purposes and circumstances; and Alternative 4 prohibits 
all timber cutting (except that which may be needed for protection or 
recovery of threatened, endangered, or proposed species). In 
alternatives 2, 3, and 4, personal and administrative use harvest, 
including firewood and Christmas tree cutting, would be permitted. 
Limited tree cutting could occur incidental to other management 
activities, such as trail construction or

[[Page 3261]]

maintenance, hazard tree removal adjacent to classified roads for 
public health and safety reasons, fire line construction for wildland 
fire suppression or control of prescribed fire, or survey and 
maintenance of property boundaries.
    The preferred alternative in the FEIS would prohibit all timber 
harvest activities in inventories roadless areas except for clearly 
defined purposes. The final rule provides for the cutting, sale or 
removal of timber in substantially altered portions of inventoried 
roadless areas for any purpose as long as the activities do not require 
additional road construction or reconstruction. By allowing some 
additional level of timber harvest activity compared to the FEIS 
preferred alternative, there is an increase in the likelihood of 
related environmental impacts and decrease in the environmental 
benefits accrued through the more stringent prohibition in the 
preferred alternative.
    The DEIS estimated that approximately 2.8 million of the 58.5 
million acres of inventoried roadless areas had been roaded since the 
areas were designated as inventoried roadless areas. Some portion of 
these roaded areas had also been impacted by subsequent management 
activities facilitated by the road access. It is unknown exactly what 
portion of these 2.8 million acres has sustained sufficient road 
construction and timber harvest to substantially alter their roadless 
characteristics. The determination of whether roadless characteristics 
have been substantially altered is to be made following a site-specific 
evaluation. Before any project is authorized that allows the cutting, 
sale, or removal of timber in an inventoried roadless area, it will 
subject to site-specific analysis following existing laws and 
regulations.
    Current timber harvesting practices have less impact on the 
environment than they have had in the past. Increased knowledge, new 
equipment and techniques, and the application of best management 
practices have helped to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of 
timber harvest activities. However, timber-harvesting practices still 
impact roadless area characteristics, contributing to the fragmentation 
of habitat and threatening their ability to function as biological 
strongholds, reference areas, and provide other roadless values.
    The final rule allows timber harvesting of generally small diameter 
timber for limited purposes when it maintains or improves one or more 
roadless area characteristics and: (1) Improves threatened, endangered, 
proposed, and sensitive species habitat or (2) maintains or restores 
the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as to 
reduce the risks of uncharacteristic wildfire effects. The final rule 
also allows timber to be cut, sold, or removed where roadless 
characteristics have been substantially altered in a portion of an 
inventoried roadless area due to the construction of a classified road 
and subsequent timber harvest, and such road construction and 
subsequent timber harvest occurred after the area was designated an 
inventoried roadless area. Roadless area characteristics are identified 
in Sec. 294.11 as: (1) High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and 
air; (2) sources of public drinking water; (3) diversity of plant and 
animal communities; (4) habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, 
candidate, and sensitive species and for those species dependent on 
large, relatively undisturbed areas of land; (5) primitive, semi-
primitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes of 
dispersed recreation; (6) reference landscapes; (7) naturally appearing 
landscapes with high scenic quality; (8) traditional cultural 
properties and sacred sites; and (9) other locally identified unique 
characteristics (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-3 to 3-7).
    Forest Dependent Communities. Impacts to forest dependent 
communities were a major issue among those who commented on the 
proposed rule and DEIS. Under Alternative 1 of the FEIS, the flow of 
goods and services would continue according to current policies and 
land management direction. Alternatives 2 through 4 could reduce future 
timber harvest, mineral exploration and development, and other 
activities such as ski area development in inventoried roadless areas. 
Communities with significant economic activities in these sectors could 
be adversely impacted. However, the effects on national social and 
economic systems are minor. For example, the total timber volume 
affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States 
production, and the total oil and gas production from all National 
Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current 
national production. None of the alternatives are likely to have 
measurable impacts compared to the broader social and economic 
conditions and trends observable at these scales, however the effects 
of the alternatives are not distributed evenly across the United States 
(FEIS Vol. 1, 3-326 to 3-350).
    To reduce the economic impact of this decision, the Chief of the 
Forest Service will seek to implement one or more of the following 
provisions of an economic transition program for communities most 
affected by application of the prohibitions in inventoried roadless 
areas (FEIS Vol. 1, 2-14):
    (1) Provide financial assistance to stimulate community-led 
transition programs and projects in communities most affected by 
application of the prohibitions in inventoried roadless areas;
    (2) Through financial support and action plans, attract public and 
private interests, both financial and technical, to aid in successfully 
implementing local transition projects and plans by coordinating with 
other Federal and State agencies and;
    (3) Assist local, State, Tribal and Federal partners in working 
with those communities most affected by the final roadless area 
decision.
    Local Decisionmaking. The potential effect of the proposed rule on 
local involvement in decisionmaking was a major issue identified by 
many respondents to the DEIS. As described in both the DEIS and FEIS, 
Alternative 1 would allow local land managers the discretion on whether 
to construct or reconstruct roads or harvest timber for commodity 
purposes in inventoried roadless areas. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would 
remove the local decisionmaking authority only for these specific 
activities. All other management decisions regarding inventoried 
roadless areas would be made through National Forest System planning 
procedures. Under all alternatives, management decisions for unroaded 
areas would be made under the provisions of the new planning 
regulations at 36 CFR part 219. As explained in the ``National 
Direction v. Local Decisionmaking'' discussion, the agency has 
determined that national direction is needed to address the issues 
regarding road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvesting in 
inventoried roadless areas.

The Final Rule and Alternatives Considered

What Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Were Considered by the 
Agency?

    The agency identified two methods to conserve the remaining 
inventoried roadless areas in the notice of intent for the proposed 
rule. The first method evaluated whether road construction, 
reconstruction, and timber harvest should be prohibited in inventoried 
roadless areas. The second method examined the establishment of 
procedures to evaluate and conserve roadless area characteristics 
during land

[[Page 3262]]

