Department of Agriculture3244 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 9/Friday, January 12, 2001/Rules and...

Friday,

January 12, 2001

Part VI

Department ofAgricultureForest Service

36 CFR Part 294Special Areas; Roadless AreaConservation; Final Rule

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 294

RIN 0596–AB77

Special Areas; Roadless AreaConservation

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.ACTION: Final rule and record ofdecision.

SUMMARY: The Department ofAgriculture is adopting this final rule toestablish prohibitions on roadconstruction, road reconstruction, andtimber harvesting in inventoriedroadless areas on National ForestSystem lands. The intent of this finalrule is to provide lasting protection forinventoried roadless areas within theNational Forest System in the context ofmultiple-use management.EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effectiveMarch 13, 2001.ADDRESSES: For additional information,refer to the Roadless Area Conservationwebsite (roadless.fs.fed.us). Writteninquiries may be directed to USDAForest Service, National Forest SystemRoadless Project, P.O. Box 96090,Washington, DC 20090–6090.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Scott Conroy, Project Director, ForestService (703) 605–5299 or (800) 384–7623.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thefollowing outline displays the contentsof the preamble for this regulation.

Introduction

Purpose and Need for the Roadless AreaConservation Rule

Roadless Area Values and CharacteristicsFiscal ConsiderationsNational Direction vs. Local DecisionmakingImportance of Watershed ProtectionImproving Ecosystem HealthNeed for Action

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

How Was Public Involvement Used in theRulemaking Process?

What General Issues Were IdentifiedRegarding the Proposed Rule and DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement?

Overview Issues Raised by Those Opposedto Prohibitions

Issues Raised by Those Who FavorProhibitions

Issues Raised by Federal, Tribal, State, andLocal Public Officials

What Specific Issues Were Raised on theProposed Rule and What Changes Didthe Agency Make From Proposed toFinal Rules?

Proposed § 294.10. PurposeProposed § 294.11. Definitions

Proposed § 294.12. Prohibition on roadconstruction and reconstruction ininventoried roadless areas

Final § 294.13. Prohibition on timbercutting, sale, or removal in inventoriedroadless areas

Proposed § 294.13. Consideration ofroadless area conservation during forestplan revision

Proposed § 294.14. Scope and applicabilityWhat Other Issues Were Considered in the

Final Environmental Impact Statement?Environmental EffectsForest Dependent CommunitiesLocal Decisionmaking

The Final Rule and Alternatives ConsideredWhat Alternatives and Mitigation Measures

Were Considered by the Agency?Prohibition AlternativesExceptions and Mitigation MeasuresTongass National Forest Alternatives

What is the Environmentally PreferredAlternative?

What is the Final Rule and What Are theReasons for Selecting that Alternative?

Prohibition AlternativesExceptionsTongass National Forest AlternativesDecision Summary

Regulatory CertificationsRegulatory Impacts

Summary of the Results of the RegulatoryImpact Analysis

Summary of the Results of the FinalRegulatory Flexibility Analysis

Environmental ImpactThe Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

AmendedOther Required Disclosures

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on ThePublic

Unfunded Mandates ReformNo Takings ImplicationsCivil Justice Reform ActFederalism and Consultation with Tribal

Governments

IntroductionThe Department of Agriculture is

adopting this final rule to protect andconserve inventoried roadless areas onNational Forest System lands. Thispreamble states the basis and purpose ofthe rule, includes responses tocomments received on the proposedrule, and serves as the record ofdecision for this rulemaking.Preparation of the record of decision isrequired by the Council onEnvironmental Quality regulations (40CFR 1505.2) implementing the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42U.S.C. 4321). This document sets forththe reasons supporting the decision toadopt the final rule; the major policyissues that were raised in publiccomment; responses to public commentand changes adopted in response tocomments; and the reasons this finalrule was selected from among thealternatives considered to meet theagency’s purpose and need, as described

in the four volume final environmentalimpact statement (FEIS) and projectrecord, which are incorporated byreference. Agency responses tocomments on the draft environmentalimpact statement (DEIS) are containedin Volume 3 of the Forest ServiceRoadless Area Conservation FEIS(November 2000). Responses in Volume3 relevant to the final rule aresummarized in this document.Throughout this preamble and record ofdecision, citations to chapters and pagesof the FEIS are provided for furtherinformation regarding the alternativesand effects analysis; for example, (FEISVol. 1, 3–237) refers to volume 1,chapter 3, page 237.

This final rule is available on theForest Service website(roadless.fs.fed.us), along with the FEISand much of the record supporting thedecision for this final rule.

Purpose and Need for the RoadlessArea Conservation Rule

The Department of Agriculture isresponsible for managing NationalForest System resources to sustain thehealth, diversity, and productivity of thenation’s forests and grasslands to meetthe needs of present and futuregenerations. As noted in the USDAForest Service Strategic Plan (2000Revision) (www.fs.fed.us/plan, October2000), demands for, and supplies of,renewable resources change over time inresponse to social values, newtechnology, and new information. In thefuture, expanding urban areas andincreased fragmentation of private landsmake it likely that the largest and mostextensive tracts of undeveloped landwill be those in public ownership.

This final rule prohibits roadconstruction, reconstruction, and timberharvest in inventoried roadless areasbecause they have the greatestlikelihood of altering and fragmentinglandscapes, resulting in immediate,long-term loss of roadless area valuesand characteristics. Although otheractivities may also compromise roadlessarea values, they resist analysis at thenational level and are best reviewedthrough local land managementplanning. Additionally, the size of theexisting forest road system andattendant budget constraints prevent theagency from managing its road system tothe safety and environmental standardsto which it was built. Finally, nationalconcern over roadless area managementcontinues to generate controversy,including costly and time-consumingappeals and litigation (FEIS Vol. 1, 1–16 to 1–17). This final rule addressesthese needs in the context of a nationalrulemaking.


3245Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Roadless Area Values andCharacteristics

Inventoried roadless areas consideredin this rule constitute roughly one-thirdof all National Forest System lands, orapproximately 58.5 million acres.Although the inventoried roadless areascomprise only 2% of the land base inthe continental United States, they arefound within 661 of the over 2,000major watersheds in the nation (FEISVol. 1, 3–50) and provide many socialand ecological benefits.

As urban areas grow, undevelopedprivate lands continue to be convertedto urban and developed areas, and ruralinfrastructure (such as roads, airports,and railways). An average of 3.2 millionacres per year of forest, wetland,farmland, and open space wereconverted to more urban uses between1992 and 1997. In comparison, 1.4million acres per year were developedbetween 1982 and 1992. The rate of landdevelopment and urbanization between1992 and 1997 was more than twice thatof the previous decade, while thepopulation growth rate remained fairlyconstant (FEIS Vol. 1, 3–12). In anincreasingly developed landscape, largeunfragmented tracts of land becomemore important. For example, from 1978to 1994, the proportion of private forestownerships of less than 50 acres nearlydoubled (Birch, T.W. 1996. Privateforest-land owners of the United States,1994. Resource Bulletin NE–134.Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service,Northeastern Experiment Station. 183p). Subdivision and other diminishmentof tract size of these lands candiscourage long-term stewardship andconservation.

Inventoried roadless areas provideclean drinking water and function asbiological strongholds for populations ofthreatened and endangered species.They provide large, relativelyundisturbed landscapes that areimportant to biological diversity and thelong-term survival of many at riskspecies. Inventoried roadless areasprovide opportunities for dispersedoutdoor recreation, opportunities thatdiminish as open space and naturalsettings are developed elsewhere. Theyalso serve as bulwarks against thespread of non-native invasive plantspecies and provide reference areas forstudy and research (FEIS Vol. 1, 1–1 to1–4).

The following values or features oftencharacterize inventoried roadless areas(FEIS Vol. 1, 3–3 to 3–7):

High quality or undisturbed soil,water, and air. These three keyresources are the foundation uponwhich other resource values and

outputs depend. Healthy watershedscatch, store, and safely release waterover time, protecting downstreamcommunities from flooding; providingclean water for domestic, agricultural,and industrial uses; helping maintainabundant and healthy fish and wildlifepopulations; and are the basis for manyforms of outdoor recreation.

Sources of public drinking water.National Forest System lands containwatersheds that are important sources ofpublic drinking water. Roadless areaswithin the National Forest Systemcontain all or portions of 354 municipalwatersheds contributing drinking waterto millions of citizens. Maintainingthese areas in a relatively undisturbedcondition saves downstreamcommunities millions of dollars inwater filtration costs. Carefulmanagement of these watersheds iscrucial in maintaining the flow andaffordability of clean water to a growingpopulation.

Diversity of plant and animalcommunities. Roadless areas are morelikely than roaded areas to supportgreater ecosystem health, including thediversity of native and desirednonnative plant and animalcommunities due to the absence ofdisturbances caused by roads andaccompanying activities. Inventoriedroadless areas also conserve nativebiodiversity by serving as a bulwarkagainst the spread of nonnative invasivespecies.

Habitat for threatened, endangered,proposed, candidate, and sensitivespecies and for those species dependenton large, undisturbed areas of land.Roadless areas function as biologicalstrongholds and refuges for manyspecies. Of the nation’s speciescurrently listed as threatened,endangered, or proposed for listingunder the Endangered Species Act,approximately 25% of animal speciesand 13% of plant species are likely tohave habitat within inventoried roadlessareas on National Forest System lands.Roadless areas support a diversity ofaquatic habitats and communities,providing or affecting habitat for morethan 280 threatened, endangered,proposed, and sensitive species. Morethan 65% of all Forest Service sensitivespecies are directly or indirectlyaffected by inventoried roadless areas.This percentage is composed of birds(82%), amphibians (84%), mammals(81%), plants (72%), fish (56%), reptiles(49%), and invertebrates (36%).

Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, and Semi-PrimitiveMotorized classes of dispersedrecreation. Roadless areas often provideoutstanding dispersed recreation

opportunities such as hiking, camping,picnicking, wildlife viewing, hunting,fishing, cross-country skiing, andcanoeing. While they may have manyWilderness-like attributes, unlikeWilderness the use of mountain bikes,and other mechanized means of travel isoften allowed. These areas can also takepressure off heavily used wildernessareas by providing solitude and quiet,and dispersed recreation opportunities.

Reference landscapes. The body ofknowledge about the effects ofmanagement activities over long periodsof time and on large landscapes is verylimited. Reference landscapes ofrelatively undisturbed areas serve as abarometer to measure the effects ofdevelopment on other parts of thelandscape.

Natural appearing landscapes withhigh scenic quality. High qualityscenery, especially scenery withnatural-appearing landscapes, is aprimary reason that people choose torecreate. In addition, quality scenerycontributes directly to real estate valuesin nearby communities and residentialareas.

Traditional cultural properties andsacred sites. Traditional culturalproperties are places, sites, structures,art, or objects that have played animportant role in the cultural history ofa group. Sacred sites are places thathave special religious significance to agroup. Traditional cultural propertiesand sacred sites may be eligible forprotection under the National HistoricPreservation Act. However, many ofthem have not yet been inventoried,especially those that occur ininventoried roadless areas.

Other locally identified uniquecharacteristics. Inventoried roadlessareas may offer other locally identifiedunique characteristics and values.Examples include uncommon geologicalformations, which are valued for theirscientific and scenic qualities, or uniquewetland complexes. Unique social,cultural, or historical characteristicsmay also depend on the roadlesscharacter of the landscape. Examplesinclude ceremonial sites, places forlocal events, areas prized for collectionof non-timber forest products, orexceptional hunting and fishingopportunities.

Fiscal ConsiderationsThe Department is also concerned

about building new roads in inventoriedroadless areas, when there presentlyexists a backlog of about $8.4 billion indeferred maintenance andreconstruction on the more than 386,000miles of roads in the ForestTransportation System. The agency



estimates that at least 60,000 miles ofadditional unauthorized roads existacross National Forest System lands.

The agency receives less than 20% ofthe funds needed annually to maintainthe existing road infrastructure. Asfunding needs remain unmet, the cost offixing deteriorating roads increasesexponentially every year. Failure tomaintain existing roads can also lead toerosion and water quality degradationand other environmental problems andpotential threats to human safety. Itmakes little fiscal or environmentalsense to build additional roads ininventoried roadless areas that haveirretrievable values at risk when theagency is struggling to maintain itsexisting extensive road system (FEISVol. 1, 1–5 and 3–22). The NationalForest System was founded more than100 years ago to protect drinking watersupplies and furnish a sustainablesupply of timber. Neither objective isfully achievable given the presentcondition of the existing road system.The risks inherent in building newroads in presently roadless areasthreaten environmental, social, andeconomic values.

Development activities in inventoriedroadless areas often cost more to planand implement than on other NationalForest System lands. Some plannedtimber sales in inventoried roadlessareas are likely to cost more to prepareand sell than they realize in revenuesreceived. Because of the level of publiccontroversy and analytical complexity,projects in roadless areas often requiredevelopment of costly environmentalimpact statements for most resourcedevelopment activities, includingtimber harvesting, in inventoriedroadless areas. In some cases, roadconstruction costs are higher due torugged terrain or sensitive ecologicalfactors. Many development projects ininventoried roadless areas are appealedor litigated. These factors contribute togenerally higher costs for the agency toplan and implement developmentactivities in inventoried roadless areas.

National Direction vs. LocalDecisionmaking

At the national level, Forest Serviceofficials have the responsibility toconsider the ‘‘whole picture’’ regardingthe management of the National ForestSystem, including inventoried roadlessareas. Local land management planningefforts may not always recognize thenational significance of inventoriedroadless areas and the values theyrepresent in an increasingly developedlandscape. If management decisions forthese areas were made on a case-by-casebasis at a forest or regional level,

inventoried roadless areas and theirecological characteristics and socialvalues could be incrementally reducedthrough road construction and certainforms of timber harvest. Added together,the nation-wide results of thesereductions could be a substantial loss ofquality and quantity of roadless areavalues and characteristics over time.

In 1972, the Forest Service initiated areview of National Forest Systemroadless areas generally larger than5,000 acres to determine their suitabilityfor inclusion in the National WildernessPreservation System. A second reviewprocess completed in 1979, known asRoadless Area Review and Evaluation II(RARE II), resulted in anothernationwide inventory of roadless areas.In the more than 20 years since thecompletion of RARE II, Congress hasdesignated some of these areas asWilderness. Additional reviews havebeen conducted through the landmanagement planning process and otherlarge-scale assessments. The 58.5million acres of inventoried roadlessareas used as the basis for this analysiswere identified from the most recentanalysis for each national forest orgrassland, including RARE II, land andresource management planning, or otherlarge-scale assessments such as theSouthern Appalachian Assessment.

Of the 58.5 million acres ofinventoried roadless areas considered inthe FEIS, approximately 34.3 millionacres have prescriptions that allow roadconstruction and reconstruction. Theremaining 24.2 million acres arecurrently allocated to managementprescriptions that prohibit roadconstruction; however, protections inthese existing plans may change afterfuture forest plan amendments orrevisions.

Over the past 20 years, roads havebeen constructed in an estimated 2.8million of those 34.3 million acres ofinventoried roadless areas. The agencyanticipates that the trend of buildingroads in inventoried roadless areas willgradually decrease in the future evenwithout this rule due to economic andecological factors already discussed,changes in agency policy, increasingcontroversy and litigation, and potentiallistings under the Endangered SpeciesAct. While these anticipated changesmay reduce some of the impact toinventoried roadless areas, they wouldnot eliminate the future threat toroadless area values (FEIS Vol. 1, 1–14to 1–15).

On many national forests andgrasslands, roadless area managementhas been a major point of conflict inland management planning. Thecontroversy continues today,

particularly on most proposals toharvest timber, build roads, or otherwisedevelop inventoried roadless areas. Thelarge number of appeals and lawsuits,and the extensive amount ofcongressional debate over the last 20years, illustrates the need for nationaldirection and resolution and theimportance many Americans attach tothe remaining inventoried roadless areason National Forest System lands (FEISVol. 1, 1–16). These disputes are costlyin terms of both fiscal resources andagency relationships with communitiesof place and communities of interest.Based on these factors, the agencydecided that the best means to reducethis conflict is through a national levelrule.

Importance of Watershed ProtectionWatershed protection is one of the

primary reasons Congress reserved orauthorized the purchase of NationalForest System lands. Watershed healthand restoration is also one of fouremphasis areas in the agency’s NaturalResource Agenda. Protecting theremaining healthy components of awatershed provides multiple benefitsand a strong base to anchor futurerestoration in unprotected portions ofthese watersheds. Rivers, streams, lakes,and wetlands within a watershed are thecirculatory system of ecosystems, andwater is the vital fluid for inhabitants ofthese ecosystems, including people(FEIS Vol. 1, 1–1).

Inventoried roadless areas comprise asmall fraction of the national landscape,representing less than 2% of the landbase of the continental United States.They are, however, disproportionatelyimportant to the small percentage of theland base they occupy. Overall, NationalForest System watersheds provide about14% of the total water flow of thenation, about 33% of water in the West(FEIS Vol. 1, 3–46). Of the watershedson National Forest System land, 661contain inventoried roadless areas and354 of those watersheds serve as sourceareas of drinking water used by millionsof people across the nation. Therefore,the health of these watersheds isimportant to people’s health throughoutthe United States.

Roads have long been recognized asone of the primary human-causedsources of soil and water disturbancesin forested environments (FEIS Vol. 1,3–44). For example, while landslides area natural process, extensive researchand other investigations in the Westhave closely associated landmanagement activities, particularlyroading and timber harvest, withaccelerated incidence of landslides byseveral orders of magnitude (FEIS Vol.



1, 3–58). A joint study by the ForestService and Bureau of LandManagement in Oregon and Washingtonfound that of 1,290 landslides reviewedin 41 sub-watersheds, 52% were relatedto roads, 31% to timber harvest, and17% occurred in undisturbed forest(FEIS Vol. 1, 3–59). Another evaluationof landslides initiated by the SiuslawNational Forest found that roads werethe source of 41% of landslides, harvestunits less than 20 years old were thesource of 36%, while natural forestprocesses accounted for the remaining23%. Without the disturbance caused byroads and associated activities, streamchannels are more likely to functionnaturally (FEIS Vol. 1, 3–54). Currentroad construction and timber harvestpractices reduce the potential fordamage associated with the use ofearlier and less sophisticatedtechniques. However, even with today’simproved design standards for roadconstruction and timber harvest, theseactivities can still result in adverseeffects to watersheds. These effectsinclude pollution, changes to watertemperatures and nutrient cycles, andincreased sediment from storm or runoffevents that exceed road designstandards (FEIS Vol. 1, 3–45 to 3–50).

Improving Ecosystem HealthInventoried roadless areas provide

large, relatively undisturbed blocks ofimportant habitat for a variety ofterrestrial and aquatic wildlife andplants, including hundreds ofthreatened, endangered, and sensitivespecies. In addition to their ecologicalcontributions to healthy watersheds,many inventoried roadless areasfunction as biological strongholds andrefuges for a number of species and playa key role in maintaining native plantand animal communities and biologicaldiversity (FEIS Vol. 1, 3–123 to 3–124).For example, about 60% of unroaded orvery low road density sub watershedswithin the Interior Columbia BasinEcosystem Management Project(ICBEMP) assessment area are aquaticstrongholds for salmonid populations(FEIS Vol. 1, 3–161). Inventoriedroadless areas are key to recovery ofsalmon and steelhead stocks in decline,providing habitat to protect speciesuntil longer-term solutions can bedeveloped for migration, passage,hatchery, and harvest problemsassociated with the decline ofanadromous fish.

Species richness and nativebiodiversity are more likely to beeffectively conserved in largerundisturbed landscapes, such asinventoried roadless areas (FEIS Vol. 1,3–142). For example, inventoried

roadless areas cover approximately 21%of the centers of biodiversity for animalsand 10% for plants identified inICBEMP (FEIS Vol. 1, 3–144 and 3–173).Inventoried roadless areas also providereference landscapes that managers canuse to gauge the health and condition ofother land areas.

Road construction, reconstruction,and timber harvesting activities canresult in fragmentation of ecosystems,the introduction of non-native invasivespecies, and other adverse consequencesto the health and integrity ofinventoried roadless areas (FEIS Vol. 1,3–128 to 3–136). As human-causedfragmentation increases, the amount ofcore wildlife habitat decreases. Thisfragmentation results in decreasedconnectivity of wildlife habitat andwildlife movement, isolating somespecies and increasing the risk of localextirpations or extinctions (FEIS Vol. 1,3–133). The value of inventoriedroadless areas as habitat for threatened,endangered, and sensitive species andas biological strongholds can also bediminished due to these activities. Forexample, 220 species that are listed asthreatened, endangered, or proposed forlisting under the Endangered SpeciesAct and 1,930 agency-identifiedsensitive species rely on habitat withininventoried roadless areas (FEIS Vol. 1,3–180). The Department of Agriculturebelieves that the risks associated withcertain development activities ininventoried roadless areas should beminimized and that these areas shouldbe conserved for present and futuregenerations.

Need for Action

Promulgating this rule is necessary toprotect the social and ecological valuesand characteristics of inventoriedroadless areas from road constructionand reconstruction and certain timberharvesting activities. Withoutimmediate action, these developmentactivities may adversely affectwatershed values and ecosystem healthin the short and long term, expand theroad maintenance backlog which wouldincrease the financial burden associatedwith road maintenance, and perpetuatepublic controversy and debate over themanagement of these areas. The newplanning rules provide for review ofother activities and allow for additionalprotection of roadless areas, ifwarranted. Adoption of this final ruleensures that inventoried roadless areaswill be managed in a manner thatsustains their values now and for futuregenerations.

