Roadless Rule

Friday,
January 12, 2001

Part VI

Department of
Agriculture
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 294
Special Areas; Roadless Area
Conservation; Final Rule

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4717

Sfmt 4717

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

3244

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations
Proposed § 294.12. Prohibition on road
construction and reconstruction in
inventoried roadless areas
Final § 294.13. Prohibition on timber
cutting, sale, or removal in inventoried
roadless areas
Proposed § 294.13. Consideration of
roadless area conservation during forest
plan revision
Proposed § 294.14. Scope and applicability
What Other Issues Were Considered in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement?
Environmental Effects
Forest Dependent Communities
Local Decisionmaking

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 294
RIN 0596–AB77

Special Areas; Roadless Area
Conservation
Forest Service, USDA.
Final rule and record of
decision.
AGENCY:
ACTION:

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 § 294.10. Purpose
Proposed § 294.11. Definitions

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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.

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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 NonMotorized, and Semi-Primitive
Motorized classes of dispersed
recreation. Roadless areas often provide
outstanding dispersed recreation

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

3245

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

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

3246

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

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,

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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,

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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.

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

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

VerDate 112000

21:19 Jan 11, 2001

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.

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

3247

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)).

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm02

PsN: 12JAR5

3248

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

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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

3249

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 § 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

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

3250

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

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 § 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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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 § 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 § 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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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 § 294.13

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations
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 offroad 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 nonmotorized trails that are classified and

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

3251

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,
§ 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 § 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.

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

3252

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

Response. Although the term
‘‘roadless area characteristics’’ was not
defined in the proposed rule, proposed
§ 294.13 did include the list of
characteristics. While proposed § 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
§ 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 § 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 § 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
§ 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
§ 294.12 prohibited road construction
and reconstruction in the unroaded
portions of inventoried roadless areas,

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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 MultipleUse 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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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 longstanding 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

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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 § 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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

3253

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.

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

3254

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

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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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 twothirds 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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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
§ 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 § 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-ofway 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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

3255

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
§ 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).

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

3256

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

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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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 § 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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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 § 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.

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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 interrelationships 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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

3257

more of the roadless area characteristics
as defined in § 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 nonnative 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.

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

3258

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

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 wildlandurban 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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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 § 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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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 § 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
§ 219.9(b)(8) of the final planning rule
(65 FR 67571) to emphasize that the

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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 § 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 sitespecific 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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

3259

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

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

3260

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

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 § 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

VerDate 112000

22:03 Jan 11, 2001

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 § 294.12. Prohibition on road
construction and reconstruction in
inventoried roadless areas.’’
To replace and serve the same
purpose as proposed § 294.13(f), a new
§ 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
§ 294.12 or § 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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm01

PsN: 12JAR5

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations
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 sitespecific evaluation. Before any project is
authorized that allows the cutting, sale,
or removal of timber in an inventoried
roadless area, it will subject to sitespecific 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,

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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 § 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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

3261

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

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

3262

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

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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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 nontimber 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.

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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
§ 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

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

3263

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

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

3264

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

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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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 § 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,

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

3265

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

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

3266

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

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.

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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.

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

3267

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

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

3268

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

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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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 nontimber 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,

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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.

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

3269

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

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE ROADLESS AREA CONSERVATION RULE COMPARED TO THE
BASELINE
Category

Baseline

Air quality 1 ..........................................................

Potential increase in dust, vehicle emissions
associated with road use and management
activities in inventoried roadless areas.
Potential increase in sediment associated with
roads and management activities in inventoried roadless areas.
Decrease in remote settings, increase in developed settings on National Forest System
lands.
Potential habitat degradation, increase in
roaded access, and decrease in remote
hunting and fishing opportunities.

Water quality 1 ....................................................

Land base available for dispersed recreation
activities 1.
Quality of fishing and hunting for recreation,
commercial, and subsistence users 1..
Forage quality for livestock grazing 1 .................
Non-timber forest products 1 ...............................
Existence and bequest values 1 .........................

Agency costs associated with planning activities 1.
Agency cost associated with road maintenance 2.
Projected timber harvest (average annual) from
inventoried roadless areas 3.
Timber related jobs 4 ..........................................

Final rule

Increased risk of non-palatable invasive species.
Increased risk of invasive species displacing
desired products.
Potential decrease due to loss of biological diversity and increased risks to threatened
and endangered species habitat in inventoried roadless areas.
No change in current costs associated with
appeals and litigation on roadless area
management.
Increase up to $219,000 per year in maintenance cost associated with new roads in
inventoried roadless areas.
146.7 million board feet ...................................
No change to current estimates of future timber associated direct and total jobs.