and resource management plan revisions. These methods were incorporated 
into the proposed rule and alternatives analyzed in the DEIS. Since 
publication of the proposed rule, the agency has published final Land 
and Resource Management Planning Regulations at 36 CFR part 219. The 
draft and subsequent final planning regulations also provided direction 
to integrate the consideration of roadless area characteristics into 
the amendment and revision procedures of land and resource management 
plans for National Forest System lands. This detailed direction in the 
final planning regulations eliminated the need for the procedures 
considered in the Roadless Area Conservation DEIS and proposed rule. 
Therefore, these procedures have been omitted from the FEIS and final 
rule.
    Public comments on the notice of intent identified a variety of 
suggestions for alternatives, including different types and 
combinations of prohibitions, procedures, and exemptions (Summary of 
Public Comment for the Notice of Intent, Content Analysis Enterprise 
Team, 2000). Comments on the DEIS and proposed rule provided detailed 
ways in which to modify the alternatives (Summary of Public Comment for 
the DEIS, Content Analysis Enterprise Team, 2000).
    Summaries of public comment on the notice of intent, proposed rule 
and the DEIS are part of the record for this rulemaking, and can be 
viewed at the agency's roadless website (roadless.fs.fed.us). The 
agency's response to comments on the DEIS and proposed rule can be 
found in Volume 3 of the FEIS. This information was used in forming the 
alternatives in the FEIS (Chapter 2), which frame the choices for this 
final rule.
    With the removal of the procedures, the agency had two basic 
decisions to make, with four alternatives for each decision. The first 
decision was whether road construction, reconstruction, or timber 
harvesting should be prohibited in National Forest System inventoried 
roadless areas, or some combination of the three. The second decision 
was whether the proposed national prohibitions should be applied to the 
Tongass National Forest or modified to meet the unique situation on the 
Tongass.
    Four alternatives, including a no action alternative, were 
developed to cover the range of possible prohibited activities in 
inventoried roadless areas consistent with the stated purpose and need. 
Four alternative ways of applying the prohibitions to the Tongass 
National Forest were developed as well (FEIS Vol. 1, 2-3 to 2-12). 
Various other alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed 
study (FEIS Vol. 1, 2-15 to 2-22).
    Prohibition Alternatives. Alternative 1 allowed road construction 
and reconstruction to continue, subject to existing land management 
plan prescriptions. There was no national restriction on timber 
harvesting. This was the no action alternative.
    Prohibition Alternative 2 prohibited road construction and 
reconstruction activities, including temporary road construction, in 
inventoried roadless areas. There was no national restriction on timber 
harvesting.
    Prohibition Alternative 3 prohibited road construction and 
reconstruction activities, including temporary road construction, in 
inventoried roadless areas. Timber harvesting was allowed for clearly 
defined stewardship purposes only, where harvesting could only be used 
when it maintained or improved roadless characteristics and: (1) 
improved habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed or sensitive 
species, (2) reduced uncharacteristic wildfire effects, or (3) restored 
ecological structure, function, process or composition. Timber harvest 
for commodity purposes was prohibited.
    The definition of timber harvesting for stewardship purposes was 
reviewed and refined between the proposed rule and the FEIS to more 
clearly state the agency's intent and to ensure effective protection of 
roadless characteristics. In the DEIS, timber harvesting for 
stewardship purposes could be interpreted to accommodate any non-timber 
production resource management objective that required removal of 
forest vegetation. Many respondents were concerned about the agency's 
broad use of timber harvest for stewardship purposes on National Forest 
System lands. They believed that stewardship purpose timber harvest in 
inventoried roadless areas needed to be more clearly defined.
    The agency agreed that it needed to clearly state the intended 
purposes for stewardship harvest in inventoried roadless areas. The 
FEIS identified the range of allowable objectives that are consistent 
with timber harvesting for stewardship purposes in inventoried roadless 
areas. In doing so, local decisions about timber harvesting within 
inventoried roadless areas must maintain or improve one or more 
roadless characteristics, while focusing on improving threatened, 
endangered, proposed, or sensitive species habitat; reducing the risk 
of uncharacteristic wildfire effects; or restoring ecological 
processes.
    Alternative 4 prohibited road construction and reconstruction 
activities, including temporary road construction, in inventoried 
roadless areas. No timber cutting was allowed for stewardship or 
commodity purposes, except where it was necessary for the protection of 
threatened or endangered species.
    Exceptions and Mitigation Measures. The agency identified an 
initial set of exceptions to the prohibition alternatives, as set out 
in the DEIS and proposed rule. The exceptions addressed the following 
circumstances where the prohibitions did not apply and are set out in 
the final rule at Sec. 294.12(b)(1) through (b)(4). These include 
circumstances where a road is needed to: (1) protect public health and 
safety; (2) to conduct an environmental response action; (3) pursuant 
to reserved or outstanding rights or as provided for by statute or 
treaty; or (4) road realignment is needed to prevent irreparable 
resource damage by a classified road.
    Based on comments received on the proposed rule and the DEIS, the 
agency developed and considered additional optional exceptions that 
mitigated the effects of the prohibition alternatives (FEIS Vol. 1, 2-8 
to 2-9). These exceptions were available for selection as part of the 
final rule to reduce or eliminate undesirable social and economic 
impacts. Any or none of these optional exceptions could have been 
selected as part of the final rule. If selected, these exceptions would 
state that the responsible official may authorize road construction or 
reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas where: (1) reconstruction 
is needed to implement road safety improvements; (2) the Secretary 
determines that a Federal Aid Highway project is in the public interest 
or consistent with the purposes for which the land was reserved or 
acquired; or (3) a road is needed for prospective mineral leasing 
activities in inventoried roadless areas.
    Tongass National Forest Alternatives. The second decision was to 
select one of the four alternatives created specifically for the 
Tongass National Forest (FEIS Vol. 1, 2-9). Based on public comments 
and the agency's decision to integrate procedures for evaluating 
roadless area characteristics into the planning rule, some of the 
Tongass alternatives presented in the DEIS were modified accordingly.
    The Tongass Not Exempt alternative applied the same prohibition 
alternative to the Tongass National Forest that applied to the rest of 
National Forest System lands. An optional social and

[[Page 3263]]

economic mitigation measure was developed for the Tongass Not Exempt 
alternative that delayed implementation of the selected prohibition 
alternative on the Tongass National Forest until April 2004 in order to 
provide a transition period for communities most affected by changes 
that may result if this alternative were enacted.
    The Tongass Exempt alternative did not apply a national prohibition 
to the Tongass National Forest. It allowed road construction and 
reconstruction on the Tongass to continue subject to existing land 
management plan prescriptions. Future proposals for road activities in 
inventoried roadless areas would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
    The Tongass Deferred alternative postponed the decision on whether 
to apply prohibitions to the Tongass National Forest until April 2004, 
when an evaluation to determine whether the prohibitions against road 
construction and reconstruction should apply to any or all inventoried 
roadless areas would be conducted as part of the scheduled 5-year 
review of the April 1999 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan.
    The Tongass Selected Areas alternative applied the prohibitions on 
road construction and reconstruction within inventoried roadless areas 
located in certain land use designations (LUDs) identified in the 
Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, specifically those of Old 
Growth Habitat, Semi-Remote Recreation, Remote Recreation, and LUD II. 
See Appendix E of Volume 1 of the FEIS for a complete description of 
these land use designations.

What is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative?

    Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the agency is required 
to identify the environmentally preferred alternative (40 CFR 
1505.2(b)). This is interpreted to mean the alternative that would 
cause the least damage to the biological and physical components of the 
environment, and, which best protects, preserves, and enhances 
historic, cultural, and natural resources (Council on Environmental 
Quality, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National 
Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026). Factors considered 
in identifying this alternative include: (1) fulfilling the 
responsibility of this generation as trustee of the environment for 
future generations, (2) providing for a productive and aesthetically 
pleasing environment, (3) attaining the widest range of beneficial uses 
of the environment without degradation, (4) preserving important 
natural components of the environment, including biodiversity, (5) 
balancing population needs and resource use, and (6) enhancing the 
quality of renewable resources.
    The agency believes the alternative that best meets these 
objectives is Alternative 3 combined with the Tongass Not Exempt 
alternative, without any social or economic mitigation. Alternative 3 
protects inventoried roadless areas from adverse environmental impacts 
associated with road construction, reconstruction, and timber 
harvesting for commodity purposes, as identified in Chapter 3 of the 
FEIS.
    Alternative 4, by prohibiting timber cutting of any kind (except 
for protection or recovery of threatened, endangered, and proposed 
species), does not allow for the array of vegetation management 
potentially necessary to maintain or improve roadless characteristics, 
reduce the risks of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, or restore 
ecological structure, function, processes, or composition. Timber 
harvesting for the limited purposes under Alternative 3 would allow 
needed biological treatments to promote a healthy forest for future 
generations. Alternative 2, although providing for protection from road 
construction and reconstruction, would still permit harvesting of trees 
for commodity purposes that could conflict with protecting the physical 
and biological environment.
    Alternative 3, like the other alternatives, contains exceptions 
that allow road construction and reconstruction for important human and 
environmental protection measures, such as protection of public health 
and safety from imminent threats of flood and fire, treatment to clean 
up hazardous pollution sites, and road realignment to prevent 
irreparable resource damage. These are important exceptions needed to 
enhance the productivity and esthetics of the environment. Social and 
economic mitigation measures are not part of this environmentally 
preferred Alternative 3 because these measures, although important to 
reduce the social and economic effects of the action alternatives, do 
not contribute to the protection of the physical or biological 
environment.
    The Tongass National Forest is part of the northern Pacific coast 
ecoregion, an ecoregion that contains one fourth of the world's coastal 
temperate rainforests. As stated in the FEIS, the forest's high degree 
of overall ecosystem health is largely due to its quantity and quality 
of inventoried roadless areas and other special designated areas. The 
``Tongass Not Exempt'' alternative would immediately apply prohibitions 
to all inventoried roadless areas and is the environmentally preferred 
alternative. The other Tongass alternatives either delay or limit the 
inventoried roadless area land base to which the prohibitions would 
apply, or defer the decision regarding prohibitions altogether. The 
adverse environmental impacts of these alternatives are disclosed in 
Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

What Is in the Final Rule and What Are the Reasons for Selecting That 
Alternative?