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

How Was Public Involvement Used inthe Rulemaking Process?

In January 1998, Forest Service ChiefMike Dombeck proposed to temporarilysuspend road construction andreconstruction in most inventoriedroadless areas and other adjacentunroaded areas, and provided advancenotice of revisions to the regulationsgoverning the management of the ForestTransportation System. After analyzingpublic comments on the proposal, theAgency issued an interim rule at 36 CFRpart 212, Administration of the ForestDevelopment Transportation System:Temporary Suspension of RoadConstruction and Reconstruction inUnroaded Areas (February 12, 1999; 64FR 7290). This Interim Roads Rulesuspended road construction andreconstruction in certain inventoriedroadless areas for 18 months (March1999 through August 2000), while along-term forest transportation policywas developed. During the publiccomment period for the Interim RoadsRule, the Agency receivedapproximately 119,000 publiccomments, many of which mentionedthe need for ‘‘permanent protection’’ ofinventoried roadless areas.

On October 13, 1999, PresidentWilliam J. Clinton directed the ForestService to develop and propose forpublic comment regulations that wouldprovide appropriate long-termprotection for currently inventoriedroadless areas. The public, and allinterested parties, were to have theopportunity to review and comment onthe proposed regulations.

To comply with this presidentialdirective, the agency published a noticeof intent to prepare a DEIS in theFederal Register (64 FR 56306) onOctober 19, 1999, and announced theinitiation of the public rulemakingprocess to propose the protection ofcertain roadless areas within theNational Forest System. Section 553(a)of the Administrative Procedures Actexempts public property rules from thepublic involvement requirements setforth in section 553. In 1971, the UnitedStates Department of Agriculturepublished a voluntary waiver of theexemption from the notice andcomments requirements of 5 U.S.C.553(b) and (c) (36 FR 13804).Accordingly, the Forest Servicepublished a proposed rulemaking in theFederal Register and providedopportunity for public participationduring the development of the proposedand final rules. (See Rodway v. USDA,514 F.2d 809 (D.C. Cir. 1975)).



On May 10, 2000, the Forest Serviceissued a proposed rule in the FederalRegister (65 FR 30276). The notice ofavailability of the DEIS was publishedin the Federal Register on May 19, 2000(65 FR 31898). The public commentperiod on the proposed rule and DEISclosed on July 17, 2000. The notice ofavailability of the FEIS was published inthe Federal Register on November 17,2000 (65 FR 69513).

The agency’s notice of intent toprepare an environmental impactstatement drew about 16,000 people to187 public meetings and elicited morethan 517,000 responses. Although thepurpose of the notice of intent wasmerely to solicit issues that the publicthought should be addressed in thedevelopment of a DEIS, the ForestService provided maps and otherinformation to address public concernsand questions. On March 15, 2000, twomonths before release of the proposedrule and DEIS, news releases and letterswere sent to news media, other Federal,State, and local government agencies,libraries, and Forest Service units toexplain how to obtain the proposed ruleand DEIS in a variety of electronic andhardcopy formats. The proposed actionand other alternatives, backgroundinformation, and a schedule of publicmeetings were posted on the agency’sRoadless Area Conservation website(roadless.fs.fed.us).

The Forest Service hosted two cyclesof meetings during the comment periodon the DEIS and proposed rule—one forinformation sharing and discussion andthe other to collect oral comments.Written comments were collected atboth meetings. About 430 publicmeetings were held—about 230 forinformation sharing and writtencomments and about 200 for collectingoral and written comments. Everynational forest and grassland hosted atleast two meetings. These meetingsdrew over 23,000 people nationwide.

The Forest Service also receivedcomments by postal and electronic mailand by telefax. By the close of thecomment period, the agency receivedover 1 million postcards or other formletters; 60,000 original letters; 90,000electronic mail messages; and severalthousand telefaxes (FEIS Vol. 1, 1–7).The Forest Service’s Content AnalysisEnterprise Team in Salt Lake City, Utah,organized and analyzed the commentson the proposal. Some respondentsfocused their remarks on provisions ofthe proposed rule, others concentratedon the alternatives and analysescontained in the DEIS, and manycomments applied to both documents.

Information from the formal publicmeetings, letters, emails, telefaxes, and

other sources were all included in theFEIS analysis. The Forest Servicereviewed, analyzed, and responded tothose comments. Responses tocomments directly related to theproposed rule are included in thispreamble. An explanation of thecomment analysis process and how thecomments were used to clarify text,modify alternatives or analysis, oraugment technical information isincluded in Volume 3 of the FEIS.

One of the major process concernsexpressed was that the agency did notgive the public and governmentalentities, such as Tribes, States, andcounties adequate notice or time tocomment on the proposed action. Theagency recognizes that many groupswould have preferred additional timefor review and comment. However, thetime period was adequate to allow formore than 1.6 million comments to bereceived throughout the process.Throughout the process, the agency’swebsite has provided up-to-dateinformation for interested parties tolearn about the proposed action. Thestraightforward nature of the proposedrule and the sheer volume of commentsreceived are compelling evidence thatthere was an adequate opportunity forthe public to be heard, and sufficientinformation for officials to make areasoned and informed decision.

Since the publication of the FEIS, theagency has received comments on theFEIS and the preferred alternative.Generally, these comments mirrorcomments received on the NOI andDEIS. The majority of these respondentsasked for the prohibitions toimmediately take effect on the TongassNational Forest, and for additionalprohibitions on off-highway vehicle use,grazing, and mining activities. Somerespondents provided additionalinformation on potential environmentaland economic effects, which the agencyhas reviewed and determined fallwithin the range of effects disclosed inthe FEIS. These comments wereconsidered by the agency in thedevelopment of the final rule and are inthe project record.

What General Issues Were IdentifiedRegarding the Proposed Rule and DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement?

Overview. Comments on the notice ofintent, the proposed rule, and the DEISillustrated strongly held individualvalues and beliefs and a wide range ofviews on how to manage inventoriedroadless areas. These comments can bedivided into two basic and verydifferent perspectives (FEIS Vol. 1, 1–8to 1–9). One perspective is thatdecisions concerning management of

inventoried roadless areas should be leftto the local responsible official, withoutnational intervention. The otherperspective is that national prohibitionson road construction, reconstruction,and timber harvest in inventoriedroadless areas, along with a stop to otheractivities, must occur from a nationallevel, as local decisionmaking does notalways reflect the national significanceof the issues involved. The agencyconsidered and attempted to balanceboth perspectives throughout thisrulemaking.

These two viewpoints focused on sixmajor categories of issues in the DEIS asfollows: public access, identification ofother unroaded areas, exemptions andexceptions, environmental effects, localinvolvement (decisionmaking), and theeffect on forest dependent communities(FEIS Vol. 1, 1–9 to 1–14).

After reviewing and analyzing thepublic comments received during thecomment period for the proposed ruleand DEIS, the agency found that thesemajor issue categories were still valid.Public comment within these categoriesis incorporated in the discussions ofspecific issues and comments related toeach section of the proposed rule. Theseissues also have been used for thefollowing purposes in the rulemakingprocess: to determine the scope of theproposal (type of decision to be made);to develop a range of alternatives; toidentify possible mitigation measures; todirect the analysis of potentialenvironmental, social, and economiceffects; and to ensure that the agency isoperating within its legal authorities.

Issues Raised by Those Opposed toProhibitions. This group indicated thatinventoried roadless areas shouldremain available for road constructionand reconstruction to obtain resources,to provide increased motorizedrecreation opportunities, and for otheruses. These individuals expressed theviewpoint that roadless areas, withactive and prudent management, couldsupport both intrinsic benefits andcommodity uses, and that localresponsible officials should makemanagement decisions on inventoriedroadless areas. This group also indicatedthat environmental concerns should nottake precedence over human needs anddesired uses, and that maintaining ahealthy environment should notpreclude resource production,motorized access, and developedrecreation opportunities.

Many members of this group alsostated that conservation requires activemanagement, such as providing roadsfor: thinning forest vegetation, insectand disease treatment, commodityresource production, hazardous fuels



reductions, and the development ofrecreation facilities. They stressed thatthe failure to actively manage forestsand grasslands could result in insectinfestations and uncharacteristicwildfire effects, and asserted thatprudent management would benefitpeople and wildlife. They expressedconcern for the impact this rule wouldhave on future generations that wouldnot be able to participate in a lifestylethat is dependent on resource use andproduction. They said that if futuregenerations would not be able to accessthe land, they would not value the land.

Issues Raised by Those Who FavorProhibitions. These respondentsindicated that they viewed forestlandsas whole ecosystems and that theythought roadless areas should beconserved for their intrinsic values andfor esthetic benefits to humans. In theirview, roadless areas should be allowedto evolve naturally through their owndynamic processes, although someproponents agreed with the need forlimited stewardship activity. Thissecond group stressed that humandesire for commodity production shouldtake second place to needs for a healthyenvironment (both locally and globally),for quiet natural places, for spiritual andpsychological regeneration, and to meetthe needs of other living things. Theyindicated that the social and economicneeds of forest-dependent users couldbe met through job retraining, throughdevelopment of alternative materials,and by designating already developedareas for motorized recreation and otherground-disturbing activities.

Most of the respondents in thissecond group maintained that theproposed rule did not prohibit enoughdevelopment activities. They stated thatthe final rule should immediately bantimber harvest, other commodityproduction, and motorized recreationfrom roadless areas 1,000 acres or larger,and that the agency should not deferconservation of roadless areas to futureland management planning processes.They also stressed that the TongassNational Forest should be included inthis conservation effort, an issue that theagency specifically requested commenton in the DEIS. Many respondents inthis group expressed a desire that futuregenerations receive the benefits of cleanair and water, habitat adequate to assurespecies diversity, and other social andecological values provided byinventoried roadless areas.

Issues Raised by Federal, Tribal, Stateand Local Public Officials. The agencyreceived many comments from Federal,Tribal, State and local public officialsand agencies across the country. Lettersreceived from these sources during the

comment period on the DEIS arepublished in Volume 4 of the FEIS.These comments reflect a cross-sectionof the comments received from thepublic at large.

Many public officials from States andcounties concerned about access to andacross National Forest System lands andconcerned about forest dependentcommunities expressed strongopposition to the proposed rule, citingnegative economic impacts to thesecommunities and commodityproduction industries, as well asnegative impacts to rural lifestyles.Access to State-owned lands andimpacts to statutory rights-of-way acrosspublic lands were major concerns aswell. In general, those Western Stateswith the greatest roadless acreage (forexample, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,Utah, and Wyoming) tended to generatethe greatest number of negativecomments from Governors, agencies,and officials. Public officials from areaswith larger urban populations generallysupported the proposed rule because oftheir expressed desire for recreationopportunities, protection of waterquality, and undisturbed landscapes.

The following examples illustratethese different views. In the State ofWashington, some of the officials andagencies writing in support of theproposed rule included the Governor,King and Spokane Counties, and theSeattle City Council, while StevensCounty, the City of Forks, and the Cityof Port Angeles were opposed (FEIS Vol.4, 573, 579, 583 to 588). In Missouri, theDent County Commission was opposedto the proposal while the State’sDepartment of Natural Resources wassupportive (FEIS Vol. 4, 250 to 252).

Comments from agencies also variedaccording to the anticipated effects totheir management programs. Forexample, the Florida Fish and WildlifeConservation Commission saw theproposed rule as resulting in positivebenefits for native wildlife and plantcommunities, while the VirginiaDepartment of Game and InlandFisheries saw the proposal as harmful towildlife and the management of wildlife(FEIS Vol. 4, 79 to 81, 571). Mostresponding Department ofTransportation offices were concernedover access and maintenance issues.

Letters from Tribal officials providedmixed comments and concerns. SomeTribes were generally supportive of theproposed rule, with the provision thattraditional uses of the land and accessto cultural and sacred sites be allowedto continue. Other Tribes expressedconcern about how the proposal mightaffect economic opportunities. Stillothers believed that the rule should

further restrict certain activities ininventoried roadless areas that mayaffect adjacent Tribal lands.

What Specific Issues Were Raised on theProposed Rule and What Changes Didthe Agency Make From Proposed ToFinal Rules?

The following is a section-by-sectiondiscussion of issues raised andcomments received on the proposedrule, the agency’s response, and adescription of changes made to the rule.

Proposed § 294.10—Purpose. Thisproposed section identified the agency’sgoal of providing lasting protection forinventoried roadless areas and otherunroaded areas of the National ForestSystem in the context of multiple-usemanagement.

Comment on Multiple-Use. Somerespondents commented that theproposed rule did not provide formultiple-use of inventoried roadlessareas, since resources cannot always beaccessed and developed without roadsand, therefore, for example, forest healthissues could not be addressed.

Response. The Multiple-UseSustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA)provides the Forest Service authority tomanage national forest and grasslands‘‘for outdoor recreation, range, timber,watershed, and wildlife and fishpurposes.’’ The NFMA reaffirmedmultiple-use and sustained-yield as theguiding principles for land managementplanning of National Forest Systemlands (16 U.S.C. 1600, 1604).

In defining ‘‘multiple use,’’ theMUSYA, as amended, clearly providesthat under multiple-use managementsome land will be used for less than allof the possible resource uses of thenational forests and grasslands. The actalso provides that even theestablishment of wilderness areas isconsistent with the purposes andprovisions of the act. The Roadless AreaConservation rule, unlike theestablishment of wilderness areas, willallow a multitude of activities includingmotorized uses, grazing, and oil and gasdevelopment that does not require newroads to continue in inventoriedroadless areas.

Currently, a wide range of multipleuses is permitted in inventoriedroadless areas subject to themanagement direction in forest plans. Awide range of multiple uses will still beallowable under the provisions of thisrule. The National Forest Systemcontains an extensive system of roadsmeasuring approximately 386,000 miles.This final rule will not close orotherwise block access to any of thoseroads; the final rule merely prohibits theconstruction of new roads and the



reconstruction of existing roads ininventoried roadless areas.

Under this final rule, managementactions that do not require theconstruction of new roads will still beallowed, including activities such astimber harvesting for clearly defined,limited purposes, development of validclaims of locatable minerals, grazing oflivestock, and off-highway vehicle usewhere specifically permitted. Existingclassified roads in inventoried roadlessareas may be maintained and used forthese and other activities as well. Foresthealth treatments for the purposes ofimproving threatened, endangered,proposed, or sensitive species habitat ormaintaining or restoring thecharacteristics of ecosystemcomposition and structure, such asreducing the risk of uncharacteristicwildfire effects, will be allowed whereaccess can be gained through existingroads or by equipment not requiringroads. Also, see the response toproposed § 294.12 for further discussionof the MUSYA.

Comment on Forest PlanAmendments. Many respondentsasserted that the rule would supersedeforest plans, the National ForestManagement Act, and land managementplanning regulations, and thus exceedexisting statutory authority. Otherscontended that the rule would requirean amendment to forest plans.

Response. The preamble to the recentNFMA planning regulations identifythat ‘‘[p]lanning will be conducted atthe appropriate level depending on thescope and scale of the issues.’’ TheDepartment went on to note that‘‘[f]undamental to this rule is the notionthat there is a hierarchy of scale to beconsidered when addressing resourcemanagement issues, and that it is thenature of the issue that guides theselection of the appropriate scale andlevel of the organization to address it’’(65 FR 67523). The use of rulemaking toaddress the conservation of inventoriedroadless areas is both appropriate andconsistent with the NFMAimplementing regulations.

Just as development and approval offorest plans must conform to existinglaws and regulations, new laws orregulations, including this rule, cansupersede existing forest planmanagement direction. This rulemakingprocess does not require amendments orrevisions to forest plans. However, aForest or Grassland Supervisor mayconsider whether an amendment orrevision is appropriate given overallcircumstances for a particularadministrative unit.

Comment on Roadless Areas in ForestPlanning. A few respondents stated that

the purposed section should require theincorporation of roadless area protectioninto forest plans.

Response. The recently revisedregulations at 36 CFR part 219 guidingthe development of forest plans(November 9, 2000; 65 FR 67571)contain a requirement at § 219.9(b)(8)that provides additional protection forunroaded and inventoried roadlessareas. During the plan revision process,or at other times as deemed appropriate,the responsible official must identifyand evaluate inventoried roadless areasand unroaded areas and then determinewhich, if any, of those areas warrantadditional protection and the level ofprotection to be afforded. For thisreason, there is no need to add thesuggested language to the purposesection of the final rule. In fact,inclusion of these procedures in thenew planning regulations is why theprocedures proposed at § 294.13 havebeen removed from this rule.

Summary of Changes in Section294.10 of the Final Rule. Havingconsidered the comments received, theagency has retained the purpose sectionwith two changes: (1) The sentence hasbeen reorganized to emphasize that thegoal of providing lasting protection ofroadless areas must occur within thecontext of multiple-use management;and (2) the agency has removed thereference to ‘‘other unroaded areas’’ inthis section, since, as already noted, thenew land and resource managementplanning regulations at 36 CFR part 219provide for evaluation of these areas atthe time of land and resourcemanagement plan revision (FEIS Vol. 1,1–16).

Proposed Section 294.11 Definitions.This section set out the terms anddefinitions used in the proposed rule.The proposed rule contained definitionsfor the following terms: ‘‘inventoriedroadless areas, responsible official, road,classified road, unclassified road, roadconstruction, road maintenance, roadreconstruction, (road) realignment,(road) improvement, (road) rebuilding,unroaded area, unroaded portion of aninventoried roadless area.’’

Comment on ‘‘Inventoried RoadlessArea’’ Definition. Some respondentsrequested a modification of thedefinition for ‘‘inventoried roadlessarea’’ to include ‘‘undeveloped areas of1,000 acres and larger’’ rather than‘‘undeveloped areas exceeding 5,000acres.’’ Others thought that includingreferences to the minimum criteria forwilderness made the definition toorestrictive, eliminating otherwisedeserving areas from protection. Someexpressed confusion over whichinventories were used to determine

inventoried roadless areas, and thepossibility of error in identifyinginventoried roadless areas.

Response. The proposed definition ofinventoried roadless area was based ona group of roadless areas that wereevaluated for wilderness considerationbeginning in the 1970’s and throughsubsequent planning efforts. With thepublication of the DEIS and now theFEIS, the agency can now define theseinventoried roadless areas as those areasidentified in the set of maps containedin Volume 2 of the FEIS or subsequentrevisions. These maps are maintained atthe national headquarters of the ForestService and are the official maps for thefinal rule. In the event a modification tocorrect any clerical, typographical, orother technical error is needed, thechange will be made to the nationalheadquarters maps and corrected copiesof the maps made available to otheradministrative units. This definitiondoes not apply to future areas that maybe inventoried for wildernessconsideration or other purposes. Thismodification, which removed thehistorical context for the definition ofinventoried roadless area, has beenincluded in the final rule.

Comment on ‘‘Unroaded Area’’Definition. The identification ofunroaded areas other than those alreadyinventoried was a major issue. It wasunclear to some respondents whetherthe presence of unclassified roadswould be a factor in determiningwhether an area qualified as anunroaded area. Others thought that thedefinition of ‘‘unroaded area’’ shouldnot include unclassified roads becausesuch areas could not foster isolation,independence, or an undisturbedsetting. Others suggested that theseissues are better resolved through localland management planning. The publicsuggested various criteria and processesfor the protection and management ofthese other unroaded areas.

Response. These suggestions wereconsidered under proceduralalternatives A through D in the DEIS.Since the comment period on the DEISclosed, the consideration of otherunroaded areas has been addressed inthe context of the final planningregulations at 36 CFR part 219. Theagency agreed with the respondentswho believed these types of planningissues were more appropriatelyaddressed in the context of the planningrule and local land managementplanning. Thus, comments on how toconsider and manage these otherunroaded areas were considered in thepreparation of the planning rule. Asexplained in the discussion of theagency’s response to proposed § 294.13



later in this preamble, the provisions ofthe proposed rule relevant to unroadedareas have been removed. Therefore, theterm ‘‘unroaded area’’ is no longerneeded.

Comment on ‘‘Responsible Official’’Definition. Some respondents wanted toknow whether the responsible officialfor activities within an inventoriedroadless area would be a District Ranger,Forest Supervisor, or Regional Forester.

Response. The appropriateresponsible official, as defined in theproposed rule, depends on the decisionunder consideration. For example,District Rangers often make decisionsregarding trail construction, special useauthorizations, and wildlife habitatimprovement projects. ForestSupervisors typically make decisions onmajor developed recreation sites, largetimber sales, and ski area developments.This rule does not alter existingdelegations of authority for ForestService responsible officials. Becausethe scope of a proposed decisiondetermines who will make the decision,the definition of ‘‘responsible official’’must be broad enough to embrace thevarious possibilities. Therefore, the finalrule retains, without change, thedefinition in the proposed rule.

Comment on ‘‘Road’’ Definition.Respondents expressed concern that thedefinition of a road was ambiguous andfailed to recognize the primitivetravelways used by motorizedrecreationists. Some respondents wereconcerned that the definition indicatedpermission for the construction of atravelway over 50 inches wide for off-road vehicles if the road wasdetermined to be a trail. Otherrespondents thought that the definitionof classified roads should includeRevised Statute (R.S.) 2477 roads.