Timber related income 4 .....................................

No change to current estimates of future timber associated direct and total income.

Road construction jobs 5 .....................................

No change to current estimates of future road
construction direct jobs.

Exploration and development for locatable minerals (gold, silver, lead, etc.) 1.
Exploration and development for leasable minerals (oil, gas, coal, etc.) 1.

Existing mineral availability continues subject
to General Mining Law of 1872.
Existing mineral availability continues along
with current exploration and development
costs.

Leasable minerals related jobs 6 ........................

No change to current estimates of future mineral associated direct and indirect jobs.

Leasable minerals related income 6 ...................

No change to current estimates of future minerals associated direct and total income.

Payments to states for leasable minerals ..........

Payments will continue to vary as extraction
varies over time.

Leasable mineral resources ...............................

No change to current estimates of available
leasable resources.

Exploration and development for salable minerals (sand, stone, gravel, pumice, etc.) 1.

Existing mineral availability continues along
with current exploration and development
costs.
Increased access can potentially decrease
cost.

Operating costs for grazing permittees 1 ............

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Air quality is maintained
roadless areas.

in

inventoried

Water quality is maintained in inventoried
roadless areas.
Current land base for remote and developed
settings is maintained on National Forest
System lands.
Existing hunting and fishing quality and access in inventoried roadless areas maintained. Opportunities for remote experiences are maintained.
Existing forage quality is maintained.
Non-timber forest products maintained at current levels.
Values maintained at existing levels due to
conservation of biological diversity and
habitat for threatened and endangered species in inventoried roadless areas.
Savings in costs associated with appeals and
litigation on roadless area management.
No increase in road maintenance costs in
inventoried roadless areas.
74.3 million board feet.
Estimated job loss of 461 direct jobs and 841
total jobs. An additional 269 direct and 431
total jobs could be affected in Alaska in the
longer term.
Estimated annual income loss of about $20.7
million direct income and $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.
Projected annual job loss ranging from 43 to
51 direct 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.
Access continues subject to General Mining
Law of 1872.
Exploration and development in areas not
under lease as of the date of publication of
this rule and requiring roads would be precluded.
Potential effect on mining related employment
is a decrease of 546 direct and 3,095 total
jobs.
Potential effect on mining related annual income is $36.2 million less direct and $127.8
million less total income.
Payments associated with coal and phosphate could be reduced by $3.2 million per
year.
About 873 million tons of phosphate and 308
to 1,371 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.
In a few isolated cases, development requiring roads may be precluded or costs may
increase.
No change in operating costs.

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

3270

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

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE ROADLESS AREA CONSERVATION RULE COMPARED TO THE
BASELINE—Continued
Category

Baseline

Operating costs for collectors of non-timber
products 1.
Special-use authorizations (such as communications sites, electric transmission lines,
pipelines) 1.

Increased access can potentially decrease
cost.
Current use and occupancies ..........................

Forest health 1 ....................................................

Potential lower cost of treatment due to increased access.

1 Analysis

based
based
based
4 Analysis based
5 Analysis based
6 Analysis based
2 Analysis
3 Analysis

on
on
on
on
on
on

Final rule
No change in operating costs.
Current use and occupancies not affected, future developments requiring roads excluded
in inventoried roadless areas unless one of
the exceptions applies.
Slightly increased risk because of fewer treatment opportunities. Cost of current treatments remains unchanged.

qualitative discussion.
historic Agency data on expenditures.
forest-level data on projected timber volumes in inventoried roadless areas.
Agency data from Timber Sales Program Information System Reporting System (TSPIRS) and IMPLAN model multipliers.
Agency estimates of historic expenditures and IMPLAN model multipliers.
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.
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.
1 Because the roadless rule does not directly
regulate small entities, the Department does not
believe the Regulatory Flexibility Act applies to this
rule.

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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,

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

3271

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

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

3272

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

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 §§ 294.3–294.9,
designate §§ 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 §§ 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
§ 294.10

Purpose.

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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

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;

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(5) Primitive, semi-primitive nonmotorized 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.
§ 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

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5

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

VerDate 112000

13:15 Jan 11, 2001

needed for one of the following
purposes and will maintain or improve
one or more of the roadless area
characteristics as defined in § 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.
§ 294.14

Scope and applicability.

(a) This subpart does not revoke,
suspend, or modify any permit,

Jkt 194001

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

3273

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

E:\FR\FM\12JAR5.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 12JAR5