    Selection of an alternative to be adopted in the final rule 
requires careful consideration of the environmental effects, including 
cumulative, social, and economic impacts, and the relative values of 
the various resources to arrive at a fair and reasoned decision to 
achieve the stated purpose and need for inventoried roadless area 
protection (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-392 to 3-403). As stated previously, courts 
have held that the agency has wide discretion in weighing and deciding 
the proper administration of National Forest System lands.
    The Department's judgment regarding the appropriate administration 
of these lands is embodied in the policies described in this final 
rule. First and foremost, the Department wants to ensure that 
inventoried roadless areas sustain their values for this and future 
generations. By sustaining these values, a continuous flow of benefits 
associated with healthy watersheds and ecosystems is provided. These 
benefits include sources for clean drinking water, fish habitat, 
wildlife habitat, biological diversity, and dispersed outdoor 
recreational opportunities. Not only are short-term economic and 
environmental factors considered, but also the long-term productivity 
of these lands which are so critical to strong, productive economies.
    Evaluation of these considerations for this decision is based 
primarily on these qualitative factors. Quantitative factors, such as 
volume of timber offered for sale, or roadless acres protected, were 
also considered and are helpful to distinguish and compare the 
alternatives (FEIS Vol. 1, 2-24 to 2-38), and their effects (FEIS 
Chapter 3).
    Prohibition Alternatives. Alternative 1 in the FEIS has the 
greatest potential for adverse impact on watershed health and water 
quality by allowing increased sedimentation and disruption of 
hydrologic processes; the greatest potential for adverse impact on 
biodiversity by fragmenting habitat for threatened, endangered, and 
sensitive

[[Page 3264]]

species; the greatest potential for adverse impact on aquatic and 
terrestrial habitat; and the greatest potential for increase in 
competition from invasive non-native species. This alternative was not 
selected because it did not meet the specified purpose and need for 
this action.
    Action Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 in the FEIS all provide ecological 
benefits from prohibiting road construction and reconstruction. The 
major difference among these alternatives is that Alternative 2 allows 
timber harvesting without restriction; Alternative 3 prohibits timber 
harvesting for commodity purposes, but allows timber harvesting for 
clearly defined purposes and limited circumstances; and Alternative 4 
prohibits all timber cutting (except that which may be needed for 
protection or recovery of threatened, endangered, or proposed species). 
Personal and administrative use harvest, including firewood and 
Christmas tree cutting, would be permitted. Tree removal could occur 
when associated with management activities not otherwise prohibited by 
the final rule, such as trail construction or maintenance, hazard tree 
removal adjacent to classified roads for public health and safety 
reasons, fire line construction for wildland fire suppression or 
control of prescribed fire, or survey and maintenance of property 
boundaries.
    Alternative 2 was not selected because it posed more risks to 
roadless characteristics than Alternatives 3 or 4. Timber harvesting 
for clearly defined, limited purposes can be a valuable tool for 
conserving and improving roadless area values and should be available 
as a management option for the local responsible official. Therefore, 
the Department did not select Alternative 4 and is selecting 
Alternative 3.
    Reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects is one way 
of restoring ecological processes. The final rule recognizes this by 
eliminating ``reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects'' 
as a separate purpose and instead uses it as an example of restoring 
ecological processes. Also, to address concern about the meaning and 
implementation of stewardship purpose timber harvest that ``restores 
ecological structure, function, processes, and composition'' described 
in the FEIS, the final rule eliminates use of the term ``stewardship''. 
Instead, the rule relies on the purposes specifically listed and 
mirrors language from the new planning regulations at 36 CFR part 219 
stating that timber harvest is allowed in order to maintain or restore 
the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure within the 
range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural 
disturbance regimes of the current climatic period.
    Alternatives 2 through 4 could reduce future timber harvest, 
mineral exploration and development, and other activities such as ski 
area development in inventoried roadless areas. Communities with 
significant economic activities in these sectors could be adversely 
impacted. However, the effects on the social and economic situation 
nationally are minor. For example, the reduction in timber harvest from 
National Forest System lands is less than 3%, which is less than 0.5 
percent of total United States timber production. The total oil and gas 
production from all National Forest System lands is about 0.4 percent 
of the current national production, and the oil and gas resources 
located inside inventoried roadless areas are an insignificant portion 
of total resources.
    Rights of reasonable access to prospect and explore lands open to 
mineral entry and to develop valid claims, would be unaffected under 
these alternatives as provided by the General Mining Law. Reasonable 
rights of access may include, but are not limited to, road construction 
and reconstruction, helicopters, or other nonmotorized access (FEIS 
Vol. 1, 3-254). None of the alternatives are likely to have measurable 
impacts compared to the broader social and economic conditions and 
trends observable at these scales; however, the effects of the 
alternatives are not distributed evenly across the United States (FEIS 
Vol. 1, 3-329 to 3-350).
    Comment was received concerning the cumulative relationship of the 
Roadless Area Conservation Rule with the Bureau of Land Management's 
proposed rule for Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws; Surface 
Management, published on February 9, 1999 (64 FR 6422). Since that 
comment was received, the Mining Claims rule became final (65 FR 69998, 
November 21, 2000). Both the final Roadless Area Conservation Rule and 
the final Bureau of Land Management mining rule have comparable goals 
to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands. However, 
the Roadless Area Conservation Rule at 294.12(b)(3) does not affect 
rights of reasonable access to prospect and explore lands open to 
mineral entry and to develop valid claims. Reasonable access includes, 
road construction or reconstruction for mining activities covered under 
the General Mining Law, while the performance standards at proposed 
3809.420(c) would require that permitted roads and structures be 
designed, constructed, and maintained to control or prevent erosion, 
siltation, and air pollution and to minimize impacts to resources. 
Cumulative effects of these two rules are expected to be minimal 
because of the exception for locatable minerals under Sec. 294.12(b)(3) 
in the final roadless rule.
    Exceptions. The Department is adopting the exceptions for road 
safety projects and for Federal Aid Highway projects. The exception for 
road safety projects is a narrow exception that only allows road 
reconstruction where past experience or expert opinion has indicated 
that the road design would present a threat to public safety. The 
Department decided to adopt the Federal Aid Highway exception to allow 
road construction based on social considerations and Federal-State 
relationships. The Department believes that this exception will have a 
very limited application, and the Secretary of Agriculture retains the 
discretion to approve or deny authorization when warranted (23 U.S.C. 
317). The analysis in the FEIS identified only one application of this 
exception in the next five years for a proposed 5.5-mile State highway 
relocation project on the Chugach National Forest in Alaska (FEIS Vol. 
1, 3-33).
    After publication of the FEIS for Roadless Area Conservation, the 
Department of Energy (DOE) and the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) received and shared with the Forest Service several letters from 
mining interests outlining their concerns with the preferred 
alternative. The Forest Service also received comments directly from 
the National Mining Association. DOE provided an analysis of potential 
impacts related to oil and gas resources, and compiled information on 
coal resources as well. Upon being informed of these concerns, the 
Forest Service evaluated the information provided by DOE and others. 
The Forest Service also met with and discussed these concerns with DOE.
    The FEIS analysis focused on impacts to coal, phosphate, and oil 
and gas resources, based on input from the national forests and 
grasslands and from public comment on the draft environmental impact 
statement (DEIS) and proposed rule (May 10, 2000; 65 FR 30276). Comment 
received from DOE on the DEIS was focused only on transmission line 
corridors. Potential economic impacts related to existing coal and 
phosphate operations with known plans to expand into inventoried 
roadless areas were quantified in the FEIS (Vol. 1, pp. 3-308 to 3-
324). Areas of known high potential for coal,

[[Page 3265]]