Response. For agency consistency,this final rule includes the samedefinitions of ‘‘road,’’ ‘‘classified road,’’‘‘unclassified road,’’ and ‘‘temporaryroad’’ that are contained in the NationalForest System Road Managementregulations (36 CFR part 212) and policy(Forest Service Manual 7700 and 7710)transmitted on January 4, 2001 forpublication in the Federal Register.Based on consideration of publiccomment received on the roadmanagement proposal, these definitionswere revised for clarity and a definitionfor ‘‘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 inthis paragraph as proposed wasintended to prohibit the authorizedconstruction, reconstruction, ormaintenance of motorized or non-motorized trails that are classified and

managed as trails pursuant to existingstatutory and regulatory authority andagency direction (FSM 2350). Nor wasanything in this paragraph intended tocondone or authorize the use of usercreated or unauthorized roads or trails.These decisions are made subject toexisting agency regulations and policyand that intent has been retained in thefinal rule.

Future claims and existing rights forR.S. 2477 roads would not be affectedby this rule. The agency recognizesvalid R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. However,the validity of R.S. 2477 assertions mustbe evaluated on a case-by-case basis.Therefore, there is no need to modifythe definition of classified road for thispurpose.

Comment on Road ManagementTerms. Some respondents thought thedefinitions of ‘‘road construction,’’‘‘maintenance,’’ ‘‘reconstruction,’’‘‘realignment,’’ ‘‘improvement,’’ and‘‘rebuilding’’ were confusing. Otherswanted clarification on whether theterms applied only to classified roads,or to unclassified roads as well.

Response. As previously noted in thispreamble, this final rule includes thedefinitions of road management termsadopted in the final National ForestSystem Road Management Rule andpolicy. The definition of ‘‘rebuilding’’has been removed; the definition of‘‘road’’ has expanded to include‘‘temporary road;’’ and the other termswere revised in the final roadmanagement policy and are usedverbatim in this rule for consistency.

Comment on ‘‘Unroaded Portion of anInventoried Roadless Area’’ Definition.Many respondents considered the termand definition of ‘‘unroaded portion ofan inventoried roadless area’’ confusingand remarked that they did notunderstand how it would be applied. Inresponse to the identified preferredalternative in the FEIS, which wouldhave applied the prohibitions todeveloped portions of inventoriedroadless areas, respondents questionedwhy the agency would seek to protectroadless area values and characteristicsin areas that have already been roadedand had timber harvest, therebynegating the very characteristics thisrule seeks to protect.

Response. One of the primaryobjectives of this rulemaking was toresolve the longstanding controversiessurrounding management of inventoriedroadless areas. Without additionalclarification, the definition of‘‘unroaded portion of an inventoriedroadless area’’ could have begun a newround of land management planinventories and controversy about howto identify the boundary between the

roaded and unroaded portions of theseareas. This had the potential to increaserather than reduce the number ofappeals and lawsuits surroundinginventoried roadless area management.

The agency agreed that theterminology and definition in theproposed rule were confusing.Therefore, it proposed in the FEISeliminating this definition and applyingthe prohibitions to the entire areawithin an inventoried roadless areaboundary.

To resolve the agency’s concern aboutextending the controversy to future landmanagement planning and to addressthe public concern about precludingtimber harvesting in the portions ofinventoried roadless areas that no longerpossess roadless characteristics,§ 294.13(b)(4) has been added. Thisparagraph allows timber to be cut, sold,or removed in the portions ofinventoried roadless areas whereroadless values and characteristics havebeen substantially altered due to roadconstruction and subsequent timberharvest after the area was inventoried.No new road construction would beallowed. Decisions on whether or not aninventoried roadless area’scharacteristics have been substantiallyaltered would occur during projectplanning and decisionmaking.

In response to the proposed rule,some respondents questioned why theagency would only exempt thoseportions developed after an area wasinventoried, rather than exempting alldeveloped portions regardless of whenthe road construction and timberharvest occurred. Some inventoriedroadless areas, particularly those in theEast, contained roads at the time of theirinventory and timber may also havebeen harvested in these areas. However,the agency assumes that these priorexisting developments and activities didnot substantially alter the areas’ roadlessvalues and characteristics, or theywould not have been inventoried forpossible wilderness consideration.

For the reasons described, the term‘‘unroaded portion of an inventoriedroadless area’’ is no longer necessaryand has been removed from thedefinitions in the final rule.

Comment on ‘‘Roadless AreaCharacteristics.’’ Some respondentswanted additions to the list of roadlessarea characteristics identified inproposed § 294.13(a), more specificcharacteristics for each inventoriedroadless area, clarification as to theirmeaning, and to know how they wouldbe used in the evaluation of inventoriedroadless areas and unroaded areasduring forest plan revision.



Response. Although the term‘‘roadless area characteristics’’ was notdefined in the proposed rule, proposed§ 294.13 did include the list ofcharacteristics. While proposed § 294.13was not retained in the final rule forreasons described in the section of thispreamble entitled ‘‘Consideration ofRoadless Area Conservation DuringForest Plan Revision,’’ the roadless areacharacteristics remain fundamental tothe environmental analysis of thealternatives considered in thisrulemaking and are critical to evaluatingwhether trees may be cut, removed, orsold from inventoried roadless areaspursuant to the provisions at§ 294.13(b). For these reasons, the list ofroadless area characteristics has beenreformatted with minor changes forclarification and added to thedefinitions in § 294.11 of the final rule.

The definition of roadless areacharacteristics includes ‘‘other locallyidentified unique characteristics’’ tocapture unique characteristics specificto individual inventoried roadless areasidentified during local landmanagement planning. Therefore, it isnot necessary to identify, in this rule,characteristics for each inventoriedroadless area or to add to the list in thedefinition. A more detailed descriptionof these characteristics is in the sectionof this preamble entitled ‘‘Roadless AreaValues and Characteristics’’.

Summary of Changes in § 294.11 ofthe Final Rule. The definitions sectionof the final rule reflects the precedingresponses to comments received.Revisions have been made in the roadmanagement definitions included in§ 294.11 to achieve consistency with thefinal National Forest System RoadManagement Rule as well as with theprovisions of the final National ForestSystem Land and Resource ManagementPlanning Rule. The terms ‘‘unroadedportion of an inventoried roadless area’’and ‘‘unroaded area’’ were removedfrom the definitions. The first sentencewas removed from the proposed rule’sdefinition of ‘‘inventoried roadless area’’because, while the sentence providedhistorical context, it was not necessaryfor the definition. The definition of‘‘roadless area characteristics’’ has beenadded.

Proposed Section 294.12. Prohibitionon road construction and reconstructionin inventoried roadless areas. Thissection of the proposed rule identifiedthe road construction andreconstruction prohibitions, andexemptions and exceptions to theprohibitions. Paragraph (a) of proposed§ 294.12 prohibited road constructionand reconstruction in the unroadedportions of inventoried roadless areas,

except for the circumstances listed inproposed paragraphs (b)(1) through(b)(4) and paragraph (c).

Comment on Agency Authority. Theagency received many commentsquestioning whether the Forest Servicehad the authority to prohibit roadconstruction through this rulemakingprocess, and whether the proposed rulewas in conflict with existingenvironmental and land managementlaws and policies.

Response. The Forest Serviceroutinely makes decisions to constructor not construct roads for a variety ofpurposes. The Secretary has clearauthority to promulgate this rule, andthis rule does not conflict with existinglaw and policy. The foundation for anyexercise of power by the Federalgovernment is the United StatesConstitution. The Constitutionalprovision that provides authority formanagement of public lands is theProperty Clause (Article IV, Section 3).The Property Clause states that Congresshas the power to dispose of and makeall needful rules and regulationsrespecting land or other propertybelonging to the United States. Usingthis authority, Congress entrusted theSecretary of Agriculture with broadpowers to protect and administer theNational Forest System by passing laws,such as the Organic Administration Actof 1897 (the Organic Act), the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960(MUSYA), and the National ForestManagement Act of 1976 (NFMA).

The duties that Congress assigned tothe Secretary include regulating theoccupancy and use of National ForestSystem lands and preserving the forestsfrom destruction (16 U.S.C. 551).Through the MUSYA, Congress directedthe Secretary to administer the NationalForest System for multiple-use andsustained-yield of renewable resourceswithout impairment of the productivityof the land (16 U.S.C. 528–531), thusestablishing multiple-use as thefoundation for management of nationalforests and grasslands. These multipleuses include outdoor recreation, range,timber, watershed, and wildlife and fishpurposes. The statute defines ‘‘multipleuse’’ broadly, calling for management ofthe various uses in the combination thatwill best meet the needs of theAmerican people (16 U.S.C. 531). Underthis framework, courts have recognizedthat the MUSYA does not envision thatevery acre of National Forest Systemland be managed for every multiple use,and does envision some lands beingused for less than all of the resources.As a consequence, the agency has widediscretion to weigh and decide theproper uses within any area (Wind-River

Multiple-use Advocates v. Espy, 835 F.Supp. 1362, 1372 (D.Wyo.1993)).

In passing the MUSYA, Congress alsoaffirmed the application ofsustainability to the broad range ofresources the Forest Service manages,and did so without limiting the agency’sbroad discretion in determining theappropriate resource emphasis and mixof uses. Some of the agency’s pastdecisions have been challenged in court,leading to judicial decisions interpretingthe extent of Forest Service discretion,or judgment, in managing NationalForest System lands. Courts haveroutinely held that the Forest Servicehas wide discretion in deciding theproper mix of uses within any area ofNational Forest System lands. In thewords of the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals, the agency’s authoritypursuant to the MUSYA ‘‘breathesdiscretion at every pore.’’ (Perkins v.Bergland, 608 F.2d 803, 806 (9thCir.1979)).

The NFMA reaffirmed multiple-useand sustained-yield as the guidingprinciples for land managementplanning of National Forest Systemlands (16 U.S.C. 1600, 1604). Togetherwith other applicable laws, the NFMAauthorizes the Secretary of Agricultureto promulgate regulations governing theadministration and management of theNational Forest Transportation System(16 U.S.C. 1608) and other suchregulations as the Secretary determinesnecessary and desirable to carry out theprovisions of the NFMA (16 U.S.C.1613). These laws complement the long-standing authority of the Secretary toregulate the occupancy and use of theNational Forest System (16 U.S.C. 551).

Comment on National Prohibitions vs.Local Decisionmaking. Manyrespondents supported the proposednational prohibition on new roadconstruction in inventoried roadlessareas. Other respondents felt thereshould not be a national prohibitionbecause this would eliminate the optionof making local decisions based onpublic input. Others felt the decisionsregarding construction of roads ininventoried roadless areas should bemade when forest plans are revised.

Response. The agency has addressedthis issue in detail at the outset of thisfinal rule. At the national level, ForestService officials have the responsibilityto consider the ‘‘whole picture’’regarding the management of theNational Forest System, includinginventoried roadless areas. Local landmanagement planning efforts may notalways recognize the nationalsignificance of inventoried roadlessareas and the values they represent inan increasingly developed landscape. If



management decisions for these areaswere made on a case-by-case basis at aforest or regional level, inventoriedroadless areas and their ecologicalcharacteristics and social values couldbe incrementally reduced through roadconstruction and certain forms of timberharvest. Added together, the nation-wide results of these reductions couldbe a substantial loss of quality andquantity of roadless area values andcharacteristics over time.

On many national forests andgrasslands, roadless area managementhas been a major point of conflict inland management planning. Thecontroversy continues today,particularly on most proposals toharvest timber, build roads, or otherwisedevelop inventoried roadless areas. Thelarge number of appeals and lawsuits,and the extensive amount ofcongressional debate over the last 20years illustrates the need for nationaldirection and resolution and theimportance many Americans attach tothe remaining inventoried roadless areason National Forest System lands (FEISVol. 1, 1–16). These disputes are costlyin terms of both fiscal resources andagency relationships with communitiesof place and communities of interest.Based on these factors, the agencydecided that the best means to reducethis conflict is through a national levelrule.

Comment on Access. The agencyreceived many comments questioninghow the proposed rule would affectaccess to lands that the agency does notmanage, such as State lands or privateinholdings, and access pursuant to theGeneral Mining Law of 1872.

Response. This rule does not affect aState’s or private landowner’s right ofaccess to their land. The proposed ruledid not close any roads or off-highwayvehicle (OHV) trails. The proposed ruleprovided for the construction andreconstruction of roads in inventoriedroadless areas where needed pursuant toexisting or outstanding rights, or asprovided for by statute or treaty,including R.S. 2477 rights, access toinholdings under the Alaska NationalInterest Lands Conservation Act(ANILCA) provisions, or circumstanceswhere a valid right-of-way exists.

The most common right of access tonon-federally owned propertysurrounded by National Forest Systemlands is a road constructed orreconstructed on those National ForestSystem lands. The final rule at§ 294.12(b)(3) provides for constructionor reconstruction of a road in aninventoried roadless area ‘‘if theResponsible Official determines that* * * a road is needed pursuant to

reserved or outstanding rights, or asprovided for by statute or treaty.’’ Forexample, the ANILCA provides alandowner a right of access acrossNational Forest System lands in certaincircumstances, and this rule does notamend or modify that statute.

Title 36 part 251 of the Code ofFederal Regulations implements theANILCA access provisions and setsforth the procedures by whichlandowners may apply for access acrossNational Forest System lands; this ruledoes not amend or modify thatregulation. Access to non-Federal landdoes not have to be a road in all cases,nor does it have to be the mosteconomical, direct, or convenient for thelandowner, although the agency tries tobe sensitive to the cost in time andmoney to the inholder. The cost toconstruct or reconstruct road access tonon-Federal lands is usually theresponsibility of the inholder, not theForest Service. During the applicationprocess for such access, applicable laws,such as the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act and the Endangered SpeciesAct, still must be considered.

Access for the exploration of locatableminerals pursuant to the GeneralMining Law of 1872 is not prohibited bythis rule. Nor is reasonable access forthe development of valid claimspursuant to the General Mining Law of1872 prohibited. In some cases, accessother than roads may be adequate formineral activities. This access mayinclude, but is not limited to, helicopter,road construction or reconstruction, ornon-motorized transport. Determinationof access requirements for explorationor development of locatable minerals isgoverned by the provisions of 36 CFRpart 228.

Comments on Effect on FireSuppression. Numerous respondentsexpressed concern with the effect of aroad construction prohibition on firefighter safety and access to suppresswildland fires.

Response. Proposed § 294.12(b)(1)allowed road construction andreconstruction in inventoried roadlessareas when a road is needed to protectpublic health and safety in cases of animminent threat of flood, fire, or othercatastrophic event. In addition, usingsuch suppression resources assmokejumpers and fire crews deliveredby helicopters, the current firesuppression organization has beeneffective in suppressing at a small sizeapproximately 98% of wildland firestarts in inventoried roadless areas. Theagency also typically prioritizes fightingroadless and wilderness fires lower thanfighting fires in more accessible andpopulated areas. The Agency has a long

history of successfully suppressing firesin inventoried roadless areas and thishigh level of suppression performance isexpected to continue. Furthermore, theagency rarely builds new roads tosuppress fires. Building roads intoinventoried roadless areas would likelyincrease the chance of human-causedfires due to the increased presence ofpeople. Fire occurrence data indicatesthat prohibiting road construction andreconstruction in inventoried roadlessareas would not cause an increase in thenumber of acres burned by wildlandfires or in the number of large fires(FEIS Vol. 1, 3–115).

Comment on Including OtherUnroaded Areas. Some respondentsasserted that prohibitions should beapplied to all roadless areas, not justinventoried roadless areas.

Response. The agency had adequateinformation to assess the effects ofimplementing the prohibition of roadconstruction and limited timberharvesting in inventoried roadless areas.There was not sufficient information tomake a decision regarding otheruninventoried unroaded areas.Furthermore, the agency decided thatthese uninventoried unroaded areaswould be better evaluated in the contextof the new planning regulations at 36CFR part 219.

Comment on Relationship to OtherRulemakings. Some respondents havequestioned whether the agency hasadequately integrated the decision toprohibit road construction and timberharvesting in inventoried roadless areaswith other agency rulemaking efforts.

Response. The objective of conservinginventoried roadless areas reflectscurrent scientific understanding of theimportance of inventoried roadless areaecosystems and changing values ofsociety as evidenced by commentsreceived on this proposal.

This final roadless area conservationrule is entirely consistent with otherForest Service rulemaking and policyefforts, including the agency’s finalplanning rule at 36 CFR part 219(November 9, 2000; 65 FR 67514) andnewly adopted National Forest SystemRoad Management regulations (36 CFRpart 212) and policy (Forest ServiceManual 7700 and 7710). It is alsoconsistent with the report of SecretariesBabbitt and Glickman to the President,Managing the Impacts of Wildfire onCommunities and the Environment(September 8, 2000), the agency’sProtecting People and SustainingResources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems:A Cohesive Strategy (November 9, 2000;65 FR 67480), and ongoing efforts toreduce the risk of fire to communitiesand the environment.



The planning rule provides theoverall framework for planning andmanagement of the National ForestSystem. No provisions in the RoadlessArea Conservation rule would requireland management or project planning,although managers may decide toinitiate plan revisions. However, thisfinal rule does complement the keysustainability, science, and spatialdecisionmaking issues raised by theplanning rule.

The planning rule also requires thatduring the plan revision process, or atother times as deemed appropriate, theresponsible official must identify andevaluate inventoried roadless areas andunroaded areas and then determinewhich inventoried roadless areas andunroaded areas warrant additionalprotection and the level of protection tobe afforded. This provision is similar tothe procedural requirements proposedin May 2000, as part of the proposedRoadless Area Conservation Rule. Giventheir inclusion in the final planningrule, the procedural provisions havebeen removed from this final rule. Asdisclosed in the DEIS, the proposedprocedures do not directly result inadverse physical or biologicalenvironmental effects, nor do theprocedures cause irreversible orirretrievable resource commitments(DEIS Vol. 1, 3–223). The FEIS disclosedthe combined effects of the finalplanning rule and the final roadless ruleas being complementary, not additive(FEIS Vol. 1, 3–397; see also 65 FR67529).

The National Forest System RoadManagement regulations and policy aredesigned to make the agency’s existingroad system more safe, responsive topublic needs, environmentally sound,and affordable to manage. Elements ofthe regulation and policy requiringplanning would be completed using thenew planning rules. For example, underthe road management policy, nationalforests and grasslands would have tocomplete an analysis of their existingroad system and then incorporate thisanalysis into their land managementplans. Consistent with the planningrule, this would be accomplished byusing a science-based analysisprocedure and by working cooperativelywith other agency partners and thepublic.

Together, these requirements ensurethat roadless areas and their importantsocial and ecological characteristics willbe conserved for present and futuregenerations based on the principles ofsustainability, sound science, andcollaboration. The Forest Service hascoordinated development of each ofthese rulemakings to ensure that the

rules are integrated and consistent. Inaddition, consistency in the definitionsand program emphases has beenassured. The resulting rulemakingefforts efficiently align priorities andresources to implement the agency’sstatutory responsibilities (FEIS Vol. 1,1–18 to 1–20).

Comment on Application to theTongass National Forest. The agencyreceived many comments regarding theTongass National Forest. Manyrespondents stated that the Tongassshould not be exempt from theprovisions of the proposed rule. Others,concerned that local communities hadalready experienced substantial socialand economic effects due to the recentrevision of the Tongass Land andResource Management Plan and otherfactors, thought that the Tongass shouldbe exempt from the provisions of theproposed rule. Some respondents statedthat the Forest Service should deferaction on the Tongass National Forestuntil the next plan revision.

Response. In both the DEIS and FEIS,using the best available science anddata, the agency has considered thealternatives of exempting and notexempting the Tongass National Forest,as well as deferring a decision per theproposed rule. Social and economicconsiderations were key factors inanalyzing those alternatives, along withthe unique and sensitive ecologicalcharacter of the Tongass NationalForest, the abundance of roadless areaswhere road construction andreconstruction are limited, and the highdegree of ecological health. Indeveloping the proposed action, theagency sought to balance theextraordinary ecological values of theTongass National Forest against theneeds of the local forest dependentcommunities in Southeast Alaska.

With the recent closure of pulp millsand the ending of long-term timber salecontracts, the timber economy ofSoutheast Alaska is evolving to acompetitive bid process. About two-thirds of the total timber harvestplanned on the Tongass National Forestover the next 5 years is projected tocome from inventoried roadless areas. Ifroad construction were immediatelyprohibited in inventoried roadless areas,approximately 95 percent of the timberharvest within those areas would beeliminated (FEIS Vol. 1, 3–202).

The Tongass National Forest is part ofthe northern Pacific coast ecoregion, anecoregion that contains one fourth of theworld’s coastal temperate rainforests. Asstated in the FEIS, the forest’s highdegree of overall ecosystem health isdue to its largely undeveloped natureincluding the quantity and quality of

inventoried roadless areas and otherspecial designated areas. Alternativesthat would immediately prohibit newroad construction and timber harvest inall inventoried roadless areas wouldmost effectively protect those values.Other alternatives that exempt, delay, orlimit the application of the prohibitionswould offer less protection. Theenvironmental impacts of thesealternatives are disclosed in Chapter 3of the FEIS.

The proposed rule would havedeferred a decision on whether or notthe prohibitions should be applied tothe Tongass National Forest until April2004. This would have allowed anadjustment period for the timberprogram in Southeast Alaska to occurunder provisions of the 1999 Record ofDecision for the Tongass Land andResource Management Plan Revision,but would not have assured long-termprotection of the Forest’s uniqueecological values and characteristics.