phosphate, and oil and gas were also discussed (Vol. 1. pp. 3-254 to 3-
260). With respect to oil and gas, no attempt was made to estimate the 
proportion of these resources within inventoried roadless areas because 
of the high degree of uncertainty of these estimates.
    After publication of the FEIS for Roadless Area Conservation, the 
Department of Energy (DOE) raised concerns about the potential impacts 
on leasable energy minerals, particularly for natural gas and coal, if 
the final Roadless Area Conservation Rule did not allow road building 
in support of exploration and development for leasable minerals.
    Currently, the NFS lands play a minor role in providing natural gas 
resources, only about 0.4% of national production (76.4 billion cubic 
feet) in 1999. The resource estimates by DOE were made assuming that 
the resources are homogenously distributed across play areas, which is 
generally not the case with oil and gas resources. It is reasonable to 
assume, under the current demand conditions, that there will be 
increased interest in development of natural gas resources on federal 
lands and elsewhere. Some of these areas are not currently available 
for leasing, as a result of leasing decisions or local forest and 
grassland plan decisions. Moreover, current access restrictions would 
make many of these resources unavailable in the near future. In 
addition, the steep terrain that is typical of many inventoried 
roadless areas often makes these areas difficult to access for 
environmental and/or economic reasons. The likelihood of resources 
being recovered from inventoried roadless areas even in the absence of 
a final roadless rule is small, except where leases already exist. 
Finally, where accessible, exploration and development of these 
resources would likely take about 5-10 years before production would 
begin.
    The FEIS described the coal production from NFS lands as accounting 
for about 7% of national production in 1999. The analysis acknowledged 
the increasing national demand for coal, particularly the low-sulfur 
coal found primarily in the western U.S. About 2.5 million acres of 
coal-bearing rock were estimated to occur within inventoried roadless 
areas in the interior West.
    A concern raised by DOE and others was the potential effect on 
users of this low sulfur coal, primarily electric utilities in the 
East. According to DOE, many utility and industrial boilers have been 
designed to blend the western coal with other higher sulfur coal to 
meet their Clean Air Act compliance goals. The DOE analysis did not 
provide any information on the availability of substitute sources of 
coal if supply from existing mines is reduced.
    Overall, the U.S. has abundant coal reserves. Also, alternative 
sources of low-sulfur coal do exist, concentrated in the western U.S., 
mostly in Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming. Additionally, the abundant 
sources of low cost-coal and available technology, such as scrubbers, 
will enable electric utilities to meet their Clean Air Act compliance 
goals.
    Several commentators on the DEIS, including the Governor of the 
State of Utah, had questions about access to state-owned coal. As 
discussed in the FEIS, access based on existing rights would not be 
affected by the final rule, therefore, access is guaranteed to coal 
held under existing rights.
    The FEIS identified potential impacts on future phosphate mining on 
the Caribou National Forest, the only area of active phosphate mining 
on NFS lands. The FEIS acknowledged that phosphate production from the 
Caribou accounts for about 12% of national production, and is used to 
supply regional producers of phosphate fertilizer products and 
elemental phosphorous. The analysis included an estimate of phosphate 
resources within inventoried roadless areas of 873.3 million tons, and 
a description that about 8,000 acres of the area of Known Phosphate 
Lease Areas are within inventoried roadless areas.
    In a letter to OMB, the National Mining Association provided 
estimates of phosphate reserves in Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Montana 
potentially impacted by the final rule. The company currently mining on 
the Caribou made these estimates. No documentation was provided for the 
basis of the estimates. However, their open pit mining estimates for 
Idaho were less than the resources identified in the FEIS in 
inventoried roadless areas alone.
    In conclusion, the information provided by DOE and others provides 
additional context to the analysis. However, for coal and phosphate, 
the impacts noted in these comments fall within the range of effects 
disclosed in the FEIS. For oil and gas, the Forest Service continues to 
believe there is a high degree of uncertainty in the available 
information. Moreover, it seems likely that even if resources do 
underlie inventoried roadless areas, they would be among the last areas 
entered for exploration and development for the reasons described 
above. After careful review of the information provided by DOE and 
private parties, the agency has determined that the information does 
not materially alter the environmental analysis disclosed in the FEIS 
and does not constitute significant new circumstances or information 
relevant to environmental concerns bearing on the rulemaking effort.
    The Department has decided not to adopt the exception for future 
discretionary mineral leasing because of the potentially significant 
environmental impacts that road construction could cause to inventoried 
roadless areas, but instead determined a more limited exception is 
appropriate. Existing mineral leases are not subject to the 
prohibitions, nor is the continuation, extension, or renewal of an 
existing mineral lease on lands under lease by the Secretary of the 
Interior as of the date of publication of this rule in the Federal 
Register. Additionally, road construction or reconstruction may be 
authorized for new leases on these same lands in the event that 
application for a new lease is made prior to termination or expiration 
of the existing lease.
    The Department recognizes that this decision may have major adverse 
economic impacts on a few communities dependent on mineral leasing from 
inventoried roadless areas. However, if road construction and 
reconstruction were allowed for future mineral leasing on lands not 
under mineral lease as of the date of publication of this rule in the 
Federal Register, an estimated 59 miles of new roads would be 
constructed in inventoried roadless areas over the next five years. 
Road construction or reconstruction in support of future mineral 
leasing on lands not presently under mineral lease could continue at 
this level or in greater amounts into the foreseeable future. Over an 
estimated 10 million acres of inventoried roadless areas could be 
roaded for exploration and development of leasable minerals, although 
the agency believes it is unlikely that more than a small percentage of 
these acres would contain minerals sufficient for economic development.
    The effects of road construction over time could substantially 
alter valuable roadless area characteristics by fragmenting habitat, 
increasing soil disturbance, decreasing water quality, and providing 
new avenues for the invasion of non-native invasive species. Mineral 
leasing activities not dependent on road construction, such as 
directional (slant) drilling and underground development, would not be 
affected by the prohibition.
    The final rule extends indefinitely the timeframe for which roads 
can be

[[Page 3266]]

constructed on areas currently under lease, which are estimated to be 
less than 1 million acres in extent, or less than 2 percent of the 
total acreage of inventoried roadless areas. The environmental effects 
of this extension fall between those described in the FEIS for the 
preferred alternative, which would have allowed road construction or 
reconstruction only for the duration of an existing lease, and those 
described in the FEIS under the potential social and economic 
mitigation measures, which would have provided an exception for mineral 
leasing activities within all inventoried roadless areas, with no 
limitations.
    Relative to the preferred alternative, the final rule will somewhat 
diminish the potential beneficial effects of the overall prohibition on 
road construction and reconstruction in the areas affected by the 
minerals leasing exception, due to the greater amount of area 
potentially disturbed and the effects of associated activities. 
However, by limiting the area potentially affected to only those areas 
currently under lease, the potential extent of these activities and 
their impacts are identified and limited.
    Tongass National Forest Alternatives. The Tongass Exempt 
alternative described in the FEIS was not selected. Allowing road 
construction and reconstruction on the Tongass National Forest to 
continue unabated would risk the loss of important roadless area 
values.
    The Tongass Deferred alternative was not selected because the 
agency presently has sufficient information to make this decision, and 
the decisionmaking processes used have identified the environmental, 
social, and economic issues that must be addressed. There is no need to 
postpone the decision.
    The Tongass Selected Areas alternative did not meet the purpose and 
need as well as the selected alternative. Important roadless area 
values would be lost or diminished because of the road construction, 
reconstruction, and timber harvesting activities that this alternative 
allowed.
    By applying the final rule to the Tongass National Forest 
immediately, but allowing road construction, reconstruction, and the 
cutting, sale, and removal of timber from inventoried roadless areas 
where a notice of availability for a draft environmental impact 
statement for such activities has been published in the Federal 
Register prior to the date of publication of this rule in the Federal 
Register, a period of transition is available to affected communities 
while providing certainty for long term protection of these lands.
    The Tongass National Forest has 261 MMBF of timber under contract 
and 386 MMBF under a notice of availability of a DEIS, FEIS, or Record 
of Decision. In addition, the Tongass has 204 MMBF available in roaded 
areas that is sold, has a Record of Decision, or is currently in the 
planning process. This total of 852 MMBF is enough timber volume to 
satisfy about seven years of estimated market demand. During the period 
of transition, an estimated 114 direct timber jobs and 182 total jobs 
would be affected. In the longer-term, an additional 269 direct timber 
jobs and 431 total jobs could be lost in Southeast Alaska if current 
demand trends continue and no other adjustments are provided to allow 
for more harvest from other parts of the forest. The exception for 
projects with a notice of availability for a draft environmental impact 
statement on the Tongass National Forest is because of the unique 
social and economic conditions where a disproportionate share of the 
impacts are experienced throughout the entire Southeast Alaska region 
and most heavily in a few communities.
    Decision Summary. It is the decision of the Secretary of 
Agriculture to select Prohibition Alternative 3 and the Tongass Not 
Exempt Alternative identified in the FEIS as the final rule, with 
modifications. These modifications include: (1) an exception to the 
prohibition on road construction and reconstruction for mineral leasing 
in areas under mineral lease as of the date of publication of this rule 
in the Federal Register; (2) an exception to the timber harvest 
prohibition for the cutting, sale, or removal of timber in portions of 
inventoried roadless areas where construction of a classified road and 
subsequent timber harvest have substantially altered the roadless 
characteristics, and the road construction and subsequent timber 
harvest occurred after the area was designated an inventoried roadless 
area and prior to the date of publication of this rule in the Federal 
Register; and (3) the immediate application of the prohibitions to the 
Tongass National Forest with a provision that exempts road 
construction, road reconstruction, and the cutting, sale, or removal of 
timber if a notice of availability for a DEIS for such activities has 
been published in the Federal Register prior to the date of publication 
of this rule in the Federal Register. The final rule best meets the 
agency's goal of maintaining the health and contributions of existing 
inventoried roadless areas by preserving the relatively undisturbed 
characteristics of those areas, thereby protecting watershed health and 
ecosystem integrity. In evaluating the comments received from the 
public, the Department believes that there is adequate relevant 
information to assess reasonably foreseeable significant adverse 
impacts (40 CFR 1502.22). The FEIS for this final rule documents the 
adverse impacts road construction and timber harvesting can have in 
inventoried roadless areas. This final rule reduces potential impacts 
to a greater degree and with more certainty than Prohibition 
Alternatives 1 and 2 and the other Tongass National Forest 
alternatives.
    The final rule retains the ability to use timber harvesting for 
clearly defined purposes where necessary to meet ecological needs, 
allowing accomplishment of ecological objectives that Alternative 4 
would preclude. Allowing clearly defined, limited timber harvest of 
generally small diameter trees will maintain a valuable management 
option for the agency to help improve habitat for threatened, 
endangered, proposed, or sensitive species recovery and to help restore 
ecological composition and structure, such as reducing the risk of 
uncharacteristic wildfire effects. As habitat fragmentation, 
subdivision, and urbanization of lands continues nationally, this 
decision allows the agency to avoid most human-caused fragmentation of 
National Forest System inventoried roadless areas to preserve 
management options for future generations. Finally, these inventoried 
roadless areas will remain available to all Americans for a variety of 
dispersed recreation opportunities.
    The final rule:
    (1) Recognizes that the agency's first and highest priority is to 
ensure sustainability for resources under its jurisdiction. It protects 
inventoried roadless areas from the activities that most directly 
threaten their fundamental characteristics through the alteration of 
natural landscapes and fragmentation of forestlands.
    (2) Protects public health by promoting watershed health and 
maintaining important sources of clean drinking water for current and 
future generations.
    (3) Responds to the major issues identified in public comments.
    (4) Is fiscally responsible, and does not increase the financial 
burden by adding expensive roads the agency cannot afford to maintain.
    (5) Exemplifies the agency's responsibility as a world leader in 
natural resource conservation by setting an example for the global 
community.

[[Page 3267]]

    (6) Recognizes that some communities, such as those in Southeast 
Alaska, bear a disproportionate share of the burden, and offers 
assistance to mitigate those impacts.
    This decision is expected to cause additional adverse economic 
effects to forest dependent communities because of the potential 
reduction in future timber harvest, mineral leasing, and other 
activities (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-326 to 3-350). However, the Department 
believes that the long-term ecological benefits to the nation of 
conserving these inventoried roadless areas outweigh the potential 
economic loss to those local communities. To reduce the economic 
impacts of this decision, the Chief of the Forest Service will seek to 
implement one or more of the following provisions of an economic 
transition program for communities most affected by application of the 
prohibitions in inventoried roadless areas:
    (1) Provide financial assistance to stimulate community-led 
transition programs and projects in communities most affected by 
application of the prohibitions in inventoried roadless areas;
    (2) Through financial support and action plans, attract public and 
private interests, both financial and technical, to aid in successfully 
implementing local transition projects and plans by coordinating with 
other Federal and State agencies; and
    (3) Assist local, State, Tribal and Federal partners in working 
with those communities most affected by the final roadless area 
decision.

Regulatory Certifications

    This final rule was reviewed under USDA procedures, Executive Order 
(E.O.) 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review, and the major rule 
provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness 
Act (5 U.S.C. 800). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
determined that this is a major rule, because this rule may have an 
annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or, in some 
sectors, may affect productivity, competition, or jobs. Consequently, 
the rule is subject to OMB review under E.O. 12866 and a regulatory 
impact analysis has been prepared for this final rule. This rule is not 
expected to interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency 
nor raise new legal or policy issues. This action will not alter the 
budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs 
or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs.

Regulatory Impacts

    Summary of the Results of the Regulatory Impact Analysis. Many of 
the benefits and costs associated with the final rule were not 
quantifiable. Therefore, many of the costs and benefits are described 
qualitatively. Although the analysis does not provide a quantitative 
measure of net benefits, the Department believes the benefits of the 
rule outweigh the costs.
    Local-level analysis cannot easily incorporate the economic effects 
associated with nationally significant issues. Therefore, the 
Department believes the aggregate transactions costs (costs associated 
with the time and effort needed to make decisions) of local level 
decisions would be much higher than the transactions costs of a 
national policy, because of the controversy surrounding roadless area 
management.
    National Forest System lands provide a variety of goods and 
services to the American public. Use of the national forests and 
grasslands for both commodities and amenity services varies over time, 
in response to changing market conditions, consumer preferences, and 
other factors. For the purpose of this analysis, the baseline describes 
the likely mix of goods and services from the national forests and 
grasslands in the near future in the absence of the final rule, which 
is likely to affect some goods and services, while having no effect on 
others. Details on the environmental effects of the final rule can be 
found in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
    Most of the benefits of the rule result from maintaining roadless 
areas in their current state, and, therefore, maintaining the current 
stream of benefits from these areas. The costs are primarily associated 
with lost opportunities, since the final rule would limit some types of 
development activities that might have occurred in the future without 
this rule. Table 1 summarizes the potential benefits and costs of the 
rule.
    Potential Benefits Of The Roadless Rule. Undisturbed landscapes 
provide a variety of monetary and non-monetary benefits to the public. 
Many of these benefits are associated with the protection of 
ecological, social, and economic values in inventoried roadless areas.
    Air and water quality would be maintained at a higher level than 
under the baseline. Higher water quality provides a higher level of 
protection for drinking water sources, reduces treatment costs for 
irrigation, reservoirs, and other downstream facilities and maintains 
the value of water-based recreation activities. Higher air quality 
protects not only values associated with human health, but also 
improves visibility and benefits recreation and adjacent private 
property values.
    A greater degree of protection of biological diversity and 
threatened and endangered species would occur if roads and commodity 
timber harvest were prohibited in inventoried roadless areas as opposed 
to the baseline. As a result, ecological values would be maintained. 
Passive use values related to the existence of biological diversity and 
threatened and endangered species would be maintained, as well as 
values associated with protecting these areas for future generations.
    A number of other benefits are associated with maintaining healthy 
wildlife and fish populations at a level higher than under the 
baseline. Some game species are likely to benefit from this protection, 
which would maintain quality hunting and fishing experiences both 
within inventoried roadless areas and beyond. Other types of recreation 
experiences, such as wildlife viewing, also would benefit.
    Inventoried roadless areas are important in providing remote 
recreation opportunities. A greater number of acres in these recreation 
settings would be maintained than under the baseline. Remote areas are 
also important settings for many outfitter and guide services. 
Maintaining these areas increases the ability of the agency to 
accommodate additional demand for these types of recreation special use 
authorizations.
    Inventoried roadless areas provide a remote recreation experience 
without the activity restrictions of Wilderness (for example, off-
highway vehicle use and mountain biking). Maintaining roadless areas 
would likely lessen visitation pressure on Wilderness compared to the 
baseline.
    The risk of introducing non-native invasive species would be 
reduced if road access were not available. This is beneficial to 
grazing permittees with allotments in inventoried roadless areas, and 
to collectors of non-timber forest products by maintaining forage 
quality and quantity, and forest products that cannot compete with 
invasive species. The reduced probability of introduction would also 
benefit forest health in inventoried roadless areas and would 
contribute to the maintenance of biological diversity.
    Some planned timber sales in inventoried roadless areas are likely 
to cost more to prepare and sell than they realize in revenues 
received. To the extent that these sales will not take

[[Page 3268]]