In response to public comments, anoptional social and economic mitigationmeasure was considered under theTongass Not Exempt alternative thatwould require implementation of thefinal rule on the Tongass, but delay thisimplementation until April 2004, toprovide a transition period for localcommunities to adjust to changes thatwould occur when the prohibitions takeeffect.

The final rule applies immediately tothe Tongass National Forest but adoptsa mitigation measure that both assureslong-term protection and a smoothtransition for forest dependentcommunities. The final rule providesthat the prohibitions do not apply toroad construction, reconstruction, andthe cutting, sale or removal of timberfrom inventoried roadless areas on theTongass National Forest where a noticeof availability for a draft environmentalimpact statement for such activities hasbeen published in the Federal Registerprior to the date of publication of thisrule in the Federal Register. Thismitigation measure allows anadjustment period for the timberprogram in Southeast Alaska, but willalso assure more certain long-termprotection of the Forest’s uniqueecological values and characteristics.

Allowing road construction andreconstruction on the Tongass NationalForest to continue unabated would riskthe loss of important roadless areavalues. The agency had sufficientinformation to analyze theenvironmental, social, and economiceffects of prohibiting road construction,reconstruction, and limited timberharvesting on the Tongass NationalForest and did not see the value in



deferring the issue to further study priorto making a decision.

Moreover, this course of action isconsistent with the provisions of theTongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA).While the TTRA urges the ForestService to ‘‘seek to meet marketdemand’’ for timber from the TongassNational Forest, the TTRA does notenvision an inflexible harvest level, buta balancing of the market, the law, andother uses, including preservation.(Alaska Wilderness Recreation andTourism Ass’n v. Morrison, 67 F.3d 723,731 (9th Cir. 1995)). The record for thisrulemaking fully supports theimposition of the prohibitions on theTongass National Forest. However, ininventoried roadless areas the TongassNational Forest has 261 MMBF oftimber under contract and 386 MMBFunder a notice of availability for a DEIS,FEIS, or Record of Decision. In addition,the Tongass has 204 MMBF available inroaded areas that is sold, has a Recordof Decision, or is currently in theplanning process. This total of 851MMBF is enough timber volume tosatisfy about 7 years of estimated marketdemand.

Based on the analysis contained in theFEIS, a decision to implement the ruleon the Tongass National Forest isexpected to cause additional adverseeconomic effects to some forestdependent communities (FEIS Vol. 1, 3–326 to 3–350). During the period oftransition, an estimated 114 directtimber jobs and 182 total jobs would beaffected. In the longer term, anadditional 269 direct timber jobs and431 total jobs may be lost in SoutheastAlaska. However, the Departmentbelieves that the long-term ecologicalbenefits to the nation of conservingthese inventoried roadless areasoutweigh the potential economic loss tothose local communities and that aperiod of transition for affectedcommunities would still provide certainand long term protection of these lands.

The special provision at § 294.14(d) ofthe final rule allowing roadconstruction, reconstruction, and thecutting, sale, or removal of timber frominventoried roadless areas on theTongass National Forest where a noticeof availability of a draft environmentalimpact statement for such activities hasbeen published in the Federal Registerprior to the date of publication of thisrule in the Federal Register isconsidered necessary because of theunique social and economic conditionswhere a disproportionate share of theimpacts are experienced throughout theentire Southeast Alaska region andconcentrated most heavily in a fewcommunities.

Comment on Exceptions and Conflictwith Purpose of the Rule. Another majorissue was whether there should beexemptions or exceptions from theprohibitions. A few respondents statedthat the exceptions and exemptions tothe prohibitions set out in proposed§ 294.12 conflicted with the statedpurpose of the rule. A summary of themajor comments on this issue and theagency’s responses follow.

Response. The exceptions to theprohibitions on road construction ininventoried roadless areas found atproposed § 294.12 responded to specificcircumstances where the prohibitionsmight conflict with legal responsibilitiesto provide for public health and safetyor environmental protection (FEIS Vol.1, 2–13 to 2–14). In some cases, theexceptions could result in effectscontrary to the purpose stated in theproposed rule, but the agencydetermined that they were necessary tohonor existing law or address social oreconomic concerns. While theexceptions and exemptions placelimited restrictions on the application ofthe prohibition, the stated purpose ofthe rule remains valid. These exceptionswere only relevant to FEIS actionAlternatives 2 through 4, as Alternative1 (no action) did not prohibit anyactivities.

The public health and safetyexception at paragraph (b)(1) in the finalrule applies only when needed toprotect public health and safety in casesof an imminent threat of a catastrophicevent that might result in the loss of lifeor property. It does not constitutepermission to engage in routine foresthealth activities, such as temporary roadconstruction for thinning to reducemortality due to insect and diseaseinfestation.

The exception in paragraph (b)(2)permits entry for activities undertakenpursuant to the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA) and other identified statutes.An example of an allowable CERCLAactivity is mitigating the leaching oftoxic chemicals from an abandonedmine.

Paragraph (b)(3) permits theconstruction and reconstruction of aroad pursuant to rights granted instatute or treaty, or pursuant to reservedor outstanding rights. These include, butare not limited to, rights of accessprovided in ANILCA, highway rights-of-way granted under R.S. 2477, and rightsgranted under the General Mining Lawof 1872, as amended. Rights ofreasonable access for mineralexploration and development of validclaims would be governed by the

General Mining Law under any of thealternatives considered in the FEIS.These rights of access may or may notinclude new road construction asdiscussed elsewhere in this preamble.Therefore, rights of access to locatablemineral exploration and development ofvalid claims would not be affected bythe final rule or any of the alternativesanalyzed in the FEIS (FEIS Vol. 1, 3–254).

Paragraph (b)(4) in the final rulepermits realignment of an existingclassified road when it is found to causeirreparable resource damage because ofits design, location, use, ordeterioration. The road must beessential for public or private access,natural resource management, or publichealth and safety. For the realignmentexception to apply, the original roadmust have caused the resource damageand the resource damage cannot becorrected or mitigated by maintenancealone. Following realignment, treatmentof the old roadway may include avariety of methods, such asdecommissioning or by converting it toanother use. An example of a situationwhere realignment may be appropriateis the presence of a classified roadcontributing sediment to a stream that isimportant spawning or rearing habitatfor an endangered species of fish, andthe sediment is having an adverseimpact on the fish or its habitat.Realignment of the classified road anddecommissioning the old roadway toeliminate the sediment caused by theold roadway is appropriate.

After considering the public commenton the proposed rule and conductingfurther analysis, three other exceptionswere added to the final rule at§ 294.12(b). New paragraph (5) is anexception to the prohibition to allow forreconstruction of a classified road ifneeded for safety based on accidentexperience or accident potential on thatroad. This exception allows forrealignment or improvement insituations where road location or designis a threat to health or safety, andreconstruction would reduce that threat.New paragraph (6) was added tomitigate potential social and economicimpacts in response to comments on theeffects this rule might have on someState highway projects proposed as partof the National Highway System. Theseexceptions were not a majorconsideration in evaluating differencesamong the FEIS action alternativesbecause they apply to all of theprohibition alternatives. The agencyconsidered other exemptions andexceptions, but eliminated them fromdetailed study (FEIS Vol. 1, 2–21 to 2–22).



An additional optional exception wasconsidered in detail in the FEIS as asocial and economic mitigation measureand was available for selection with anyalternative. This exception would haveallowed road construction orreconstruction where a road is neededfor prospective mineral leasing activitiesin inventoried roadless areas (FEIS Vol.1, 2–9). If road construction andreconstruction were allowed for allfuture mineral leasing, an estimated 59miles of new roads could be constructedin inventoried roadless areas over thenext five years. Road construction orreconstruction in support of futuremineral leasing could continue at thislevel or in greater amounts into theforeseeable future. The agency estimatesmore than 10 million acres ofinventoried roadless area could beroaded for exploration and developmentof leasable minerals, although theagency believes it is unlikely that morethan a small percentage of these acreswould contain minerals sufficient foreconomic development (FEIS Vol. 1, 3–250 to 260 and 313 to 321). Mineralleasing activities not dependent on roadconstruction, such as directional (slant)drilling and underground development,would not be affected by theprohibition.

The Department has decided not toadopt the exception for futurediscretionary mineral leasing asidentified in the FEIS because of thepotentially significant environmentalimpacts that road construction couldcause to inventoried roadless areas.Existing leases are not subject to theprohibitions. The Department hasdecided to adopt a more limitedexception at 36 CFR 294.12(b)(7) toallow road construction needed inconjunction with the continuation,extension, or renewal of a mineral lease,on lands that were under lease by theSecretary of the Interior as of the dateof publication of this rule in the FederalRegister. Additionally, roadconstruction needed in conjunctionwith a new lease may be allowed onthese same lands if the lease is issuedimmediately upon expiration of theexisting lease. The lessee would berequired to start the process for issuanceof a new lease prior to the expiration ofthe existing lease. Such roadconstruction or reconstruction must beconducted in a manner that minimizeseffects on surface resources, preventsunnecessary or unreasonable surfacedisturbance, and complies with allapplicable lease requirements, land andresource management plan direction,regulations, and laws. Roadsconstructed or reconstructed pursuant

to this paragraph must be obliteratedwhen no longer needed for the purposesof the lease or upon termination orexpiration of the lease, whichever issooner.

This provision allows, but does notrequire, road construction andreconstruction. These decisions wouldbe made through the regular NEPAprocess. For example, this paragraphdoes not supersede land managementplan prescriptions that prohibit roadconstruction. This exception onlyapplies to lands in inventoried roadlessareas that are currently under minerallease. The agency has less than 1million acres of high potential oil andgas currently under mineral lease. Thisprovision maintains the status quo forentities that currently hold mineralleases, while at the same time limitingthe potential impacts on roadless areacharacteristics within this identified setof lands.

Comment on Potential Misuse ofExceptions. Some respondents felt thereshould not be any exceptions to theprohibition on construction of roads ininventoried roadless areas, out of fearthat the exceptions would be used insituations not intended. Theserespondents wanted to know whowould review decisions granting theexceptions.

Response. The Department believesthat exceptions to the prohibitions onroad construction and reconstructionare warranted to address legal, social,economic, and environmental concerns.Projects proposed under any of theexceptions would still have to complywith all legal requirements and agencypolicy related to environmental analysisand public involvement. Depending onthe specific circumstances of aparticular exception, decisions wouldbe subject to administrative appeal orinternal review.

Comment on Multiple-Use Exception.Some respondents requested anadditional exception to the roadconstruction prohibition, whereby theDepartment would insert ‘‘A road isneeded to carry out the multiple-usesprovided for in the authorities cited forthese regulations.’’ in § 294.12(b) of theproposed rule.

Response. The addition of theproposed exception would allow roadconstruction in inventoried roadlessareas for any multiple-use purpose,which would be counter to the purposeof protecting roadless areas.

Comment on Private Land and UtilityCompany Exceptions. Somerespondents stated that the constructionof roads should be allowed to accessState or private lands and waterdiversions and dams. Utility companies

expressed concern that they would beunable to access existing facilities in anemergency, such as a pipeline ruptureor a transmission line toppled by alandslide, and that the exception atproposed paragraph (b)(1) should beexpanded to accommodate access toutility facilities in order to ensure theirsafe operation.

Response. The proposed rule did notsuspend or modify existing permits,contracts, or other legal instrumentsauthorizing the use and occupancy ofNational Forest System lands. Existingroads or trails would not have beenclosed by the proposed rule, andexisting rights of access wererecognized. The final rule retains all ofthe provisions that recognize existingrights of access and use. Where accessto these facilities is needed to ensuresafe operation, a utility company maypursue necessary authorizationspursuant to the terms of the existingpermit or contract. Additionally, theexamples described by the utilitycompanies could qualify for anemergency exception under paragraph(b)(1) of the final rule depending onlocal circumstances and risk to publichealth and safety.

Comment on Federal and StateHighway Exceptions. Some respondentsstated that the final rule should permitroad construction, realignment, andreconstruction of Federal and Statehighways.

Response. In response to publiccomments, the agency has included anexception that would allow roadprojects funded under Title 23 of theUnited States Code (23 U.S.C. 317) tooccur in inventoried roadless areas. Thefinal rule at § 294.12(b)(6) allows forconstruction, reconstruction, orrealignment of a Federal Aid Highwaywhere the Secretary determines that theproject is in the public interest orconsistent with the purposes for whichthe land was reserved or acquired, isreasonable and prudent, and no otherfeasible alternative exists (FEIS Vol. 1,2–9 to 2–14).

Summary of Changes in section294.12 of the Final Rule. Paragraph (a)of the final rule has been revisedconsistent with the changes in thedefinitions of ‘‘inventoried roadlessareas’’ and ‘‘road’’, to remove thephrases ‘‘the unroaded portions of’’ and‘‘This prohibition covers classified andunclassified roads,’’ respectively.

Paragraph (b) in the final rule sets outcertain limited exceptions to theprohibition on road construction androad reconstruction. The first fourexceptions were adopted essentially asproposed with minor editing for clarityand three more exceptions were added.



Paragraph (c) of the proposed rule,which described the rule’s applicationto the Tongass National Forest, has beenremoved. This change immediatelyapplies the prohibitions in the rule tothe Tongass National Forest, except asprovided in a new paragraph applicableto the Tongass National Forest, which isadded at § 294.14(d).

Proposed paragraph (d) isredesignated as paragraph (c) in thefinal rule. This paragraph permitsmaintenance activities for classifiedroads included in an inventoriedroadless area, and is adopted essentiallyas proposed but with minor editing forclarity.

Final section 294.13. Prohibition ontimber cutting, sale, or removal ininventoried roadless areas. The finalrule adds a new prohibition on timberharvesting (the cutting, sale, or removalof timber): except for clearly defined,limited purposes; when incidental tothe implementation of an activity nototherwise prohibited by this rule; forpersonal and administrative uses; orwhere roadless characteristics have beensubstantially altered in a portion of aninventoried roadless area due to theconstruction of a classified road andsubsequent timber harvest. Both theroad construction and subsequenttimber harvest must have occurred afteran area was designated an inventoriedarea. Even though this provision wasnot in the proposed rule, the DEISanalyzed timber harvesting prohibitionalternatives for public comment and theFEIS identified a preferred alternativethat included both timber harvestingand road construction prohibitions.Therefore, the public had sufficientopportunity to comment on thisprovision and there is adequateinformation to make a reasoned andinformed decision.

Alternative 3 in the FEIS wouldprohibit timber harvesting except forstewardship and other limited purposes.Concerns over potential confusion of theinterpretation of ‘‘stewardship’’ have ledthe agency to clearly define at§ 294.13(b)(1) through (b)(4) the limitedcircumstances where the cutting, sale,or removal of timber in inventoriedroadless areas is permitted. The finalrule embodies Alternative 3, but, incontrast to the FEIS, the term‘‘stewardship’’ does not appear in thefinal rule.

The cutting, sale, or removal of treesmust be clearly shown through projectlevel analysis to contribute to theecological objectives described in§ 294.13(b)(1), or under thecircumstances described in paragraphs(b)(2) through (b)(4). Such managementactivities are expected to be rare and to

focus on small diameter trees. Thinningof small diameter trees, for example,that became established as the result ofmissed fire return intervals due to firesuppression and the condition of whichgreatly increases the likelihood ofuncharacteristic wildfire effects wouldbe permissible.

Because of the great variation in standcharacteristics between vegetation typesin different areas, a description of whatconstitutes ‘‘generally small diametertimber’’ is not specifically included inthis rule. Such determinations are bestmade through project specific or landand resource management plan NEPAanalyses, as guided by ecologicalconsiderations such as those describedbelow.

The intent of the rule is to limit thecutting, sale, or removal of timber tothose areas that have become overgrownwith smaller diameter trees. Asdescribed in the FEIS (Vol. 1, 3–76),areas that have become overgrown withshrubs and smaller diameter treescreating a fuel profile that acts as a ‘‘fireladder’’ to the crowns of the dominantoverstory trees may benefit ecologicallyfrom thinning treatments that cut andremove such vegetation. The risk ofuncharacteristic fire intensity andspread may thus be reduced, providedthe excess ladder fuels and unutilizedcoarse and fine fuels created by loggingare removed from the site (FEIS Vol. 1,3–91). Also, in some situations, cuttingor removal of small diameter timbermay be needed for recovery orconservation of threatened, endangered,proposed or sensitive species toimprove stand structure or reduceencroachment into meadows or othernatural openings.

In any event, all such determinationsof what constitutes ‘‘generally smalldiameter timber’’ will consider how thecutting or removal of various sizeclasses of trees would affect thepotential for future development of thestand, and the characteristics and inter-relationships of plant and animalcommunities associated with the siteand the overall landscape. Siteproductivity due to factors such asmoisture and elevational gradients, siteaspect, and soil types will beconsidered, as well as how such cuttingor removal of various size classes ofstanding or down timber would mimicthe role and legacies of naturaldisturbance regimes in providing thehabitat patches, connectivity, andstructural diversity critical tomaintaining biological diversity. In allcases, the cutting, sale, or removal ofsmall diameter timber will be consistentwith maintaining or improving one or

more of the roadless area characteristicsas defined in § 294.11.

Comment on Scope of theProhibitions. Many respondents urgedthe agency to expand the prohibitions toprohibit timber harvesting, mining, andother activities that harm theundeveloped characteristics ofinventoried roadless areas.

Response. In preparing the FEIS, thescope of prohibited actions consideredin detail was limited to roadconstruction, road reconstruction, andtimber harvesting, because theseactivities pose disproportionatelygreater risks of altering and fragmentingnatural landscapes at regional andnational scales (FEIS Vol. 1, 1–15 to 1–16). In addition, the agency can analyzepotential social and ecological effectsbased on the five-year timber saleprogram of each national forest. Otheruses, although potentially as harmful toroadless area values and characteristics,are not scheduled in such a fashion andare more appropriately reviewedthrough land and resource managementplanning.

The agency has decided to prohibittimber harvesting because it providesadditional protection for roadless areacharacteristics beyond that provided bya prohibition on road constructionalone. However, the agency agrees withthose respondents who asserted thatscience-based forest management mightrequire some level of vegetativemanagement in inventoried roadlessareas. Thus, the agency has decided toallow some timber harvesting for clearlydefined purposes in the final rule at294.13(b)(1) through (b)(4).

Comment on Wildlife HabitatManagement. Many respondents,including some State wildlifemanagement agencies, were concernedthat a timber harvest prohibition wouldpreclude all wildlife habitatmanagement opportunities.

Response. As provided by final294.13(b)(1), tree cutting for wildlifehabitat improvement could proceed if itis designed to maintain or help restoreecosystem composition or structure toconditions within the range ofvariability that would be expected tooccur under natural disturbance regimesof the current climatic period. This willallow the agency to manage for the fullrange of habitat types needed to supportthe diversity of native and desired non-native species.

Comments on UncharacteristicWildfire Effects. Of particular interest tomany respondents because of theseverity of the 2000 fire season, washow the agency would manageinventoried roadless areas to reduce therisk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects.



Response. The effects ofuncharacteristic wildfires often includeunnatural increases in wildfire size,severity, and resistance to control andthe associated impacts to people andproperty. These uncharacteristic effectshave been caused primarily by pastwildfire suppression, and past timberharvesting and grazing practices. Thesehave contributed to often-dramaticchanges in some areas in wildfirefrequency, size, and severity (FEIS Vol.1, 3–72 to 3–73). The vegetativestructure, density, and composition ofthese areas have changed whencompared to less altered ecosystems(FEIS Vol. 1, 3–144).

The use of timber harvesting, aspermitted by this rule, and other fuelmanagement techniques will helpmaintain ecosystem composition andstructure within its historic range ofvariability at the landscape scale.Treatment priorities will be consistentwith those identified in the reportProtecting People and SustainingResources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems:A Cohesive Strategy (November 9, 2000;65 FR 67480). These include wildland-urban interface areas, readily accessiblemunicipal watersheds, and threatenedand endangered species habitat. Sincewildland-urban interface areas andreadily accessible municipal watershedsrarely occur in or adjacent toinventoried roadless areas, most firehazard reduction work would not beginin inventoried roadless areas for at least20 years, the estimated time it wouldtake to address the extremely hazardousfuel situations outside inventoriedroadless areas (FEIS Vol. 1, 3–78).However, hazardous fuels treatment ininventoried roadless areas is notprohibited by this rule, so long as roadconstruction or reconstruction is notnecessary. Vegetative managementwould focus on removing generallysmall diameter trees while leaving theoverstory trees intact. The cutting, sale,or removal of trees pursuant to294.13(b)(1) must be clearly shownthrough project level analysis tocontribute to the ecological objectivesdescribed. Such management activitiesare expected to be rare and to focus onsmall diameter trees. Thinning of smalldiameter trees, for example, that becameestablished as the result of missed firereturn intervals due to fire suppressionand the condition of which greatlyincreases the likelihood ofuncharacteristic wildfire effects wouldbe permissible.