place, a financial efficiency savings would be realized. Implementing 
the rule could result in agency cost savings. First, local appeals and 
litigation about some management activities in roadless areas could be 
reduced, which would avoid future costs. Secondly, the reduction in new 
miles of roads constructed would reduce the number of miles the agency 
is responsible for maintaining in the future, resulting in avoiding up 
to an additional $219,000 per year of costs.
    Potential Costs Of The Roadless Rule. The prohibition on road 
construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest except for clearly 
defined, limited purposes would reduce development of roaded access to 
resources within inventoried roadless areas compared to the baseline. 
Roads are required for most timber sales to be economically feasible. 
For those sales that are financially profitable, the rule would reduce 
net revenues. In addition to lost revenue, there would be an estimated 
immediate impact of 461 fewer timber jobs and 841 total jobs, with an 
associated annual loss of $20.7 million in direct income and $36.2 
million in total income. In the longer term, an additional 269 timber 
jobs and 431 total jobs could be affected from harvest reductions on 
the Tongass National Forest. The longer-term income effect was 
estimated at $12.4 million in direct income and $20.2 million in total 
income. A reduction in the timber program could also affect about 160 
Forest Service jobs, with an additional 100 jobs affected on the 
Tongass in the longer term.
    Jobs associated with road construction and reconstruction for 
timber harvest and other activities would also be fewer than under the 
baseline. Initially, between 43 and 51 direct jobs and between 88 and 
104 total jobs could be affected by reduced road construction and 
reconstruction. An additional 39 direct jobs and 78 total jobs could be 
affected by harvest reductions on the Tongass National Forest in the 
longer term.
    The impact on mineral resources will vary, depending on factors 
such as prices, technology change, and substitutes. Reasonable access 
to conduct exploration and development of valid claims for locatable 
minerals (metallic and nonmetallic minerals subject to appropriation 
under the General Mining Law of 1872) would continue. Such access may 
involve some level of road construction that, depending on the stage of 
exploration or development, could range from helicopters, temporary or 
unimproved roads, more permanent, improved roads, or nonmotorized 
transport.
    Exploration for and development of leasable minerals (such as oil, 
gas, coal, and geothermal) on areas not already under lease would 
likely be limited because roads are often needed for these activities. 
In the short-term, up to 546 direct and 3,095 total jobs could be 
affected, with direct annual income effects of $36 million and total 
income effects of $128 million. Payments to states could be reduced by 
about $3.2 million per year. Between 308 and 1,371 million tons of coal 
resources on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison and Manti-LaSal 
National Forests could be unavailable for development as a result of 
this rule. About 873 million tons of phosphate resources on the Caribou 
National Forest may also be unavailable. Other inventoried roadless 
areas may contain additional coal and phosphate resources. An estimated 
mean of 11.3 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas and 550 
million barrels of undiscovered oil resources could also be affected. 
Effects on saleable minerals (such as sand, gravel, stone, and pumice) 
are expected to be negligible.
    New roads have the potential to reduce current operating costs for 
other users, for example grazing permittees and collectors of non-
timber forest products, by allowing faster and easier access. These 
potential cost reductions would not be realized if road construction is 
prohibited. The agency, however, builds few roads for recreation, 
grazing, or collection of non-timber forest products, and this pattern 
is unlikely to change. New roads built for other purposes may provide 
additional access for recreationists, including hunters and anglers. 
Prohibiting construction of new roads would have minimal impacts on 
these groups, since all temporary roads and many of the other planned 
roads would be closed once the intended activity is concluded. 
Therefore, the number of additional road miles that would be available 
for recreational or other uses would be small.
    Opportunities for some types of recreation special uses may be 
limited in the future. Developed recreation use and road-based 
recreation uses in general are more likely to occur at higher densities 
outside of inventoried roadless areas than under the baseline, since 
expansion into inventoried roadless areas would not occur. However, 
roads are rarely constructed into inventoried roadless areas for 
recreation purposes. The development of new ski areas within 
inventoried roadless areas would be unlikely. Other, new non-recreation 
special uses may be limited in the future as well. Such special uses 
include communication sites and energy-related transmission uses (such 
as ditches and pipelines, and electric transmission lines).
    There could be a slight increase in the risk from uncharacteristic 
wildland fire or insect and disease as a result of reduced 
opportunities for forest health treatments. However, the Forest Service 
would likely treat few acres of inventoried roadless areas regardless 
of the issuance of the Roadless Rule, since moderate and high risk 
forests in inventoried roadless areas would be given a low priority for 
treatment, unless there was an imminent threat to public safety, 
private property, water quality, or threatened and endangered species. 
While overall fire hazard can still be reduced without roads, 
restricted road access would likely increase the cost of treatments, 
which would result in fewer acres treated. Some fuel treatment 
techniques available under the baseline would not be economically or 
logistically feasible. Of the 14 million acres in inventoried roadless 
areas identified as potentially requiring fuel treatment, 6.5 million 
could still be treated with prescribed fire without mechanical 
pretreatment. The use of timber harvest for fuel management would be 
limited to those activities that reduce uncharacteristic wildfire 
effects through the cutting, sale, or removal of small diameter timber 
that maintains or improves one or more of the roadless characteristics. 
For the next five years, about 22,000 acres could be treated by the 
limited timber harvest allowed under the final rule. Although this is a 
significant decline in treatment acres compared to acres that would 
have been harvested under the baseline, the total acreage affected is 
less than 1 percent of all inventoried roadless area that potentially 
require mechanical pretreatment.
    Agency costs could increase compared to the baseline for some types 
of activities. Fuel treatment and other ecological restoration 
treatment costs in inventoried roadless areas would likely increase, 
but the impact on agency costs is likely to be negligible since 
treatment in most inventoried roadless areas is a lower priority.
    The goods and services that could not be produced from inventoried 
roadless areas without road construction are likely to be produced 
either on other parts of National Forest System land or on other lands. 
Substitute production could result in adverse environmental effects on 
these other lands. The following Table 1 summarizes the costs and 
benefits of the final rule.

[[Page 3269]]



      Table 1.--Summary of Costs and Benefits of the Roadless Area
               Conservation Rule Compared to the Baseline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Category                  Baseline             Final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air quality \1\.............  Potential increase    Air quality is
                               in dust, vehicle      maintained in
                               emissions             inventoried
                               associated with       roadless areas.
                               road use and
                               management
                               activities in
                               inventoried
                               roadless areas.
Water quality \1\...........  Potential increase    Water quality is
                               in sediment           maintained in
                               associated with       inventoried
                               roads and             roadless areas.
                               management
                               activities in
                               inventoried
                               roadless areas.
Land base available for       Decrease in remote    Current land base
 dispersed recreation          settings, increase    for remote and
 activities \1\.               in developed          developed settings
                               settings on           is maintained on
                               National Forest       National Forest
                               System lands.         System lands.
Quality of fishing and        Potential habitat     Existing hunting and
 hunting for recreation,       degradation,          fishing quality and
 commercial, and subsistence   increase in roaded    access in
 users \1\..                   access, and           inventoried
                               decrease in remote    roadless areas
                               hunting and fishing   maintained.
                               opportunities.        Opportunities for
                                                     remote experiences
                                                     are maintained.
Forage quality for livestock  Increased risk of     Existing forage
 grazing \1\.                  non-palatable         quality is
                               invasive species.     maintained.
Non-timber forest products    Increased risk of     Non-timber forest
 \1\.                          invasive species      products maintained
                               displacing desired    at current levels.
                               products.
Existence and bequest values  Potential decrease    Values maintained at
 \1\.                          due to loss of        existing levels due
                               biological            to conservation of
                               diversity and         biological
                               increased risks to    diversity and
                               threatened and        habitat for
                               endangered species    threatened and
                               habitat in            endangered species
                               inventoried           in inventoried
                               roadless areas.       roadless areas.
Agency costs associated with  No change in current  Savings in costs
 planning activities \1\.      costs associated      associated with
                               with appeals and      appeals and
                               litigation on         litigation on
                               roadless area         roadless area
                               management.           management.
Agency cost associated with   Increase up to        No increase in road
 road maintenance \2\.         $219,000 per year     maintenance costs
                               in maintenance cost   in inventoried
                               associated with new   roadless areas.
                               roads in
                               inventoried
                               roadless areas.
Projected timber harvest      146.7 million board   74.3 million board
 (average annual) from         feet.                 feet.
 inventoried roadless areas
 \3\.
Timber related jobs \4\.....  No change to current  Estimated job loss
                               estimates of future   of 461 direct jobs
                               timber associated     and 841 total jobs.
                               direct and total      An additional 269
                               jobs.                 direct and 431
                                                     total jobs could be
                                                     affected in Alaska
                                                     in the longer term.
Timber related income \4\...  No change to current  Estimated annual
                               estimates of future   income loss of
                               timber associated     about $20.7 million
                               direct and total      direct income and
                               income.               $36.2 million total
                                                     income. An
                                                     additional $12.4
                                                     million direct
                                                     income and $20.2
                                                     million total
                                                     income could be
                                                     affected in Alaska
                                                     in the longer term.
Road construction jobs \5\..  No change to current  Projected annual job
                               estimates of future   loss ranging from
                               road construction     43 to 51 direct
                               direct jobs.          jobs and between 88
                                                     and 104 total jobs.
                                                     An additional 39
                                                     direct and 78 total
                                                     jobs could be
                                                     affected in Alaska
                                                     in the longer term.
Exploration and development   Existing mineral      Access continues
 for locatable minerals        availability          subject to General
 (gold, silver, lead, etc.)    continues subject     Mining Law of 1872.
 \1\.                          to General Mining
                               Law of 1872.
Exploration and development   Existing mineral      Exploration and
 for leasable minerals (oil,   availability          development in
 gas, coal, etc.) \1\.         continues along       areas not under
                               with current          lease as of the
                               exploration and       date of publication
                               development costs.    of this rule and
                                                     requiring roads
                                                     would be precluded.
Leasable minerals related     No change to current  Potential effect on
 jobs \6\.                     estimates of future   mining related
                               mineral associated    employment is a
                               direct and indirect   decrease of 546
                               jobs.                 direct and 3,095
                                                     total jobs.
Leasable minerals related     No change to current  Potential effect on
 income \6\.                   estimates of future   mining related
                               minerals associated   annual income is
                               direct and total      $36.2 million less
                               income.               direct and $127.8
                                                     million less total
                                                     income.
Payments to states for        Payments will         Payments associated
 leasable minerals.            continue to vary as   with coal and
                               extraction varies     phosphate could be
                               over time.            reduced by $3.2
                                                     million per year.
Leasable mineral resources..  No change to current  About 873 million
                               estimates of          tons of phosphate
                               available leasable    and 308 to 1,371
                               resources.            million tons of
                                                     coal would likely
                                                     be unavailable for
                                                     development. About
                                                     11.3 trillion cubic
                                                     feet of
                                                     undiscovered gas
                                                     and 550 million
                                                     barrels of
                                                     undiscovered oil
                                                     resources may be
                                                     unavailable.
Exploration and development   Existing mineral      In a few isolated
 for salable minerals (sand,   availability          cases, development
 stone, gravel, pumice,        continues along       requiring roads may
 etc.) \1\.                    with current          be precluded or
                               exploration and       costs may increase.
                               development costs.
Operating costs for grazing   Increased access can  No change in
 permittees \1\.               potentially           operating costs.
                               decrease cost.

[[Page 3270]]

 
Operating costs for           Increased access can  No change in
 collectors of non-timber      potentially           operating costs.
 products \1\.                 decrease cost.
Special-use authorizations    Current use and       Current use and
 (such as communications       occupancies.          occupancies not
 sites, electric                                     affected, future
 transmission lines,                                 developments
 pipelines) \1\.                                     requiring roads
                                                     excluded in
                                                     inventoried
                                                     roadless areas
                                                     unless one of the
                                                     exceptions applies.
Forest health \1\...........  Potential lower cost  Slightly increased
                               of treatment due to   risk because of
                               increased access.     fewer treatment
                                                     opportunities. Cost
                                                     of current
                                                     treatments remains
                                                     unchanged.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Analysis based on qualitative discussion.
\2\ Analysis based on historic Agency data on expenditures.
\3\ Analysis based on forest-level data on projected timber volumes in
  inventoried roadless areas.
\4\ Analysis based on Agency data from Timber Sales Program Information
  System Reporting System (TSPIRS) and IMPLAN model multipliers.
\5\ Analysis based on Agency estimates of historic expenditures and
  IMPLAN model multipliers.
\6\ Analysis based on Agency production estimates and IMPLAN model
  multipliers.

    Summary of the Results of the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis. The Department is promulgating a final rule for roadless area 
conservation that does not impose regulations on small entities. The 
rule would not suspend or modify any existing permit, contract, or 
other legal instrument authorizing the occupancy and use of National 
Forest System land.\1\ The rule could affect future opportunities for 
small entities, but the agency cannot predict at any given time what 
authorized uses a small entity might want to pursue on National Forest 
System lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Because the roadless rule does not directly regulate small 
entities, the Department does not believe the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act applies to this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data are limited for linking the proposed rule to effects on small 
businesses. The agency does not typically collect information about the 
size of businesses that seek permission to operate on National Forest 
System lands. The agency sought information to the extent possible by 
specifically requesting additional information in the initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis.
    The rulemaking has the potential to affect a subset of small 
businesses that may seek opportunities on National Forest System lands 
in the future. The primary effect of the rule on small businesses is 
the potential to affect the future supply of commodity outputs or 
commercial opportunities for businesses. The change in resource 
availability is expected to be small across most regions in the 
country. Therefore, future business opportunities are not likely to be 
reduced to any great extent in comparison to continuation of current 
management policies. However, the effects may be more pronounced in the 
Intermountain and Alaska Regions, with the effects in Alaska increasing 
in the longer term.
    Small businesses in the wood products sector most likely to be 
affected are logging and sawmill operations. Reductions in the harvest 
of softwood sawtimber, particularly in the western U.S., are most 
likely to affect small businesses, since these sectors are dominated by 
small business. With the exception of the Intermountain (Utah, Nevada, 
western Wyoming, and southern Idaho) and Alaska Regions, reductions in 
harvest are estimated to range from less than one percent to four 
percent. The reduction in the Intermountain Region is estimated to be 
nine percent. Harvest effects on the Tongass National Forest will be 
reduced about 18 percent in the short-term, but in the longer-term, 
harvest could be reduced by about 60 percent absent further adjustments 
to the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan.
    In the mining sector, small businesses most likely to be affected 
are businesses involved in the exploration and development of leasable 
minerals. The final Roadless Area Conservation rule will affect 
exploration and development for leasable minerals in inventoried 
roadless areas in the future where road construction is required, 
except in areas presently under lease.
    The potential effects on small businesses involved in livestock 
grazing and the collection of non-timber forest products are expected 
to be negligible. There will be fewer roads available for use in the 
future under the final rule, but the number of miles that would have 
been built in the next five years and that would have remained open for 
use is minor compared to the entire National Forest System road system.
    Special use authorizations on National Forest System land could be 
affected by the final rule, if road access is required. Most of the 
special uses potentially affected are dominated by large businesses, 
such as businesses in communication, electric services, gas production 
and distribution, and resort development. Small businesses with 
outfitter and guide permits are expected to benefit from the final 
rule, since these businesses are often dependent on providing services 
to recreationists interested in remote recreation activities that are 
often found in inventoried roadless areas.
    The effect of the final rulemaking on small governmental 
jurisdictions is tied to possible reductions in commodity outputs in 
cases where some portion of federal receipts is returned to the states 
for distribution to counties, and to changes in the jurisdiction's 
economic base from changes in employment and business opportunities 
related to National Forest System outputs and management. Payments to 
states from timber receipts will be unaffected by the final Roadless 
Rule through 2006 because the ``Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000'' was signed into law on October 30 
(Pub. L. 106-393). This legislation allows counties to select a payment 
based on historic payment levels rather than payments based on current 
receipts. However, this legislation does not affect revenue sharing of 
federal receipts from mineral leasing on national grasslands and from 
public domain lands of the national forests. Therefore, the final rule 
may result in a reduction in those receipts in the future, which would 
affect revenues shared with states and counties. The agency has also 
chosen to pursue funds to assist communities undergoing economic 
transition resulting from implementation of the final Roadless Rule. 
Such assistance could include financial assistance to stimulate 
community-led transition programs and projects, support to attract 
public and

[[Page 3271]]

private interests in implementing local transition projects, 
coordination with other Federal and State agencies, and assisting 
local, State, Tribal, and Federal partners to work with the most 
affected communities. The Forest Service will pursue a six-year 
economic transition program. The Economic Adjustment Program will be 
used to fund or support projects that will be specific to the needs of 
individual communities and important to the national forest or 
grassland. The Forest Service anticipates requesting $72.5 million in 
support of these activities between fiscal years 2001 and 2006.

Environmental Impact

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, As Amended. A biological 
evaluation was prepared which analyzed the potential effects of the 
action alternatives on threatened, endangered, and proposed species. 
This evaluation, along with other supporting documentation for the 
rule, was provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service as part of consultation and 
conferencing under the Endangered Species Act. Both agencies concurred 
with the determination in the biological evaluation that all of the 
action alternatives analyzed in the biological evaluation may affect, 
but are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species 
or adversely modify designated critical habitat; are not likely to 
jeopardize proposed species or adversely modify proposed critical 
habitat; and may beneficially affect threatened, endangered, and 
proposed species and critical habitat. Copies of these letters of 
concurrence are in the project record and can be viewed at the Roadless 
Area Conservation project website.
    Other Required Disclosures. The agency has prepared a final 
environmental impact statement in concert with this rule. In it, the 
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the final rule and 
alternatives are disclosed. None of the prohibition alternatives are an 
action that requires consultation under the Fish and Wildlife 
Coordination Act because they do not require water to be impounded or 
diverted. The FEIS may be obtained from various sources as indicated in 
the ADDRESSES section of this document.
    The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) questioned 
whether the agency had adequately taken into account effects on 
historic properties and expressed concern that the rule would cause 
``neglect of historic properties.'' The IDNR urged the Forest Service 
to consult with the Indiana State Historic Preservation Officer 
pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 
(NHPA). First, the FEIS does evaluate and display the effects of the 
final rule regarding cultural resources (FEIS Vol. 1, 3-232 to 3-237). 
The FEIS also makes clear that the prohibitions will not inhibit 
existing access to historic sites. As for the Section 106 NHPA process, 
this rulemaking does not constitute an ``undertaking'' as defined in 36 
CFR 800.16. The regulations established by the Advisory Council for 
Historic Preservation make clear that once an agency determines that it 
has no undertaking, or that its undertaking has no potential to affect 
historic properties, the agency has no further Section 106 obligations.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    This 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 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and implementing regulations at 5 
CFR part 1320 do not apply.

Unfunded Mandates Reform

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Department has assessed the effects of this 
proposed rule on State, local, and Tribal governments, and on the 
private sector. This proposed 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.

No Takings Implications

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

Civil Justice Reform Act

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil 
Justice Reform. The proposed revision: (1) preempts all State and local 
laws and regulations that are found to be in conflict with or that 
would impede its full implementation; (2) does 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.