Summary of Changes in new section294.13 of the Final Rule. The final ruleadds a new prohibition on timberharvesting except for clearly defined,limited purposes, when incidental to

the implementation of a managementactivity not otherwise prohibited by thisrule; for personal or administrative use;or where roadless characteristics havebeen substantially altered in a portion ofan inventoried roadless area due to theconstruction of a classified road andsubsequent timber harvest. Paragraph (a)establishes a prohibition on timbercutting, sale, or removal in inventoriedroadless areas except as provided inparagraph (b). Paragraph (b) makes clearthat the cutting, sale, or removal oftimber in inventoried roadless areas isexpected to be infrequent, but allowstimber cutting, sale, or removal asidentified in paragraphs (b)(1) through(b)(4).

Paragraph (b)(1) allows generallysmall diameter timber to be cut, sold, orremoved in inventoried roadless areaswhere it maintains one or more of theroadless area characteristics as definedin § 294.11 and: (1) improves habitat forthreatened, endangered, proposed orsensitive species or (2) maintains orrestores the characteristics of ecosystemcomposition and structure, such as toreduce uncharacteristic wildfire effects,within the range of variability thatwould be expected to occur undernatural disturbance regimes of thecurrent climatic period.

Paragraph (b)(2) allows timber cutting,sale, or removal in inventoried roadlessareas when incidental toimplementation of a managementactivity not otherwise prohibited by thisrule. Examples of these activitiesinclude, but are not limited to trailconstruction or maintenance; removal ofhazard trees adjacent to classified roadsfor public health and safety reasons; fireline construction for wildland firesuppression or control of prescribedfire; survey and maintenance ofproperty boundaries; other authorizedactivities such as ski runs and utilitycorridors; or for road construction andreconstruction where allowed by thisrule.

Paragraph (b)(3) allows timber cutting,sale, or removal for personal oradministrative use as provided for at 36CFR part 223. Personal use includesactivities such as Christmas tree andfirewood cutting. Administrative useincludes providing materials foractivities such as construction offootbridges and fences.

Paragraph (b)(4) allows the cutting,sale, or removal of timber whereroadless characteristics have beensubstantially altered in a portion of aninventoried roadless area due to theconstruction of a classified road andsubsequent timber harvest. The roadconstruction and subsequent timberharvest must have occurred after the

area was designated an inventoriedroadless area and prior to the date ofpublication of this rule in the FederalRegister. Timber may be cut, sold, orremoved only in the substantiallyaltered portion of the inventoriedroadless area. This exception recognizesthat road construction and timberharvesting in inventoried roadless areasmay have altered the roadlesscharacteristics to the extent that thepurpose of protecting thosecharacteristics cannot be achieved.Timber harvest should not expand thearea already substantially altered bypast management. This exception issubject to applicable laws, regulations,and land and resource managementplanning direction. Refer to the previousdiscussion in ‘‘Comment on UnroadedPortion of an Inventoried RoadlessArea’’ in the ‘‘Proposed § 294.11Definitions’’ section of this preamble formore information on this subject.

Proposed 294.13. Consideration ofroadless area conservation during forestplan revision. This section of theproposed rule would have required theresponsible official to evaluate thequality and importance of roadless areacharacteristics and determine whetherand how to protect these characteristicsin the context of multiple-use objectivesduring forest plan revision.

Comment on Integration with thePlanning Rule. Respondents from across section of timber industry andbusiness interests, State, county andFederal representatives, professionalassociations, and the public expressedconcern that this section did notprovide adequate direction on how toconsider and implement the criteria andprocedures during forest plan revision,leading to confusion over integration ofthis section with the proposed planningand road management rulemakinginitiatives.

Response on Proposed Section1294.13. The Department has decidedthat the appropriate place forconsidering protections for inventoriedroadless areas, in addition to those inthis rule, and protections foruninventoried unroaded areas is duringthe planning process pursuant to thenew planning regulations at 36 CFR part219, Subpart A.

The framework for planning allowsfor the development of issues leading tothe proposal of special designations,and also gives ample opportunity for thepublic and others to collaborate on theissue at all levels of planning. Based onpublic comment, specific requirementsfor evaluating inventoried roadless areasand unroaded areas are included in§ 219.9(b)(8) of the final planning rule(65 FR 67571) to emphasize that the



responsible official must evaluate theseareas during the plan revision process.

The new planning regulations providefor consideration of roadless areas in theforest planning process in a fashionsimilar to that set out in the proposedrule at § 294.13. Based on the commentsreceived and reasons stated previously,the Department has determined thatthose requirements are better consideredin the context of 36 CFR part 219.Elimination of proposed § 294.13 fromthe final rule will not have a significanteffect on the purpose or scope of thefinal rule or on the protections providedto inventoried roadless areas becauseevaluation of inventoried roadless areasand unroaded areas are now integratedinto the final planning rule.

Proposed Section 294.14. Scope andapplicability. Proposed paragraph (a) ofthis section of the proposed ruleprovided that existing contracts,permits, or other legal instrumentsauthorizing the occupancy and use ofNational Forest System land would notbe suspended or modified by the rule.

Comment on Existing AuthorizedActivities. Some respondents wereconcerned about the impact of the ruleon special uses and requestedclarification regarding the ability toconstruct or maintain roads ininventoried roadless areas to accesselectric power or telephone lines,pipelines, hydropower facilities, andreservoirs. Some suggested thatproposed § 294.12(b)(3) be revised toread, ‘‘A road is needed pursuant toreserved or outstanding rights or aspermitted by statute, treaty or otherauthorities.’’

Response. Section 294.14(a) of theproposed rule stated that the rule wouldnot suspend or modify any existingpermit, contract, or other legalinstrument authorizing the use andoccupancy of National Forest Systemlands. Existing authorized uses wouldbe allowed to maintain and operatewithin the parameters of their currentauthorization, including any provisionsregarding access. Adding the wording‘‘other authorities’’ to this paragraph isnot necessary as the term ‘‘other legalinstrument’’ adequately covers otherexisting authorizations.

Under paragraph (a), roadconstruction or reconstructionassociated with ongoing implementationof special use authorizations would notbe prohibited. For example, all activitiesanticipated and described in anauthorized ski area’s master plan, suchas construction or maintenance of skitrails and ski runs, the use of over snowvehicles or off-highway vehiclesnecessary for ski area operations,including associated road construction,

would not be prohibited even if aspecific decision authorizing roadconstruction has not been made as ofthe date of publication of this rule in theFederal Register. Likewise, activitiesnecessary to a mineral leaseauthorization issued prior to the date ofpublication of this rule would not beprohibited even if a specific decisionauthorizing road construction has notbeen made as of the date of publicationof this rule in the Federal Register. Aphrase has been added to clarify thatthis paragraph only applies to permits,contracts, or other legal instrumentsissued before the date of publication ofthis rule in the Federal Register. Theterm ‘‘revoke’’ has been added to thisprovision to clarify that this final rulewill not revoke existing permits,contracts, or other legal instruments.

Proposed § 294.14(b) made clear thatthe final rule would not require units toinitiate land management planamendments or revisions.

Comment on Land Management PlanAmendments. Some respondentscommented that the proposed rule is a‘‘massive change’’ in existing landmanagement plan direction or landallocation, without amendment orrevision of land management plans asrequired by the National ForestManagement Act. Some respondentssuggested that amendments werenecessary in order to consider site-specific biological and socio-economicinformation.

Response. The Secretary has extensiverulemaking authority governing forestmanagement and development of landmanagement plans. Just as developmentand approval of land management plansmust conform to existing laws andregulations, new laws or regulations cansupersede land management planmanagement direction. Requiring‘‘conforming amendments’’ to landmanagement plans would be redundantof the rulemaking process.

Local responsible officials’ discretionto initiate land and resourcemanagement plan amendments, asdeemed necessary, would not be limitedby this provision. There may beinstances where a local responsibleofficial elects to initiate amendment orrevision of forest and grassland plansfollowing final promulgation of thisfinal rule. While the analysisundertaken at the national scale issufficient for the prohibitionsestablished pursuant to this rulemaking,the Department appreciates thatadditional management issues may needto be addressed, both within andoutside of inventoried roadless areas.The local official is best positioned toassess whether any such adjustment is

necessary. For example, although thelocal official is not free to re-examinethe prohibitions established by this rule,it may be appropriate to consideramendments to land and resourcemanagement plans regarding plandecisions that guide the use ofinventoried roadless areas in light of thefinal rule.

Forest Service officials have severalmechanisms that allow for evaluation offorest and grassland planimplementation, including plan-specificmonitoring provisions, the amendmentand revision process, and project-leveldecisionmaking. A determination toamend or revise a land and resourcemanagement plan is based on a varietyof factors. Forest Supervisors andRegional Foresters have substantialdiscretion in determining whether ornot to initiate plan amendments orrevisions.

In the early stages of forest planamendment or revision, or anydecisionmaking process involving landmanagement practices, RegionalForesters, Forest Supervisors, andDistrict Rangers must actively seekinput and participation by State, local,and Tribal officials and other affected orinterested parties. Therefore, thisprovision is retained without change inthe final rule.

Paragraph (c), as proposed, providedthat the regulation, if adopted, wouldnot suspend or modify any decisionmade prior to the effective date of thefinal rule.

Comment on Effect on ProjectPlanning. Some respondents questionedwhether implementation of the rulewould prohibit projects where planningis already underway. Most of thecomments on this paragraph wererelated to current and future ski areadevelopment, although other land useswould be treated in a similar manner.Some respondents asserted thatexemptions from the rule shouldinclude all lands or activities describedin existing ski area special use permitsor master development plans.Specifically listed were White Pass,Arapahoe Basin, Sierra at Tahoe,Pallavicini, Alleys Trails, MammothMountain, June Mountain, TamarackResort and Cross Country Skiing Center,and Mammoth Snowmobile Adventures.Respondents also stated that theproposed Pelican Butte Ski Area andexpansion of the Sipapu Ski Areashould be allowed to continue theircurrent planning processes and that theagency should also allow expansion ofcommercial recreation activities tobenefit local people. Others took anopposing view, stating that the agencyshould not exempt from the rule any



new ski areas or expansion of anyexisting ski areas at Pelican Butte,Mount Ashland, Copper Creek,Sherwin, Beaver Creek, MammothMountain, June Mountain, and others.

Response. Road construction andtimber harvest for expansion of skiareas, resorts, or other recreationdevelopments in inventoried roadlessareas would be allowed underparagraph (a) as previously discussed,subject to existing Forest Serviceprocedures, if special use permits are inexistence prior to the date of publicationof this rule in the Federal Register andproposed activities take place within theboundaries established by the specialuse authorization (FEIS Vol. 1, 3–226).The requirement that a permit be inexistence prior to the effective date ofthis rule has been changed in the finalrule to require that the permit be inexistence prior to the date of publicationof this rule in the Federal Register. Thischange was necessary because theeffective date of this rule is delayed 60days from the date of publication.

Road construction and timber harvestwould also be allowed for new ski areas,or expansions of existing ski areasoutside the existing special use permitboundaries, in inventoried roadlessareas provided that the expansion orconstruction was approved by a signedRecord of Decision, Decision Notice, orDecision Memorandum before the dateof publication of the rule in the FederalRegister (FEIS Vol. 1, 3–226). Underparagraph (c), project decisions for anyactivity made prior to the date ofpublication of the final rule in theFederal Register would be altered.

Summary of Changes in § 294.14 ofthe Final Rule. Under paragraph (a) ofthe final rule, road construction, roadreconstruction, and timber harvestassociated with ongoing implementationof special use authorizations are notprohibited. The term ‘‘revoke’’ and thedate of publication of this rule in theFederal Register were added to clarifyagency intent.

Paragraph (b) makes clear that thefinal rule would not require units toinitiate land management planamendments or revisions and is adoptedwithout change.

Paragraph (c) states that projectdecisions made prior to the date ofpublication of the final rule in theFederal Register would not be altered.The term revoke was added to clarifyagency intent. The requirement in theproposed rule that a project decision bein existence prior to the effective date ofthis rule has been changed in the finalrule to require that the project decisionbe in existence prior to the date ofpublication of this rule in the Federal

Register. This change was necessarybecause the effective date of this rule isdelayed 60 days from the date ofpublication.

Proposed paragraph (d) was a‘‘severability’’ or ‘‘savings’’ clause. Thisprovision identifies the Department’sintention that, in the event anyprovision is determined invalid, theremaining portions of the rule wouldremain in force. No comments werereceived on this provision; it has beenredesignated as paragraph (f) in the finalrule and retained without change.

A new paragraph (d) has been addedto the final rule which provides that theprohibitions in the final rule do notapply to road construction,reconstruction, or the cutting, sale orremoval of timber from inventoriedroadless areas on the Tongass NationalForest where a notice of availability fora draft environmental impact statementfor such activities has been published inthe Federal Register prior to the date ofpublication of this rule in the FederalRegister. This mitigation measureallows an adjustment period for thetimber program in Southeast Alaska, butwill also assure the long-term protectionof the Forest’s unique ecological valuesand characteristics. Refer to theprevious discussion in the sectionentitled, ‘‘Comment on Application tothe Tongass National Forest,’’ in,‘‘Proposed § 294.12. Prohibition on roadconstruction and reconstruction ininventoried roadless areas.’’

To replace and serve the samepurpose as proposed § 294.13(f), a new§ 294.14(e) has been added to the finalrule to address the recently adoptedplanning regulations at 36 CFR part 219,which require the responsible official todetermine which inventoried roadlessareas warrant additional protection.Consistent with the original proposal,this new paragraph (e) makes clear that,in determining whether additionalprotections are needed for anyinventoried roadless area, theresponsible official cannot reconsider orset aside the prohibitions established in§ 294.12 or § 294.13.

What Other Issues Were Considered inthe Final Environmental ImpactStatement?

Environmental Effects. Another majorissue among those who commented onthe proposed rule and DEIS was theenvironmental effects of the alternativeson inventoried roadless areacharacteristics. It was also the mostimportant consideration in selection ofan alternative. The purpose and need forthis proposed action is based on thepremise that inventoried roadless areashave characteristics that should be

conserved and maintained. Roadconstruction, reconstruction, and timberharvesting are the activities most likelyto harm the characteristics that theagency is seeking to protect. The FEISdocuments the contribution ofinventoried roadless area characteristicsto watershed health and water quality,to biological strongholds for terrestrialand aquatic species, and to habitat forthreatened, endangered, and sensitivespecies. The effects of roadconstruction, reconstruction, and timberharvesting on those characteristics arealso documented.

Additionally, some respondentscommented on the discussion ofspiritual values of inventoried roadlessareas in chapter 3 of the DEIS. Somethought it was inappropriate to discussspiritual values in an environmentalanalysis produced by the Federalgovernment. Others thought thesevalues were important to consider in therulemaking process because inventoriedroadless areas provided an importantsetting for their personal spiritualrenewal. Reconciling divergentviewpoints on spiritual values is beyondthe scope of this proposal. The decisionfor this rulemaking was not based on thebeliefs or principles of one religion oranother, but based on the science,policies and laws that guide thedecisionmaking process.

Alternative 1 in the FEIS is the noaction alternative and, if selected,would not have restricted activities ininventoried roadless areas. While itwould not fund, authorize, compel, orcarry out any activity in an inventoriedroadless area, this alternative does havethe greatest potential for adverse impacton the characteristics the agency seeksto protect. It allows the most roads to beconstructed and reconstructed and themost timber to be harvested.

Action Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 in theFEIS all provide ecological benefits fromprohibiting road construction andreconstruction. The major differenceamong these alternatives is thatAlternative 2 does not restrict timberharvesting; Alternative 3 prohibitstimber harvesting for commoditypurposes, but allows timber harvestingfor clearly defined purposes andcircumstances; and Alternative 4prohibits all timber cutting (except thatwhich may be needed for protection orrecovery of threatened, endangered, orproposed species). In alternatives 2, 3,and 4, personal and administrative useharvest, including firewood andChristmas tree cutting, would bepermitted. Limited tree cutting couldoccur incidental to other managementactivities, such as trail construction or



maintenance, hazard tree removaladjacent to classified roads for publichealth and safety reasons, fire lineconstruction for wildland firesuppression or control of prescribedfire, or survey and maintenance ofproperty boundaries.

The preferred alternative in the FEISwould prohibit all timber harvestactivities in inventories roadless areasexcept for clearly defined purposes. Thefinal rule provides for the cutting, saleor removal of timber in substantiallyaltered portions of inventoried roadlessareas for any purpose as long as theactivities do not require additional roadconstruction or reconstruction. Byallowing some additional level of timberharvest activity compared to the FEISpreferred alternative, there is anincrease in the likelihood of relatedenvironmental impacts and decrease inthe environmental benefits accruedthrough the more stringent prohibitionin the preferred alternative.

The DEIS estimated thatapproximately 2.8 million of the 58.5million acres of inventoried roadlessareas had been roaded since the areaswere designated as inventoried roadlessareas. Some portion of these roadedareas had also been impacted bysubsequent management activitiesfacilitated by the road access. It isunknown exactly what portion of these2.8 million acres has sustainedsufficient road construction and timberharvest to substantially alter theirroadless characteristics. Thedetermination of whether roadlesscharacteristics have been substantiallyaltered is to be made following a site-specific evaluation. Before any project isauthorized that allows the cutting, sale,or removal of timber in an inventoriedroadless area, it will subject to site-specific analysis following existing lawsand regulations.

Current timber harvesting practiceshave less impact on the environmentthan they have had in the past.Increased knowledge, new equipmentand techniques, and the application ofbest management practices have helpedto reduce the adverse environmentalimpacts of timber harvest activities.However, timber-harvesting practicesstill impact roadless area characteristics,contributing to the fragmentation ofhabitat and threatening their ability tofunction as biological strongholds,reference areas, and provide otherroadless values.

The final rule allows timberharvesting of generally small diametertimber for limited purposes when itmaintains or improves one or moreroadless area characteristics and: (1)Improves threatened, endangered,

proposed, and sensitive species habitator (2) maintains or restores thecharacteristics of ecosystemcomposition and structure, such as toreduce the risks of uncharacteristicwildfire effects. The final rule alsoallows timber to be cut, sold, orremoved where roadless characteristicshave been substantially altered in aportion of an inventoried roadless areadue to the construction of a classifiedroad and subsequent timber harvest, andsuch road construction and subsequenttimber harvest occurred after the areawas designated an inventoried roadlessarea. Roadless area characteristics areidentified in § 294.11 as: (1) Highquality or undisturbed soil, water, andair; (2) sources of public drinking water;(3) diversity of plant and animalcommunities; (4) habitat for threatened,endangered, proposed, candidate, andsensitive species and for those speciesdependent on large, relativelyundisturbed areas of land; (5) primitive,semi-primitive non-motorized, andsemi-primitive motorized classes ofdispersed recreation; (6) referencelandscapes; (7) naturally appearinglandscapes with high scenic quality; (8)traditional cultural properties andsacred sites; and (9) other locallyidentified unique characteristics (FEISVol. 1, 3–3 to 3–7).

Forest Dependent Communities.Impacts to forest dependentcommunities were a major issue amongthose who commented on the proposedrule and DEIS. Under Alternative 1 ofthe FEIS, the flow of goods and serviceswould continue according to currentpolicies and land managementdirection. Alternatives 2 through 4could reduce future timber harvest,mineral exploration and development,and other activities such as ski areadevelopment in inventoried roadlessareas. Communities with significanteconomic activities in these sectorscould be adversely impacted. However,the effects on national social andeconomic systems are minor. Forexample, the total timber volumeaffected by this rule is less than 0.5percent of total United Statesproduction, and the total oil and gasproduction from all National ForestSystem lands is currently about 0.4percent of the current nationalproduction. None of the alternatives arelikely to have measurable impactscompared to the broader social andeconomic conditions and trendsobservable at these scales, however theeffects of the alternatives are notdistributed evenly across the UnitedStates (FEIS Vol. 1, 3–326 to 3–350).

To reduce the economic impact of thisdecision, the Chief of the Forest Service

will seek to implement one or more ofthe following provisions of an economictransition program for communitiesmost affected by application of theprohibitions in inventoried roadlessareas (FEIS Vol. 1, 2–14):

(1) Provide financial assistance tostimulate community-led transitionprograms and projects in communitiesmost affected by application of theprohibitions in inventoried roadlessareas;

(2) Through financial support andaction plans, attract public and privateinterests, both financial and technical,to aid in successfully implementinglocal transition projects and plans bycoordinating with other Federal andState agencies and;

(3) Assist local, State, Tribal andFederal partners in working with thosecommunities most affected by the finalroadless area decision.

Local Decisionmaking. The potentialeffect of the proposed rule on localinvolvement in decisionmaking was amajor issue identified by manyrespondents to the DEIS. As describedin both the DEIS and FEIS, Alternative1 would allow local land managers thediscretion on whether to construct orreconstruct roads or harvest timber forcommodity purposes in inventoriedroadless areas. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4would remove the local decisionmakingauthority only for these specificactivities. All other managementdecisions regarding inventoried roadlessareas would be made through NationalForest System planning procedures.Under all alternatives, managementdecisions for unroaded areas would bemade under the provisions of the newplanning regulations at 36 CFR part 219.As explained in the ‘‘National Directionv. Local Decisionmaking’’ discussion,the agency has determined that nationaldirection is needed to address the issuesregarding road construction,reconstruction, and timber harvesting ininventoried roadless areas.

The Final Rule and AlternativesConsidered

What Alternatives and MitigationMeasures Were Considered by theAgency?

The agency identified two methods toconserve the remaining inventoriedroadless areas in the notice of intent forthe proposed rule. The first methodevaluated whether road construction,reconstruction, and timber harvestshould be prohibited in inventoriedroadless areas. The second methodexamined the establishment ofprocedures to evaluate and conserveroadless area characteristics during land



and resource management planrevisions. These methods wereincorporated into the proposed rule andalternatives analyzed in the DEIS. Sincepublication of the proposed rule, theagency has published final Land andResource Management PlanningRegulations at 36 CFR part 219. Thedraft and subsequent final planningregulations also provided direction tointegrate the consideration of roadlessarea characteristics into the amendmentand revision procedures of land andresource management plans for NationalForest System lands. This detaileddirection in the final planningregulations eliminated the need for theprocedures considered in the RoadlessArea Conservation DEIS and proposedrule. Therefore, these procedures havebeen omitted from the FEIS and finalrule.

Public comments on the notice ofintent identified a variety of suggestionsfor alternatives, including differenttypes and combinations of prohibitions,procedures, and exemptions (Summaryof Public Comment for the Notice ofIntent, Content Analysis EnterpriseTeam, 2000). Comments on the DEISand proposed rule provided detailedways in which to modify thealternatives (Summary of PublicComment for the DEIS, ContentAnalysis Enterprise Team, 2000).

Summaries of public comment on thenotice of intent, proposed rule and theDEIS are part of the record for thisrulemaking, and can be viewed at theagency’s roadless website(roadless.fs.fed.us). The agency’sresponse to comments on the DEIS andproposed rule can be found in Volume3 of the FEIS. This information wasused in forming the alternatives in theFEIS (Chapter 2), which frame thechoices for this final rule.

With the removal of the procedures,the agency had two basic decisions tomake, with four alternatives for eachdecision. The first decision was whetherroad construction, reconstruction, ortimber harvesting should be prohibitedin National Forest System inventoriedroadless areas, or some combination ofthe three. The second decision waswhether the proposed nationalprohibitions should be applied to theTongass National Forest or modified tomeet the unique situation on theTongass.

Four alternatives, including a noaction alternative, were developed tocover the range of possible prohibitedactivities in inventoried roadless areasconsistent with the stated purpose andneed. Four alternative ways of applyingthe prohibitions to the Tongass NationalForest were developed as well (FEIS

Vol. 1, 2–3 to 2–12). Various otheralternatives were considered buteliminated from detailed study (FEISVol. 1, 2–15 to 2–22).

Prohibition Alternatives. Alternative 1allowed road construction andreconstruction to continue, subject toexisting land management planprescriptions. There was no nationalrestriction on timber harvesting. Thiswas the no action alternative.

Prohibition Alternative 2 prohibitedroad construction and reconstructionactivities, including temporary roadconstruction, in inventoried roadlessareas. There was no national restrictionon timber harvesting.

Prohibition Alternative 3 prohibitedroad construction and reconstructionactivities, including temporary roadconstruction, in inventoried roadlessareas. Timber harvesting was allowedfor clearly defined stewardshippurposes only, where harvesting couldonly be used when it maintained orimproved roadless characteristics and:(1) improved habitat for threatened,endangered, proposed or sensitivespecies, (2) reduced uncharacteristicwildfire effects, or (3) restoredecological structure, function, process orcomposition. Timber harvest forcommodity purposes was prohibited.

The definition of timber harvesting forstewardship purposes was reviewed andrefined between the proposed rule andthe FEIS to more clearly state theagency’s intent and to ensure effectiveprotection of roadless characteristics. Inthe DEIS, timber harvesting forstewardship purposes could beinterpreted to accommodate any non-timber production resource managementobjective that required removal of forestvegetation. Many respondents wereconcerned about the agency’s broad useof timber harvest for stewardshippurposes on National Forest Systemlands. They believed that stewardshippurpose timber harvest in inventoriedroadless areas needed to be more clearlydefined.

The agency agreed that it needed toclearly state the intended purposes forstewardship harvest in inventoriedroadless areas. The FEIS identified therange of allowable objectives that areconsistent with timber harvesting forstewardship purposes in inventoriedroadless areas. In doing so, localdecisions about timber harvestingwithin inventoried roadless areas mustmaintain or improve one or moreroadless characteristics, while focusingon improving threatened, endangered,proposed, or sensitive species habitat;reducing the risk of uncharacteristicwildfire effects; or restoring ecologicalprocesses.

Alternative 4 prohibited roadconstruction and reconstructionactivities, including temporary roadconstruction, in inventoried roadlessareas. No timber cutting was allowed forstewardship or commodity purposes,except where it was necessary for theprotection of threatened or endangeredspecies.

Exceptions and Mitigation Measures.The agency identified an initial set ofexceptions to the prohibitionalternatives, as set out in the DEIS andproposed rule. The exceptionsaddressed the following circumstanceswhere the prohibitions did not applyand are set out in the final rule at§ 294.12(b)(1) through (b)(4). Theseinclude circumstances where a road isneeded to: (1) protect public health andsafety; (2) to conduct an environmentalresponse action; (3) pursuant to reservedor outstanding rights or as provided forby statute or treaty; or (4) roadrealignment is needed to preventirreparable resource damage by aclassified road.

Based on comments received on theproposed rule and the DEIS, the agencydeveloped and considered additionaloptional exceptions that mitigated theeffects of the prohibition alternatives(FEIS Vol. 1, 2–8 to 2–9). Theseexceptions were available for selectionas part of the final rule to reduce oreliminate undesirable social andeconomic impacts. Any or none of theseoptional exceptions could have beenselected as part of the final rule. Ifselected, these exceptions would statethat the responsible official mayauthorize road construction orreconstruction in inventoried roadlessareas where: (1) reconstruction isneeded to implement road safetyimprovements; (2) the Secretarydetermines that a Federal Aid Highwayproject is in the public interest orconsistent with the purposes for whichthe land was reserved or acquired; or (3)a road is needed for prospective mineralleasing activities in inventoried roadlessareas.

Tongass National Forest Alternatives.The second decision was to select oneof the four alternatives createdspecifically for the Tongass NationalForest (FEIS Vol. 1, 2–9). Based onpublic comments and the agency’sdecision to integrate procedures forevaluating roadless area characteristicsinto the planning rule, some of theTongass alternatives presented in theDEIS were modified accordingly.

The Tongass Not Exempt alternativeapplied the same prohibition alternativeto the Tongass National Forest thatapplied to the rest of National ForestSystem lands. An optional social and



economic mitigation measure wasdeveloped for the Tongass Not Exemptalternative that delayed implementationof the selected prohibition alternativeon the Tongass National Forest untilApril 2004 in order to provide atransition period for communities mostaffected by changes that may result ifthis alternative were enacted.

The Tongass Exempt alternative didnot apply a national prohibition to theTongass National Forest. It allowed roadconstruction and reconstruction on theTongass to continue subject to existingland management plan prescriptions.Future proposals for road activities ininventoried roadless areas would beconsidered on a case-by-case basis.

The Tongass Deferred alternativepostponed the decision on whether toapply prohibitions to the TongassNational Forest until April 2004, whenan evaluation to determine whether theprohibitions against road constructionand reconstruction should apply to anyor all inventoried roadless areas wouldbe conducted as part of the scheduled5-year review of the April 1999 TongassLand and Resource Management Plan.

The Tongass Selected Areasalternative applied the prohibitions onroad construction and reconstructionwithin inventoried roadless areaslocated in certain land use designations(LUDs) identified in the Tongass Landand Resource Management Plan,specifically those of Old GrowthHabitat, Semi-Remote Recreation,Remote Recreation, and LUD II. SeeAppendix E of Volume 1 of the FEIS fora complete description of these land usedesignations.

What is the Environmentally PreferredAlternative?

Under the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act, the agency is required toidentify the environmentally preferredalternative (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). This isinterpreted to mean the alternative thatwould cause the least damage to thebiological and physical components ofthe environment, and, which bestprotects, preserves, and enhanceshistoric, cultural, and natural resources(Council on Environmental Quality,Forty Most Asked Questions ConcerningCEQ’s National Environmental PolicyAct Regulations, 46 FR 18026). Factorsconsidered in identifying thisalternative include: (1) fulfilling theresponsibility of this generation astrustee of the environment for futuregenerations, (2) providing for aproductive and aesthetically pleasingenvironment, (3) attaining the widestrange of beneficial uses of theenvironment without degradation, (4)preserving important natural

components of the environment,including biodiversity, (5) balancingpopulation needs and resource use, and(6) enhancing the quality of renewableresources.

The agency believes the alternativethat best meets these objectives isAlternative 3 combined with theTongass Not Exempt alternative,without any social or economicmitigation. Alternative 3 protectsinventoried roadless areas from adverseenvironmental impacts associated withroad construction, reconstruction, andtimber harvesting for commoditypurposes, as identified in Chapter 3 ofthe FEIS.

Alternative 4, by prohibiting timbercutting of any kind (except forprotection or recovery of threatened,endangered, and proposed species),does not allow for the array ofvegetation management potentiallynecessary to maintain or improveroadless characteristics, reduce the risksof uncharacteristic wildfire effects, orrestore ecological structure, function,processes, or composition. Timberharvesting for the limited purposesunder Alternative 3 would allow neededbiological treatments to promote ahealthy forest for future generations.Alternative 2, although providing forprotection from road construction andreconstruction, would still permitharvesting of trees for commoditypurposes that could conflict withprotecting the physical and biologicalenvironment.

Alternative 3, like the otheralternatives, contains exceptions thatallow road construction andreconstruction for important human andenvironmental protection measures,such as protection of public health andsafety from imminent threats of floodand fire, treatment to clean uphazardous pollution sites, and roadrealignment to prevent irreparableresource damage. These are importantexceptions needed to enhance theproductivity and esthetics of theenvironment. Social and economicmitigation measures are not part of thisenvironmentally preferred Alternative 3because these measures, althoughimportant to reduce the social andeconomic effects of the actionalternatives, do not contribute to theprotection of the physical or biologicalenvironment.

The Tongass National Forest is part ofthe northern Pacific coast ecoregion, anecoregion that contains one fourth of theworld’s coastal temperate rainforests. Asstated in the FEIS, the forest’s highdegree of overall ecosystem health islargely due to its quantity and quality ofinventoried roadless areas and other

special designated areas. The ‘‘TongassNot Exempt’’ alternative wouldimmediately apply prohibitions to allinventoried roadless areas and is theenvironmentally preferred alternative.The other Tongass alternatives eitherdelay or limit the inventoried roadlessarea land base to which the prohibitionswould apply, or defer the decisionregarding prohibitions altogether. Theadverse environmental impacts of thesealternatives are disclosed in Chapter 3of the FEIS.

What Is in the Final Rule and What Arethe Reasons for Selecting ThatAlternative?

Selection of an alternative to beadopted in the final rule requires carefulconsideration of the environmentaleffects, including cumulative, social,and economic impacts, and the relativevalues of the various resources to arriveat a fair and reasoned decision toachieve the stated purpose and need forinventoried roadless area protection(FEIS Vol. 1, 3–392 to 3–403). As statedpreviously, courts have held that theagency has wide discretion in weighingand deciding the proper administrationof National Forest System lands.

The Department’s judgment regardingthe appropriate administration of theselands is embodied in the policiesdescribed in this final rule. First andforemost, the Department wants toensure that inventoried roadless areassustain their values for this and futuregenerations. By sustaining these values,a continuous flow of benefits associatedwith healthy watersheds andecosystems is provided. These benefitsinclude sources for clean drinkingwater, fish habitat, wildlife habitat,biological diversity, and dispersedoutdoor recreational opportunities. Notonly are short-term economic andenvironmental factors considered, butalso the long-term productivity of theselands which are so critical to strong,productive economies.

Evaluation of these considerations forthis decision is based primarily on thesequalitative factors. Quantitative factors,such as volume of timber offered forsale, or roadless acres protected, werealso considered and are helpful todistinguish and compare thealternatives (FEIS Vol. 1, 2–24 to 2–38),and their effects (FEIS Chapter 3).

Prohibition Alternatives. Alternative 1in the FEIS has the greatest potential foradverse impact on watershed health andwater quality by allowing increasedsedimentation and disruption ofhydrologic processes; the greatestpotential for adverse impact onbiodiversity by fragmenting habitat forthreatened, endangered, and sensitive



species; the greatest potential foradverse impact on aquatic andterrestrial habitat; and the greatestpotential for increase in competitionfrom invasive non-native species. Thisalternative was not selected because itdid not meet the specified purpose andneed for this action.

Action Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 in theFEIS all provide ecological benefits fromprohibiting road construction andreconstruction. The major differenceamong these alternatives is thatAlternative 2 allows timber harvestingwithout restriction; Alternative 3prohibits timber harvesting forcommodity purposes, but allows timberharvesting for clearly defined purposesand limited circumstances; andAlternative 4 prohibits all timber cutting(except that which may be needed forprotection or recovery of threatened,endangered, or proposed species).Personal and administrative use harvest,including firewood and Christmas treecutting, would be permitted. Treeremoval could occur when associatedwith management activities nototherwise prohibited by the final rule,such as trail construction ormaintenance, hazard tree removaladjacent to classified roads for publichealth and safety reasons, fire lineconstruction for wildland firesuppression or control of prescribedfire, or survey and maintenance ofproperty boundaries.

Alternative 2 was not selectedbecause it posed more risks to roadlesscharacteristics than Alternatives 3 or 4.Timber harvesting for clearly defined,limited purposes can be a valuable toolfor conserving and improving roadlessarea values and should be available asa management option for the localresponsible official. Therefore, theDepartment did not select Alternative 4and is selecting Alternative 3.

Reducing the risk of uncharacteristicwildfire effects is one way of restoringecological processes. The final rulerecognizes this by eliminating ‘‘reducingthe risk of uncharacteristic wildfireeffects’’ as a separate purpose andinstead uses it as an example ofrestoring ecological processes. Also, toaddress concern about the meaning andimplementation of stewardship purposetimber harvest that ‘‘restores ecologicalstructure, function, processes, andcomposition’’ described in the FEIS, thefinal rule eliminates use of the term‘‘stewardship’’. Instead, the rule relieson the purposes specifically listed andmirrors language from the new planningregulations at 36 CFR part 219 statingthat timber harvest is allowed in orderto maintain or restore the characteristicsof ecosystem composition and structure

within the range of variability thatwould be expected to occur undernatural disturbance regimes of thecurrent climatic period.

Alternatives 2 through 4 could reducefuture timber harvest, mineralexploration and development, and otheractivities such as ski area developmentin inventoried roadless areas.Communities with significant economicactivities in these sectors could beadversely impacted. However, theeffects on the social and economicsituation nationally are minor. Forexample, the reduction in timberharvest from National Forest Systemlands is less than 3%, which is less than0.5 percent of total United States timberproduction. The total oil and gasproduction from all National ForestSystem lands is about 0.4 percent of thecurrent national production, and the oiland gas resources located insideinventoried roadless areas are aninsignificant portion of total resources.

Rights of reasonable access toprospect and explore lands open tomineral entry and to develop validclaims, would be unaffected under thesealternatives as provided by the GeneralMining Law. Reasonable rights of accessmay include, but are not limited to, roadconstruction and reconstruction,helicopters, or other nonmotorizedaccess (FEIS Vol. 1, 3–254). None of thealternatives are likely to havemeasurable impacts compared to thebroader social and economic conditionsand trends observable at these scales;however, the effects of the alternativesare not distributed evenly across theUnited States (FEIS Vol. 1, 3–329 to 3–350).

Comment was received concerningthe cumulative relationship of theRoadless Area Conservation Rule withthe Bureau of Land Management’sproposed rule for Mining Claims Underthe General Mining Laws; SurfaceManagement, published on February 9,1999 (64 FR 6422). Since that commentwas received, the Mining Claims rulebecame final (65 FR 69998, November21, 2000). Both the final Roadless AreaConservation Rule and the final Bureauof Land Management mining rule havecomparable goals to preventunnecessary or undue degradation ofpublic lands. However, the RoadlessArea Conservation Rule at 294.12(b)(3)does not affect rights of reasonableaccess to prospect and explore landsopen to mineral entry and to developvalid claims. Reasonable accessincludes, road construction orreconstruction for mining activitiescovered under the General Mining Law,while the performance standards atproposed 3809.420(c) would require

that permitted roads and structures bedesigned, constructed, and maintainedto control or prevent erosion, siltation,and air pollution and to minimizeimpacts to resources. Cumulative effectsof these two rules are expected to beminimal because of the exception forlocatable minerals under § 294.12(b)(3)in the final roadless rule.

Exceptions. The Department isadopting the exceptions for road safetyprojects and for Federal Aid Highwayprojects. The exception for road safetyprojects is a narrow exception that onlyallows road reconstruction where pastexperience or expert opinion hasindicated that the road design wouldpresent a threat to public safety. TheDepartment decided to adopt theFederal Aid Highway exception to allowroad construction based on socialconsiderations and Federal-Staterelationships. The Department believesthat this exception will have a verylimited application, and the Secretary ofAgriculture retains the discretion toapprove or deny authorization whenwarranted (23 U.S.C. 317). The analysisin the FEIS identified only oneapplication of this exception in the nextfive years for a proposed 5.5-mile Statehighway relocation project on theChugach National Forest in Alaska(FEIS Vol. 1, 3–33).

After publication of the FEIS forRoadless Area Conservation, theDepartment of Energy (DOE) and theOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) received and shared with theForest Service several letters frommining interests outlining theirconcerns with the preferred alternative.The Forest Service also receivedcomments directly from the NationalMining Association. DOE provided ananalysis of potential impacts related tooil and gas resources, and compiledinformation on coal resources as well.Upon being informed of these concerns,the Forest Service evaluated theinformation provided by DOE andothers. The Forest Service also met withand discussed these concerns with DOE.

The FEIS analysis focused on impactsto coal, phosphate, and oil and gasresources, based on input from thenational forests and grasslands and frompublic comment on the draftenvironmental impact statement (DEIS)and proposed rule (May 10, 2000; 65 FR30276). Comment received from DOE onthe DEIS was focused only ontransmission line corridors. Potentialeconomic impacts related to existingcoal and phosphate operations withknown plans to expand into inventoriedroadless areas were quantified in theFEIS (Vol. 1, pp. 3–308 to 3–324). Areasof known high potential for coal,



phosphate, and oil and gas were alsodiscussed (Vol. 1. pp. 3–254 to 3–260).With respect to oil and gas, no attemptwas made to estimate the proportion ofthese resources within inventoriedroadless areas because of the highdegree of uncertainty of these estimates.

After publication of the FEIS forRoadless Area Conservation, theDepartment of Energy (DOE) raisedconcerns about the potential impacts onleasable energy minerals, particularlyfor natural gas and coal, if the finalRoadless Area Conservation Rule didnot allow road building in support ofexploration and development forleasable minerals.

Currently, the NFS lands play a minorrole in providing natural gas resources,only about 0.4% of national production(76.4 billion cubic feet) in 1999. Theresource estimates by DOE were madeassuming that the resources arehomogenously distributed across playareas, which is generally not the casewith oil and gas resources. It isreasonable to assume, under the currentdemand conditions, that there will beincreased interest in development ofnatural gas resources on federal landsand elsewhere. Some of these areas arenot currently available for leasing, as aresult of leasing decisions or local forestand grassland plan decisions. Moreover,current access restrictions would makemany of these resources unavailable inthe near future. In addition, the steepterrain that is typical of manyinventoried roadless areas often makesthese areas difficult to access forenvironmental and/or economicreasons. The likelihood of resourcesbeing recovered from inventoriedroadless areas even in the absence of afinal roadless rule is small, exceptwhere leases already exist. Finally,where accessible, exploration anddevelopment of these resources wouldlikely take about 5–10 years beforeproduction would begin.

The FEIS described the coalproduction from NFS lands asaccounting for about 7% of nationalproduction in 1999. The analysisacknowledged the increasing nationaldemand for coal, particularly the low-sulfur coal found primarily in thewestern U.S. About 2.5 million acres ofcoal-bearing rock were estimated tooccur within inventoried roadless areasin the interior West.

A concern raised by DOE and otherswas the potential effect on users of thislow sulfur coal, primarily electricutilities in the East. According to DOE,many utility and industrial boilers havebeen designed to blend the western coalwith other higher sulfur coal to meettheir Clean Air Act compliance goals.

The DOE analysis did not provide anyinformation on the availability ofsubstitute sources of coal if supply fromexisting mines is reduced.

Overall, the U.S. has abundant coalreserves. Also, alternative sources oflow-sulfur coal do exist, concentrated inthe western U.S., mostly in Colorado,Montana, and Wyoming. Additionally,the abundant sources of low cost-coaland available technology, such asscrubbers, will enable electric utilitiesto meet their Clean Air Act compliancegoals.

Several commentators on the DEIS,including the Governor of the State ofUtah, had questions about access tostate-owned coal. As discussed in theFEIS, access based on existing rightswould not be affected by the final rule,therefore, access is guaranteed to coalheld under existing rights.

The FEIS identified potential impactson future phosphate mining on theCaribou National Forest, the only area ofactive phosphate mining on NFS lands.The FEIS acknowledged that phosphateproduction from the Caribou accountsfor about 12% of national production,and is used to supply regionalproducers of phosphate fertilizerproducts and elemental phosphorous.The analysis included an estimate ofphosphate resources within inventoriedroadless areas of 873.3 million tons, anda description that about 8,000 acres ofthe area of Known Phosphate LeaseAreas are within inventoried roadlessareas.