Federalism and Consultation with Tribal Governments

    The agency considered this rule under the requirements of Executive 
Order 12612 and found the rule will 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 determined that 
no further assessment on federalism implications is necessary at this 
time. In addition, the consultation requirements under Executive Order 
13132, effective November 2, 1999 were reviewed. This new Order calls 
for enhanced consultation with State and local government officials and 
emphasizes increased sensitivity to their concerns.
    Forest Service line officers in the field were asked to make 
contact with Tribes to ensure awareness of the initiative and of the 
rulemaking process. Outreach to Tribes has been conducted at the 
national forest and grassland level, which is how Forest Service 
government-to-government dialog with Tribes is typically conducted.
    Outreach to State and local governments has taken place both in the 
field and Washington offices. Forest Service officials have contacted 
State and local governmental officials and staffs to explain the notice 
of intent and the rulemaking process. The agency met with and responded 
to a variety of information requests from local officials and State 
organizations, such as the National Governors Association and the 
Western Governors Association.
    In the development of this rule comments received from States, 
Tribes, and local governments in response to the notice of intent to 
prepare an environmental impact statement published October 19, 1999 
(64 FR 56306) were carefully considered. Following publication of the 
proposed rule, the agency met with State, Tribal, and local government 
officials to explain and clarify the proposed rule and the accompanying 
environmental impact statement. The extent to which additional 
consultation was appropriate under Executive Order 13132 was 
considered. In addition, the Forest Service responsible official will 
seek input and participation by State, local, and Tribal officials in 
the early stages of forest and project planning regarding

[[Page 3272]]

subsequent decisions for inventoried roadless areas.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 294

    Forests and forest products, Highways and roads, Land and resource 
management planning, National forests, Navigation (air), Recreation and 
recreation areas, and Wilderness areas.

    For the reasons set forth in this preamble, part 294 of Title 36 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 294--SPECIAL AREAS

    1. Add and reserve Secs. 294.3-294.9, designate Secs. 294.1 through 
294.9 as subpart A, and add a subpart heading to read as follows:

Subpart A--Miscellaneous Provisions

    2. Remove the authority citations that follow Secs. 294.1 and 294.2 
and add an authority citation for the newly designated Subpart A to 
read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 472, 551, and 1131.


    3. Add a new Subpart B to read as follows:
Subpart B--Protection of Inventoried Roadless Areas
Sec.
294.10   Purpose.
294.11   Definitions.
294.12   Prohibition on road construction and road reconstruction in 
inventoried roadless areas.
294.13   Prohibition on timber cutting, sale, or removal in 
inventoried roadless areas.
294.14   Scope and applicability.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 472, 529, 551, 1608, 1613; 23 U.S.C. 201, 
205.

Subpart B--Protection of Inventoried Roadless Areas


Sec. 294.10  Purpose.

    The purpose of this subpart is to provide, within the context of 
multiple-use management, lasting protection for inventoried roadless 
areas within the National Forest System.


Sec. 294.11  Definitions.

    The following terms and definitions apply to this subpart:
    Inventoried roadless areas. Areas identified in a set of 
inventoried roadless area maps, contained in Forest Service Roadless 
Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, 
dated November 2000, which are held at the National headquarters office 
of the Forest Service, or any subsequent update or revision of those 
maps.
    Responsible official. The Forest Service line officer with the 
authority and responsibility to make decisions regarding protection and 
management of inventoried roadless areas pursuant to this subpart.
    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 road. A road wholly or partially within or adjacent 
to National Forest System lands that is 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) Unclassified road. A road on National Forest System lands that 
is 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.
    (3) Temporary road. A road 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.
    Road construction. Activity that results in the addition of forest 
classified or temporary road miles.
    Road maintenance. The ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to retain 
or restore the road to the approved road management objective.
    Road reconstruction. Activity that results in improvement or 
realignment of an existing classified road defined as follows:
    (1) Road improvement. Activity that results in an increase of an 
existing road's traffic service level, expansion of its capacity, or a 
change in 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.
    Roadless area characteristics. Resources or features that are often 
present in and characterize inventoried roadless areas, including:
    (1) High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air;
    (2) Sources of public drinking water;
    (3) Diversity of plant and animal communities;
    (4) Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and 
sensitive species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed 
areas of land;
    (5) Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive 
motorized classes of dispersed recreation;
    (6) Reference landscapes;
    (7) Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality;
    (8) Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and
    (9) Other locally identified unique characteristics.


Sec. 294.12  Prohibition on road construction and road reconstruction 
in inventoried roadless areas.

    (a) A road may not be constructed or reconstructed in inventoried 
roadless areas of the National Forest System, except as provided in 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) Notwithstanding the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this 
section, a road may be constructed or reconstructed in an inventoried 
roadless area if the Responsible Official determines that one of the 
following circumstances exists:
    (1) A road is needed to protect public health and safety in cases 
of an imminent threat of flood, fire, or other catastrophic event that, 
without intervention, would cause the loss of life or property;
    (2) A road is needed to conduct a response action under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
(CERCLA) or to conduct a natural resource restoration action under 
CERCLA, Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, or the Oil Pollution Act;
    (3) A road is needed pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights, or 
as provided for by statute or treaty;
    (4) Road realignment is needed to prevent irreparable resource 
damage that arises from the design, location, use, or deterioration of 
a classified road and that cannot be mitigated by road maintenance. 
Road realignment may occur under this paragraph only if the road is 
deemed essential for public or private access, natural resource 
management, or public health and safety;
    (5) Road reconstruction is needed to implement a road safety 
improvement project on a classified road determined to be hazardous on 
the basis of accident experience or accident potential on that road;
    (6) The Secretary of Agriculture determines that a Federal Aid 
Highway project, authorized pursuant to Title 23 of the United States 
Code, is in the public interest or is consistent with the purposes for 
which the land was reserved or acquired and no other reasonable and 
prudent alternative exists; or
    (7) A road is needed in conjunction with the continuation, 
extension, or

[[Page 3273]]

renewal of a mineral lease on lands that are under lease by the 
Secretary of the Interior as of January 12, 2001 or for a new lease 
issued immediately upon expiration of an existing lease. Such road 
construction or reconstruction must be conducted in a manner that 
minimizes effects on surface resources, prevents unnecessary or 
unreasonable surface disturbance, and complies with all applicable 
lease requirements, land and resource management plan direction, 
regulations, and laws. Roads constructed or reconstructed pursuant to 
this paragraph must be obliterated when no longer needed for the 
purposes of the lease or upon termination or expiration of the lease, 
whichever is sooner.
    (c) Maintenance of classified roads is permissible in inventoried 
roadless areas.


Sec. 294.13  Prohibition on timber cutting, sale, or removal in 
inventoried roadless areas.

    (a) Timber may not be cut, sold, or removed in inventoried roadless 
areas of the National Forest System, except as provided in paragraph 
(b) of this section.
    (b) Notwithstanding the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this 
section, timber may be cut, sold, or removed in inventoried roadless 
areas if the Responsible Official determines that one of the following 
circumstances exists. The cutting, sale, or removal of timber in these 
areas is expected to be infrequent.
    (1) The cutting, sale, or removal of generally small diameter 
timber is needed for one of the following purposes and will maintain or 
improve one or more of the roadless area characteristics as defined in 
Sec. 294.11.
    (i) To improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive 
species habitat; or
    (ii) To maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem 
composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of 
uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of variability that 
would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the 
current climatic period;
    (2) The cutting, sale, or removal of timber is incidental to the 
implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited by 
this subpart;
    (3) The cutting, sale, or removal of timber is needed and 
appropriate for personal or administrative use, as provided for in 36 
CFR part 223; or
    (4) Roadless characteristics have been substantially altered in a 
portion of an inventoried roadless area due to the construction of a 
classified road and subsequent timber harvest. Both the road 
construction and subsequent timber harvest must have occurred after the 
area was designated an inventoried roadless area and prior to January 
12, 2001. Timber may be cut, sold, or removed only in the substantially 
altered portion of the inventoried roadless area.


Sec. 294.14  Scope and applicability.

    (a) This subpart does not revoke, suspend, or modify any permit, 
contract, or other legal instrument authorizing the occupancy and use 
of National Forest System land issued prior to January 12, 2001.
    (b) This subpart does not compel the amendment or revision of any 
land and resource management plan.
    (c) This subpart does not revoke, suspend, or modify any project or 
activity decision made prior to January 12, 2001.
    (d) This subpart does not apply to road construction, 
reconstruction, or the cutting, sale, or removal of timber in 
inventoried roadless areas on the Tongass National Forest if a notice 
of availability of a draft environmental impact statement for such 
activities has been published in the Federal Register prior to January 
12, 2001.
    (e) The prohibitions and restrictions established in this subpart 
are not subject to reconsideration, revision, or rescission in 
subsequent project decisions or land and resource management plan 
amendments or revisions undertaken pursuant to 36 CFR part 219.
    (f) If any provision of the rules in this subpart or its 
application to any person or to certain circumstances is held invalid, 
the remainder of the regulations in this subpart and their application 
remain in force.

    Dated: January 5, 2001.
Dan Glickman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-726 Filed 1-5-01; 3:45 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P