In a letter to OMB, the NationalMining Association provided estimatesof phosphate reserves in Idaho,Wyoming, Utah, and Montanapotentially impacted by the final rule.The company currently mining on theCaribou made these estimates. Nodocumentation was provided for thebasis of the estimates. However, theiropen pit mining estimates for Idahowere less than the resources identifiedin the FEIS in inventoried roadless areasalone.

In conclusion, the informationprovided by DOE and others providesadditional context to the analysis.However, for coal and phosphate, theimpacts noted in these comments fallwithin the range of effects disclosed inthe FEIS. For oil and gas, the ForestService continues to believe there is ahigh degree of uncertainty in theavailable information. Moreover, itseems likely that even if resources dounderlie inventoried roadless areas,they would be among the last areasentered for exploration anddevelopment for the reasons describedabove. After careful review of theinformation provided by DOE and

private parties, the agency hasdetermined that the information doesnot materially alter the environmentalanalysis disclosed in the FEIS and doesnot constitute significant newcircumstances or information relevant toenvironmental concerns bearing on therulemaking effort.

The Department has decided not toadopt the exception for futurediscretionary mineral leasing because ofthe potentially significantenvironmental impacts that roadconstruction could cause to inventoriedroadless areas, but instead determined amore limited exception is appropriate.Existing mineral leases are not subject tothe prohibitions, nor is thecontinuation, extension, or renewal ofan existing mineral lease on lands underlease by the Secretary of the Interior asof the date of publication of this rule inthe Federal Register. Additionally, roadconstruction or reconstruction may beauthorized for new leases on these samelands in the event that application for anew lease is made prior to terminationor expiration of the existing lease.

The Department recognizes that thisdecision may have major adverseeconomic impacts on a fewcommunities dependent on mineralleasing from inventoried roadless areas.However, if road construction andreconstruction were allowed for futuremineral leasing on lands not undermineral lease as of the date ofpublication of this rule in the FederalRegister, an estimated 59 miles of newroads would be constructed ininventoried roadless areas over the nextfive years. Road construction orreconstruction in support of futuremineral leasing on lands not presentlyunder mineral lease could continue atthis level or in greater amounts into theforeseeable future. Over an estimated 10million acres of inventoried roadlessareas could be roaded for explorationand development of leasable minerals,although the agency believes it isunlikely that more than a smallpercentage of these acres would containminerals sufficient for economicdevelopment.

The effects of road construction overtime could substantially alter valuableroadless area characteristics byfragmenting habitat, increasing soildisturbance, decreasing water quality,and providing new avenues for theinvasion of non-native invasive species.Mineral leasing activities not dependenton road construction, such asdirectional (slant) drilling andunderground development, would notbe affected by the prohibition.

The final rule extends indefinitely thetimeframe for which roads can be



constructed on areas currently underlease, which are estimated to be lessthan 1 million acres in extent, or lessthan 2 percent of the total acreage ofinventoried roadless areas. Theenvironmental effects of this extensionfall between those described in the FEISfor the preferred alternative, whichwould have allowed road constructionor reconstruction only for the durationof an existing lease, and those describedin the FEIS under the potential socialand economic mitigation measures,which would have provided anexception for mineral leasing activitieswithin all inventoried roadless areas,with no limitations.

Relative to the preferred alternative,the final rule will somewhat diminishthe potential beneficial effects of theoverall prohibition on road constructionand reconstruction in the areas affectedby the minerals leasing exception, dueto the greater amount of area potentiallydisturbed and the effects of associatedactivities. However, by limiting the areapotentially affected to only those areascurrently under lease, the potentialextent of these activities and theirimpacts are identified and limited.

Tongass National Forest Alternatives.The Tongass Exempt alternativedescribed in the FEIS was not selected.Allowing road construction andreconstruction on the Tongass NationalForest to continue unabated would riskthe loss of important roadless areavalues.

The Tongass Deferred alternative wasnot selected because the agencypresently has sufficient information tomake this decision, and thedecisionmaking processes used haveidentified the environmental, social,and economic issues that must beaddressed. There is no need to postponethe decision.

The Tongass Selected Areasalternative did not meet the purposeand need as well as the selectedalternative. Important roadless areavalues would be lost or diminishedbecause of the road construction,reconstruction, and timber harvestingactivities that this alternative allowed.

By applying the final rule to theTongass National Forest immediately,but allowing road construction,reconstruction, and the cutting, sale,and removal of timber from inventoriedroadless areas where a notice ofavailability for a draft environmentalimpact statement for such activities hasbeen published in the Federal Registerprior to the date of publication of thisrule in the Federal Register, a period oftransition is available to affectedcommunities while providing certaintyfor long term protection of these lands.

The Tongass National Forest has 261MMBF of timber under contract and 386MMBF under a notice of availability ofa DEIS, FEIS, or Record of Decision. Inaddition, the Tongass has 204 MMBFavailable in roaded areas that is sold,has a Record of Decision, or is currentlyin the planning process. This total of852 MMBF is enough timber volume tosatisfy about seven years of estimatedmarket demand. During the period oftransition, an estimated 114 directtimber jobs and 182 total jobs would beaffected. In the longer-term, anadditional 269 direct timber jobs and431 total jobs could be lost in SoutheastAlaska if current demand trendscontinue and no other adjustments areprovided to allow for more harvest fromother parts of the forest. The exceptionfor projects with a notice of availabilityfor a draft environmental impactstatement on the Tongass NationalForest is because of the unique socialand economic conditions where adisproportionate share of the impactsare experienced throughout the entireSoutheast Alaska region and mostheavily in a few communities.

Decision Summary. It is the decisionof the Secretary of Agriculture to selectProhibition Alternative 3 and theTongass Not Exempt Alternativeidentified in the FEIS as the final rule,with modifications. These modificationsinclude: (1) an exception to theprohibition on road construction andreconstruction for mineral leasing inareas under mineral lease as of the dateof publication of this rule in the FederalRegister; (2) an exception to the timberharvest prohibition for the cutting, sale,or removal of timber in portions ofinventoried roadless areas whereconstruction of a classified road andsubsequent timber harvest havesubstantially altered the roadlesscharacteristics, and the roadconstruction and subsequent timberharvest occurred after the area wasdesignated an inventoried roadless areaand prior to the date of publication ofthis rule in the Federal Register; and (3)the immediate application of theprohibitions to the Tongass NationalForest with a provision that exemptsroad construction, road reconstruction,and the cutting, sale, or removal oftimber if a notice of availability for aDEIS for such activities has beenpublished in the Federal Register priorto the date of publication of this rule inthe Federal Register. The final rule bestmeets the agency’s goal of maintainingthe health and contributions of existinginventoried roadless areas by preservingthe relatively undisturbedcharacteristics of those areas, thereby

protecting watershed health andecosystem integrity. In evaluating thecomments received from the public, theDepartment believes that there isadequate relevant information to assessreasonably foreseeable significantadverse impacts (40 CFR 1502.22). TheFEIS for this final rule documents theadverse impacts road construction andtimber harvesting can have ininventoried roadless areas. This finalrule reduces potential impacts to agreater degree and with more certaintythan Prohibition Alternatives 1 and 2and the other Tongass National Forestalternatives.

The final rule retains the ability to usetimber harvesting for clearly definedpurposes where necessary to meetecological needs, allowingaccomplishment of ecological objectivesthat Alternative 4 would preclude.Allowing clearly defined, limited timberharvest of generally small diameter treeswill maintain a valuable managementoption for the agency to help improvehabitat for threatened, endangered,proposed, or sensitive species recoveryand to help restore ecologicalcomposition and structure, such asreducing the risk of uncharacteristicwildfire effects. As habitatfragmentation, subdivision, andurbanization of lands continuesnationally, this decision allows theagency to avoid most human-causedfragmentation of National Forest Systeminventoried roadless areas to preservemanagement options for futuregenerations. Finally, these inventoriedroadless areas will remain available toall Americans for a variety of dispersedrecreation opportunities.

The final rule:(1) Recognizes that the agency’s first

and highest priority is to ensuresustainability for resources under itsjurisdiction. It protects inventoriedroadless areas from the activities thatmost directly threaten their fundamentalcharacteristics through the alteration ofnatural landscapes and fragmentation offorestlands.

(2) Protects public health bypromoting watershed health andmaintaining important sources of cleandrinking water for current and futuregenerations.

(3) Responds to the major issuesidentified in public comments.

(4) Is fiscally responsible, and doesnot increase the financial burden byadding expensive roads the agencycannot afford to maintain.

(5) Exemplifies the agency’sresponsibility as a world leader innatural resource conservation by settingan example for the global community.



(6) Recognizes that somecommunities, such as those in SoutheastAlaska, bear a disproportionate share ofthe burden, and offers assistance tomitigate those impacts.

This decision is expected to causeadditional adverse economic effects toforest dependent communities becauseof the potential reduction in futuretimber harvest, mineral leasing, andother activities (FEIS Vol. 1, 3–326 to 3–350). However, the Department believesthat the long-term ecological benefits tothe nation of conserving theseinventoried roadless areas outweigh thepotential economic loss to those localcommunities. To reduce the economicimpacts of this decision, the Chief of theForest Service will seek to implementone or more of the following provisionsof an economic transition program forcommunities most affected byapplication of the prohibitions ininventoried roadless areas:

(1) Provide financial assistance tostimulate community-led transitionprograms and projects in communitiesmost affected by application of theprohibitions in inventoried roadlessareas;

(2) Through financial support andaction plans, attract public and privateinterests, both financial and technical,to aid in successfully implementinglocal transition projects and plans bycoordinating with other Federal andState agencies; and

(3) Assist local, State, Tribal andFederal partners in working with thosecommunities most affected by the finalroadless area decision.

Regulatory Certifications

This final rule was reviewed underUSDA procedures, Executive Order(E.O.) 12866 on Regulatory Planningand Review, and the major ruleprovisions of the Small BusinessRegulatory Enforcement and FairnessAct (5 U.S.C. 800). The Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) hasdetermined that this is a major rule,because this rule may have an annualeffect of $100 million or more on theeconomy or, in some sectors, may affectproductivity, competition, or jobs.Consequently, the rule is subject toOMB review under E.O. 12866 and aregulatory impact analysis has beenprepared for this final rule. This rule isnot expected to interfere with an actiontaken or planned by another agency norraise new legal or policy issues. Thisaction will not alter the budgetaryimpact of entitlements, grants, user fees,or loan programs or the rights andobligations of recipients of suchprograms.

Regulatory Impacts

Summary of the Results of theRegulatory Impact Analysis. Many ofthe benefits and costs associated withthe final rule were not quantifiable.Therefore, many of the costs andbenefits are described qualitatively.Although the analysis does not providea quantitative measure of net benefits,the Department believes the benefits ofthe rule outweigh the costs.

Local-level analysis cannot easilyincorporate the economic effectsassociated with nationally significantissues. Therefore, the Departmentbelieves the aggregate transactions costs(costs associated with the time andeffort needed to make decisions) of locallevel decisions would be much higherthan the transactions costs of a nationalpolicy, because of the controversysurrounding roadless area management.

National Forest System lands providea variety of goods and services to theAmerican public. Use of the nationalforests and grasslands for bothcommodities and amenity servicesvaries over time, in response tochanging market conditions, consumerpreferences, and other factors. For thepurpose of this analysis, the baselinedescribes the likely mix of goods andservices from the national forests andgrasslands in the near future in theabsence of the final rule, which is likelyto affect some goods and services, whilehaving no effect on others. Details onthe environmental effects of the finalrule can be found in the Forest ServiceRoadless Area Conservation FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

Most of the benefits of the rule resultfrom maintaining roadless areas in theircurrent state, and, therefore,maintaining the current stream ofbenefits from these areas. The costs areprimarily associated with lostopportunities, since the final rule wouldlimit some types of developmentactivities that might have occurred inthe future without this rule. Table 1summarizes the potential benefits andcosts of the rule.

Potential Benefits Of The RoadlessRule. Undisturbed landscapes provide avariety of monetary and non-monetarybenefits to the public. Many of thesebenefits are associated with theprotection of ecological, social, andeconomic values in inventoried roadlessareas.

Air and water quality would bemaintained at a higher level than underthe baseline. Higher water qualityprovides a higher level of protection fordrinking water sources, reducestreatment costs for irrigation, reservoirs,and other downstream facilities and

maintains the value of water-basedrecreation activities. Higher air qualityprotects not only values associated withhuman health, but also improvesvisibility and benefits recreation andadjacent private property values.

A greater degree of protection ofbiological diversity and threatened andendangered species would occur ifroads and commodity timber harvestwere prohibited in inventoried roadlessareas as opposed to the baseline. As aresult, ecological values would bemaintained. Passive use values relatedto the existence of biological diversityand threatened and endangered specieswould be maintained, as well as valuesassociated with protecting these areasfor future generations.

A number of other benefits areassociated with maintaining healthywildlife and fish populations at a levelhigher than under the baseline. Somegame species are likely to benefit fromthis protection, which would maintainquality hunting and fishing experiencesboth within inventoried roadless areasand beyond. Other types of recreationexperiences, such as wildlife viewing,also would benefit.

Inventoried roadless areas areimportant in providing remoterecreation opportunities. A greaternumber of acres in these recreationsettings would be maintained thanunder the baseline. Remote areas arealso important settings for manyoutfitter and guide services. Maintainingthese areas increases the ability of theagency to accommodate additionaldemand for these types of recreationspecial use authorizations.

Inventoried roadless areas provide aremote recreation experience withoutthe activity restrictions of Wilderness(for example, off-highway vehicle useand mountain biking). Maintainingroadless areas would likely lessenvisitation pressure on Wildernesscompared to the baseline.

The risk of introducing non-nativeinvasive species would be reduced ifroad access were not available. This isbeneficial to grazing permittees withallotments in inventoried roadless areas,and to collectors of non-timber forestproducts by maintaining forage qualityand quantity, and forest products thatcannot compete with invasive species.The reduced probability of introductionwould also benefit forest health ininventoried roadless areas and wouldcontribute to the maintenance ofbiological diversity.

Some planned timber sales ininventoried roadless areas are likely tocost more to prepare and sell than theyrealize in revenues received. To theextent that these sales will not take



place, a financial efficiency savingswould be realized. Implementing therule could result in agency cost savings.First, local appeals and litigation aboutsome management activities in roadlessareas could be reduced, which wouldavoid future costs. Secondly, thereduction in new miles of roadsconstructed would reduce the numberof miles the agency is responsible formaintaining in the future, resulting inavoiding up to an additional $219,000per year of costs.

Potential Costs Of The Roadless Rule.The prohibition on road construction,reconstruction, and timber harvestexcept for clearly defined, limitedpurposes would reduce development ofroaded access to resources withininventoried roadless areas compared tothe baseline. Roads are required formost timber sales to be economicallyfeasible. For those sales that arefinancially profitable, the rule wouldreduce net revenues. In addition to lostrevenue, there would be an estimatedimmediate impact of 461 fewer timberjobs and 841 total jobs, with anassociated annual loss of $20.7 millionin direct income and $36.2 million intotal income. In the longer term, anadditional 269 timber jobs and 431 totaljobs could be affected from harvestreductions on the Tongass NationalForest. The longer-term income effectwas estimated at $12.4 million in directincome and $20.2 million in totalincome. A reduction in the timberprogram could also affect about 160Forest Service jobs, with an additional100 jobs affected on the Tongass in thelonger term.

Jobs associated with road constructionand reconstruction for timber harvestand other activities would also be fewerthan under the baseline. Initially,between 43 and 51 direct jobs andbetween 88 and 104 total jobs could beaffected by reduced road constructionand reconstruction. An additional 39direct jobs and 78 total jobs could beaffected by harvest reductions on theTongass National Forest in the longerterm.

The impact on mineral resources willvary, depending on factors such asprices, technology change, andsubstitutes. Reasonable access toconduct exploration and developmentof valid claims for locatable minerals(metallic and nonmetallic mineralssubject to appropriation under theGeneral Mining Law of 1872) wouldcontinue. Such access may involvesome level of road construction that,depending on the stage of exploration ordevelopment, could range fromhelicopters, temporary or unimproved

roads, more permanent, improved roads,or nonmotorized transport.

Exploration for and development ofleasable minerals (such as oil, gas, coal,and geothermal) on areas not alreadyunder lease would likely be limitedbecause roads are often needed for theseactivities. In the short-term, up to 546direct and 3,095 total jobs could beaffected, with direct annual incomeeffects of $36 million and total incomeeffects of $128 million. Payments tostates could be reduced by about $3.2million per year. Between 308 and 1,371million tons of coal resources on theGrand Mesa, Uncompahgre, andGunnison and Manti-LaSal NationalForests could be unavailable fordevelopment as a result of this rule.About 873 million tons of phosphateresources on the Caribou NationalForest may also be unavailable. Otherinventoried roadless areas may containadditional coal and phosphateresources. An estimated mean of 11.3trillion cubic feet of undiscoverednatural gas and 550 million barrels ofundiscovered oil resources could also beaffected. Effects on saleable minerals(such as sand, gravel, stone, andpumice) are expected to be negligible.

New roads have the potential toreduce current operating costs for otherusers, for example grazing permitteesand collectors of non-timber forestproducts, by allowing faster and easieraccess. These potential cost reductionswould not be realized if roadconstruction is prohibited. The agency,however, builds few roads forrecreation, grazing, or collection of non-timber forest products, and this patternis unlikely to change. New roads builtfor other purposes may provideadditional access for recreationists,including hunters and anglers.Prohibiting construction of new roadswould have minimal impacts on thesegroups, since all temporary roads andmany of the other planned roads wouldbe closed once the intended activity isconcluded. Therefore, the number ofadditional road miles that would beavailable for recreational or other useswould be small.

Opportunities for some types ofrecreation special uses may be limitedin the future. Developed recreation useand road-based recreation uses ingeneral are more likely to occur athigher densities outside of inventoriedroadless areas than under the baseline,since expansion into inventoriedroadless areas would not occur.However, roads are rarely constructedinto inventoried roadless areas forrecreation purposes. The developmentof new ski areas within inventoriedroadless areas would be unlikely. Other,

new non-recreation special uses may belimited in the future as well. Suchspecial uses include communicationsites and energy-related transmissionuses (such as ditches and pipelines, andelectric transmission lines).

There could be a slight increase in therisk from uncharacteristic wildland fireor insect and disease as a result ofreduced opportunities for forest healthtreatments. However, the Forest Servicewould likely treat few acres ofinventoried roadless areas regardless ofthe issuance of the Roadless Rule, sincemoderate and high risk forests ininventoried roadless areas would begiven a low priority for treatment,unless there was an imminent threat topublic safety, private property, waterquality, or threatened and endangeredspecies. While overall fire hazard canstill be reduced without roads, restrictedroad access would likely increase thecost of treatments, which would resultin fewer acres treated. Some fueltreatment techniques available underthe baseline would not be economicallyor logistically feasible. Of the 14 millionacres in inventoried roadless areasidentified as potentially requiring fueltreatment, 6.5 million could still betreated with prescribed fire withoutmechanical pretreatment. The use oftimber harvest for fuel managementwould be limited to those activities thatreduce uncharacteristic wildfire effectsthrough the cutting, sale, or removal ofsmall diameter timber that maintains orimproves one or more of the roadlesscharacteristics. For the next five years,about 22,000 acres could be treated bythe limited timber harvest allowedunder the final rule. Although this is asignificant decline in treatment acrescompared to acres that would have beenharvested under the baseline, the totalacreage affected is less than 1 percent ofall inventoried roadless area thatpotentially require mechanicalpretreatment.

Agency costs could increasecompared to the baseline for some typesof activities. Fuel treatment and otherecological restoration treatment costs ininventoried roadless areas would likelyincrease, but the impact on agency costsis likely to be negligible since treatmentin most inventoried roadless areas is alower priority.

The goods and services that could notbe produced from inventoried roadlessareas without road construction arelikely to be produced either on otherparts of National Forest System land oron other lands. Substitute productioncould result in adverse environmentaleffects on these other lands. Thefollowing Table 1 summarizes the costsand benefits of the final rule.



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

Category Baseline Final rule

Air quality 1 .......................................................... Potential increase in dust, vehicle emissionsassociated with road use and managementactivities in inventoried roadless areas.

Air quality is maintained in inventoriedroadless areas.

Water quality 1 .................................................... Potential increase in sediment associated withroads and management activities in inven-toried roadless areas.

Water quality is maintained in inventoriedroadless areas.

Land base available for dispersed recreationactivities 1.

Decrease in remote settings, increase in de-veloped settings on National Forest Systemlands.

Current land base for remote and developedsettings is maintained on National ForestSystem lands.

Quality of fishing and hunting for recreation,commercial, and subsistence users 1..

Potential habitat degradation, increase inroaded access, and decrease in remotehunting and fishing opportunities.

Existing hunting and fishing quality and ac-cess in inventoried roadless areas main-tained. Opportunities for remote experi-ences are maintained.

Forage quality for livestock grazing 1 ................. Increased risk of non-palatable invasive spe-cies.

Existing forage quality is maintained.

Non-timber forest products 1 ............................... Increased risk of invasive species displacingdesired products.

Non-timber forest products maintained at cur-rent levels.

Existence and bequest values 1 ......................... Potential decrease due to loss of biological di-versity and increased risks to threatenedand endangered species habitat in inven-toried roadless areas.

Values maintained at existing levels due toconservation of biological diversity andhabitat for threatened and endangered spe-cies in inventoried roadless areas.

Agency costs associated with planning activi-ties 1.

No change in current costs associated withappeals and litigation on roadless areamanagement.

Savings in costs associated with appeals andlitigation on roadless area management.

Agency cost associated with road mainte-nance 2.

Increase up to $219,000 per year in mainte-nance cost associated with new roads ininventoried roadless areas.

No increase in road maintenance costs ininventoried roadless areas.

Projected timber harvest (average annual) frominventoried roadless areas 3.

146.7 million board feet ................................... 74.3 million board feet.

Timber related jobs 4 .......................................... No change to current estimates of future tim-ber associated direct and total jobs.

Estimated job loss of 461 direct jobs and 841total jobs. An additional 269 direct and 431total jobs could be affected in Alaska in thelonger term.

Timber related income 4 ..................................... No change to current estimates of future tim-ber associated direct and total income.

Estimated annual income loss of about $20.7million direct income and $36.2 million totalincome. An additional $12.4 million directincome and $20.2 million total income couldbe affected in Alaska in the longer term.

Road construction jobs 5 ..................................... No change to current estimates of future roadconstruction direct jobs.

Projected annual job loss ranging from 43 to51 direct jobs and between 88 and 104total jobs. An additional 39 direct and 78total jobs could be affected in Alaska in thelonger term.

Exploration and development for locatable min-erals (gold, silver, lead, etc.) 1.

Existing mineral availability continues subjectto General Mining Law of 1872.

Access continues subject to General MiningLaw of 1872.

Exploration and development for leasable min-erals (oil, gas, coal, etc.) 1.

Existing mineral availability continues alongwith current exploration and developmentcosts.

Exploration and development in areas notunder lease as of the date of publication ofthis rule and requiring roads would be pre-cluded.

Leasable minerals related jobs 6 ........................ No change to current estimates of future min-eral associated direct and indirect jobs.

Potential effect on mining related employmentis a decrease of 546 direct and 3,095 totaljobs.

Leasable minerals related income 6 ................... No change to current estimates of future min-erals associated direct and total income.

Potential effect on mining related annual in-come is $36.2 million less direct and $127.8million less total income.

Payments to states for leasable minerals .......... Payments will continue to vary as extractionvaries over time.

Payments associated with coal and phos-phate could be reduced by $3.2 million peryear.

Leasable mineral resources ............................... No change to current estimates of availableleasable resources.

About 873 million tons of phosphate and 308to 1,371 million tons of coal would likely beunavailable for development. About 11.3trillion cubic feet of undiscovered gas and550 million barrels of undiscovered oil re-sources may be unavailable.

Exploration and development for salable min-erals (sand, stone, gravel, pumice, etc.) 1.

Existing mineral availability continues alongwith current exploration and developmentcosts.

In a few isolated cases, development requir-ing roads may be precluded or costs mayincrease.

Operating costs for grazing permittees 1 ............ Increased access can potentially decreasecost.

No change in operating costs.



1 Because the roadless rule does not directlyregulate small entities, the Department does notbelieve the Regulatory Flexibility Act applies to thisrule.

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

Category Baseline Final rule

Operating costs for collectors of non-timberproducts 1.

Increased access can potentially decreasecost.

No change in operating costs.

Special-use authorizations (such as commu-nications sites, electric transmission lines,pipelines) 1.

Current use and occupancies .......................... Current use and occupancies not affected, fu-ture developments requiring roads excludedin inventoried roadless areas unless one ofthe exceptions applies.

Forest health 1 .................................................... Potential lower cost of treatment due to in-creased access.

Slightly increased risk because of fewer treat-ment opportunities. Cost of current treat-ments remains unchanged.

1 Analysis based on qualitative discussion.2 Analysis based on historic Agency data on expenditures.3 Analysis based on forest-level data on projected timber volumes in inventoried roadless areas.4 Analysis based on Agency data from Timber Sales Program Information System Reporting System (TSPIRS) and IMPLAN model multipliers.5 Analysis based on Agency estimates of historic expenditures and IMPLAN model multipliers.6 Analysis based on Agency production estimates and IMPLAN model multipliers.

Summary of the Results of the FinalRegulatory Flexibility Analysis. TheDepartment is promulgating a final rulefor roadless area conservation that doesnot impose regulations on small entities.The rule would not suspend or modifyany existing permit, contract, or otherlegal instrument authorizing theoccupancy and use of National ForestSystem land.1 The rule could affectfuture opportunities for small entities,but the agency cannot predict at anygiven time what authorized uses a smallentity might want to pursue on NationalForest System lands.

Data are limited for linking theproposed rule to effects on smallbusinesses. The agency does nottypically collect information about thesize of businesses that seek permissionto operate on National Forest Systemlands. The agency sought information tothe extent possible by specificallyrequesting additional information in theinitial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The rulemaking has the potential toaffect a subset of small businesses thatmay seek opportunities on NationalForest System lands in the future. Theprimary effect of the rule on smallbusinesses is the potential to affect thefuture supply of commodity outputs orcommercial opportunities forbusinesses. The change in resourceavailability is expected to be smallacross most regions in the country.Therefore, future business opportunitiesare not likely to be reduced to any greatextent in comparison to continuation ofcurrent management policies. However,the effects may be more pronounced inthe Intermountain and Alaska Regions,with the effects in Alaska increasing inthe longer term.

Small businesses in the woodproducts sector most likely to beaffected are logging and sawmilloperations. Reductions in the harvest ofsoftwood sawtimber, particularly in thewestern U.S., are most likely to affectsmall businesses, since these sectors aredominated by small business. With theexception of the Intermountain (Utah,Nevada, western Wyoming, andsouthern Idaho) and Alaska Regions,reductions in harvest are estimated torange from less than one percent to fourpercent. The reduction in theIntermountain Region is estimated to benine percent. Harvest effects on theTongass National Forest will be reducedabout 18 percent in the short-term, butin the longer-term, harvest could bereduced by about 60 percent absentfurther adjustments to the Tongass Landand Resource Management Plan.

In the mining sector, small businessesmost likely to be affected are businessesinvolved in the exploration anddevelopment of leasable minerals. Thefinal Roadless Area Conservation rulewill affect exploration and developmentfor leasable minerals in inventoriedroadless areas in the future where roadconstruction is required, except in areaspresently under lease.

The potential effects on smallbusinesses involved in livestock grazingand the collection of non-timber forestproducts are expected to be negligible.There will be fewer roads available foruse in the future under the final rule,but the number of miles that wouldhave been built in the next five yearsand that would have remained open foruse is minor compared to the entireNational Forest System road system.

Special use authorizations onNational Forest System land could beaffected by the final rule, if road accessis required. Most of the special usespotentially affected are dominated by

large businesses, such as businesses incommunication, electric services, gasproduction and distribution, and resortdevelopment. Small businesses withoutfitter and guide permits are expectedto benefit from the final rule, since thesebusinesses are often dependent onproviding services to recreationistsinterested in remote recreation activitiesthat are often found in inventoriedroadless areas.

The effect of the final rulemaking onsmall governmental jurisdictions is tiedto possible reductions in commodityoutputs in cases where some portion offederal receipts is returned to the statesfor distribution to counties, and tochanges in the jurisdiction’s economicbase from changes in employment andbusiness opportunities related toNational Forest System outputs andmanagement. Payments to states fromtimber receipts will be unaffected by thefinal Roadless Rule through 2006because the ‘‘Secure Rural Schools andCommunity Self-Determination Act of2000’’ was signed into law on October30 (Pub. L. 106–393). This legislationallows counties to select a paymentbased on historic payment levels ratherthan payments based on currentreceipts. However, this legislation doesnot affect revenue sharing of federalreceipts from mineral leasing onnational grasslands and from publicdomain lands of the national forests.Therefore, the final rule may result in areduction in those receipts in the future,which would affect revenues sharedwith states and counties. The agencyhas also chosen to pursue funds to assistcommunities undergoing economictransition resulting fromimplementation of the final RoadlessRule. Such assistance could includefinancial assistance to stimulatecommunity-led transition programs andprojects, support to attract public and



private interests in implementing localtransition projects, coordination withother Federal and State agencies, andassisting local, State, Tribal, and Federalpartners to work with the most affectedcommunities. The Forest Service willpursue a six-year economic transitionprogram. The Economic AdjustmentProgram will be used to fund or supportprojects that will be specific to theneeds of individual communities andimportant to the national forest orgrassland. The Forest Serviceanticipates requesting $72.5 million insupport of these activities between fiscalyears 2001 and 2006.

Environmental ImpactThe Endangered Species Act of 1973,

As Amended. A biological evaluationwas prepared which analyzed thepotential effects of the actionalternatives on threatened, endangered,and proposed species. This evaluation,along with other supportingdocumentation for the rule, wasprovided to the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService and the National MarineFisheries Service as part of consultationand conferencing under the EndangeredSpecies Act. Both agencies concurredwith the determination in the biologicalevaluation that all of the actionalternatives analyzed in the biologicalevaluation may affect, but are not likelyto adversely affect threatened orendangered species or adversely modifydesignated critical habitat; are not likelyto jeopardize proposed species oradversely modify proposed criticalhabitat; and may beneficially affectthreatened, endangered, and proposedspecies and critical habitat. Copies ofthese letters of concurrence are in theproject record and can be viewed at theRoadless Area Conservation projectwebsite.

Other Required Disclosures. Theagency has prepared a finalenvironmental impact statement inconcert with this rule. In it, the direct,indirect, and cumulative effects of thefinal rule and alternatives are disclosed.None of the prohibition alternatives arean action that requires consultationunder the Fish and WildlifeCoordination Act because they do notrequire water to be impounded ordiverted. The FEIS may be obtainedfrom various sources as indicated in theADDRESSES section of this document.

The Indiana Department of NaturalResources (IDNR) questioned whetherthe agency had adequately taken intoaccount effects on historic propertiesand expressed concern that the rulewould cause ‘‘neglect of historicproperties.’’ The IDNR urged the ForestService to consult with the Indiana State

Historic Preservation Officer pursuant toSection 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act (NHPA). First, the FEISdoes evaluate and display the effects ofthe final rule regarding culturalresources (FEIS Vol. 1, 3–232 to 3–237).The FEIS also makes clear that theprohibitions will not inhibit existingaccess to historic sites. As for theSection 106 NHPA process, thisrulemaking does not constitute an‘‘undertaking’’ as defined in 36 CFR800.16. The regulations established bythe Advisory Council for HistoricPreservation make clear that once anagency determines that it has noundertaking, or that its undertaking hasno potential to affect historic properties,the agency has no further Section 106obligations.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on thePublic

This rule does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirements orother information collectionrequirements as defined in 5 CFR part1320 and, therefore, imposes nopaperwork burden on the public.Accordingly, the review provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) andimplementing regulations at 5 CFR part1320 do not apply.

Unfunded Mandates ReformPursuant to Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.1531–1538), the Department hasassessed the effects of this proposed ruleon State, local, and Tribal governments,and on the private sector. This proposedrule does not compel the expenditure of$100 million or more by any State, local,or Tribal government, or anyone in theprivate sector. Therefore, a statementunder Section 202 of the Act is notrequired.

No Takings ImplicationsThis rule has been reviewed for its

impact on private property rights underExecutive Order 12630. The Departmentdetermined that this proposed rule doesnot pose a risk of taking Constitutionallyprotected private property; in fact, theproposed rule honors access to privateproperty pursuant to statute and tooutstanding or reserved rights.

Civil Justice Reform ActThis rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil JusticeReform. The proposed revision: (1)preempts all State and local laws andregulations that are found to be inconflict with or that would impede itsfull implementation; (2) does notretroactively affect existing permits,

contracts, or other instrumentsauthorizing the occupancy and use ofNational Forest System lands; and (3)does not require administrativeproceedings before parties may file suitin court challenging these provisions.

Federalism and Consultation withTribal Governments

The agency considered this rule underthe requirements of Executive Order12612 and found the rule will not havesubstantial direct effects on the States,on the relationship between the nationalgovernment and the States, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government. Therefore, theagency determined that no furtherassessment on federalism implicationsis necessary at this time. In addition, theconsultation requirements underExecutive Order 13132, effectiveNovember 2, 1999 were reviewed. Thisnew Order calls for enhancedconsultation with State and localgovernment officials and emphasizesincreased sensitivity to their concerns.

Forest Service line officers in the fieldwere asked to make contact with Tribesto ensure awareness of the initiative andof the rulemaking process. Outreach toTribes has been conducted at thenational forest and grassland level,which is how Forest Servicegovernment-to-government dialog withTribes is typically conducted.

Outreach to State and localgovernments has taken place both in thefield and Washington offices. ForestService officials have contacted Stateand local governmental officials andstaffs to explain the notice of intent andthe rulemaking process. The agency metwith and responded to a variety ofinformation requests from local officialsand State organizations, such as theNational Governors Association and theWestern Governors Association.

In the development of this rulecomments received from States, Tribes,and local governments in response tothe notice of intent to prepare anenvironmental impact statementpublished October 19, 1999 (64 FR56306) were carefully considered.Following publication of the proposedrule, the agency met with State, Tribal,and local government officials toexplain and clarify the proposed ruleand the accompanying environmentalimpact statement. The extent to whichadditional consultation was appropriateunder Executive Order 13132 wasconsidered. In addition, the ForestService responsible official will seekinput and participation by State, local,and Tribal officials in the early stages offorest and project planning regarding



subsequent decisions for inventoriedroadless areas.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 294

Forests and forest products, Highwaysand roads, Land and resourcemanagement planning, National forests,Navigation (air), Recreation andrecreation areas, and Wilderness areas.

For the reasons set forth in thispreamble, part 294 of Title 36 of theCode of Federal Regulations is amendedas follows:

PART 294—SPECIAL AREAS

1. Add and reserve §§ 294.3–294.9,designate §§ 294.1 through 294.9 assubpart A, and add a subpart heading toread as follows:

Subpart A—Miscellaneous Provisions

2. Remove the authority citations thatfollow §§ 294.1 and 294.2 and add anauthority citation for the newlydesignated Subpart A to read as follows:

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

3. Add a new Subpart B to read asfollows:

Subpart B—Protection of InventoriedRoadless Areas

Sec.294.10 Purpose.294.11 Definitions.294.12 Prohibition on road construction

and road reconstruction in inventoriedroadless 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 InventoriedRoadless Areas

§ 294.10 Purpose.The purpose of this subpart is to

provide, within the context of multiple-use management, lasting protection forinventoried roadless areas within theNational Forest System.

§ 294.11 Definitions.

The following terms and definitionsapply to this subpart:

Inventoried roadless areas. Areasidentified in a set of inventoriedroadless area maps, contained in ForestService Roadless Area Conservation,Final Environmental Impact Statement,Volume 2, dated November 2000, whichare held at the National headquartersoffice of the Forest Service, or anysubsequent update or revision of thosemaps.

Responsible official. The ForestService line officer with the authority

and responsibility to make decisionsregarding protection and management ofinventoried roadless areas pursuant tothis subpart.

Road. A motor vehicle travelway over50 inches wide, unless designated andmanaged as a trail. A road may beclassified, unclassified, or temporary.

(1) Classified road. A road wholly orpartially within or adjacent to NationalForest System lands that is determinedto be needed for long-term motorvehicle access, including State roads,county roads, privately owned roads,National Forest System roads, and otherroads authorized by the Forest Service.

(2) Unclassified road. A road onNational Forest System lands that is notmanaged as part of the foresttransportation system, such asunplanned roads, abandonedtravelways, and off-road vehicle tracksthat have not been designated andmanaged as a trail; and those roads thatwere once under permit or otherauthorization and were notdecommissioned upon the terminationof the authorization.

(3) Temporary road. A roadauthorized by contract, permit, lease,other written authorization, oremergency operation, not intended to bepart of the forest transportation systemand not necessary for long-term resourcemanagement.

Road construction. Activity thatresults in the addition of forestclassified or temporary road miles.

Road maintenance. The ongoingupkeep of a road necessary to retain orrestore the road to the approved roadmanagement objective.

Road reconstruction. Activity thatresults in improvement or realignmentof an existing classified road defined asfollows:

(1) Road improvement. Activity thatresults in an increase of an existingroad’s traffic service level, expansion ofits capacity, or a change in its originaldesign function.

(2) Road realignment. Activity thatresults in a new location of an existingroad or portions of an existing road, andtreatment of the old roadway.

Roadless area characteristics.Resources or features that are oftenpresent in and characterize inventoriedroadless 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, andsensitive species and for those speciesdependent on large, undisturbed areasof land;

(5) Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorizedclasses 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 constructionand road reconstruction in inventoriedroadless areas.

(a) A road may not be constructed orreconstructed in inventoried roadlessareas of the National Forest System,except as provided in paragraph (b) ofthis section.

(b) Notwithstanding the prohibition inparagraph (a) of this section, a road maybe constructed or reconstructed in aninventoried roadless area if theResponsible Official determines that oneof the following circumstances exists:

(1) A road is needed to protect publichealth and safety in cases of animminent threat of flood, fire, or othercatastrophic event that, withoutintervention, would cause the loss oflife or property;

(2) A road is needed to conduct aresponse action under theComprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and LiabilityAct (CERCLA) or to conduct a naturalresource restoration action underCERCLA, Section 311 of the CleanWater Act, or the Oil Pollution Act;

(3) A road is needed pursuant toreserved or outstanding rights, or asprovided for by statute or treaty;

(4) Road realignment is needed toprevent irreparable resource damagethat arises from the design, location,use, or deterioration of a classified roadand that cannot be mitigated by roadmaintenance. Road realignment mayoccur under this paragraph only if theroad is deemed essential for public orprivate access, natural resourcemanagement, or public health andsafety;

(5) Road reconstruction is needed toimplement a road safety improvementproject on a classified road determinedto be hazardous on the basis of accidentexperience or accident potential on thatroad;

(6) The Secretary of Agriculturedetermines that a Federal Aid Highwayproject, authorized pursuant to Title 23of the United States Code, is in thepublic interest or is consistent with thepurposes for which the land wasreserved or acquired and no otherreasonable and prudent alternativeexists; or

(7) A road is needed in conjunctionwith the continuation, extension, or



renewal of a mineral lease on lands thatare under lease by the Secretary of theInterior as of January 12, 2001 or for anew lease issued immediately uponexpiration of an existing lease. Suchroad construction or reconstructionmust be conducted in a manner thatminimizes effects on surface resources,prevents unnecessary or unreasonablesurface disturbance, and complies withall applicable lease requirements, landand resource management plandirection, regulations, and laws. Roadsconstructed or reconstructed pursuantto this paragraph must be obliteratedwhen no longer needed for the purposesof the lease or upon termination orexpiration of the lease, whichever issooner.

(c) Maintenance of classified roads ispermissible in inventoried roadlessareas.

§ 294.13 Prohibition on timber cutting,sale, or removal in inventoried roadlessareas.

(a) Timber may not be cut, sold, orremoved in inventoried roadless areas ofthe National Forest System, except asprovided in paragraph (b) of thissection.

(b) Notwithstanding the prohibition inparagraph (a) of this section, timber maybe cut, sold, or removed in inventoriedroadless areas if the Responsible Officialdetermines that one of the followingcircumstances exists. The cutting, sale,or removal of timber in these areas isexpected to be infrequent.

(1) The cutting, sale, or removal ofgenerally small diameter timber is

needed for one of the followingpurposes and will maintain or improveone or more of the roadless areacharacteristics as defined in § 294.11.

(i) To improve threatened,endangered, proposed, or sensitivespecies habitat; or

(ii) To maintain or restore thecharacteristics of ecosystemcomposition and structure, such as toreduce the risk of uncharacteristicwildfire effects, within the range ofvariability that would be expected tooccur under natural disturbance regimesof the current climatic period;

(2) The cutting, sale, or removal oftimber is incidental to theimplementation of a managementactivity not otherwise prohibited by thissubpart;

(3) The cutting, sale, or removal oftimber is needed and appropriate forpersonal or administrative use, asprovided for in 36 CFR part 223; or

(4) Roadless characteristics have beensubstantially altered in a portion of aninventoried roadless area due to theconstruction of a classified road andsubsequent timber harvest. Both theroad construction and subsequenttimber harvest must have occurred afterthe area was designated an inventoriedroadless area and prior to January 12,2001. Timber may be cut, sold, orremoved only in the substantiallyaltered portion of the inventoriedroadless area.

§ 294.14 Scope and applicability.(a) This subpart does not revoke,

suspend, or modify any permit,

contract, or other legal instrumentauthorizing the occupancy and use ofNational Forest System land issuedprior to January 12, 2001.

(b) This subpart does not compel theamendment or revision of any land andresource management plan.

(c) This subpart does not revoke,suspend, or modify any project oractivity decision made prior to January12, 2001.

(d) This subpart does not apply toroad construction, reconstruction, or thecutting, sale, or removal of timber ininventoried roadless areas on theTongass National Forest if a notice ofavailability of a draft environmentalimpact statement for such activities hasbeen published in the Federal Registerprior to January 12, 2001.

(e) The prohibitions and restrictionsestablished in this subpart are notsubject to reconsideration, revision, orrescission in subsequent projectdecisions or land and resourcemanagement plan amendments orrevisions undertaken pursuant to 36CFR part 219.

(f) If any provision of the rules in thissubpart or its application to any personor to certain circumstances is heldinvalid, the remainder of the regulationsin this subpart and their applicationremain 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


Date post:	16-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Department of Agriculture3244 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 9/Friday, January 12, 2001/Rules and...

Documents