|
IWLA
Official Comments on the Roadless Initiative
June 30, 2000
USDA Forest Service – CAET
Attention: Roadless Areas Proposed Rule
P.O. Box 221090
Salt Lake City, UT 84122
Comments on proposed
rulemaking (65 FR 30275 – 30288) and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement regarding Roadless Area Conservation.
On behalf of the Izaak Walton League
of America and our 50,000 members and supporters nationwide, I am
writing to share our comments regarding the proposed rule and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) addressing Forest Service roadless
areas conservation. As we stated in our scoping comments in
December, the League believes it is essential for the Forest Service to
develop a comprehensive and scientifically defensible plan to manage
roadless areas and applauds the agency for taking up this long overdue
task. Although the League is generally supportive of the roadless
area conservation rule as proposed, there are several ways in which we
feel that the rule can and should be improved. It is with that aim
in mind that we offer the following comments addressing specific
portions of the proposed rule for consideration:
-
Sec.
294.12 Prohibition on road construction and reconstruction in
inventoried roadless areas
– The League generally supports the proposed section, but suggests
that the title of the section might be changed to better reflect the
fact that actual prohibition applies only to the unroaded
portions of inventoried roadless areas. We do, however,
have a fundamental concern that the exceptions to the proposed rule
may be too restrictive. According to the accompanying
“Supplementary Information”, the exception contained in Sec.
294.12(b)(1) would not allow for “routine forest health
activities, such as temporary road construction for thinning to
reduce mortality due to insect and disease infestation”.
Given that inventoried roadless areas comprise more than
twelve-percent of the 24 million acres of National Forest land in
the Intermountain West that has been identified to be at high risk
of catastrophic fire, we are concerned that the rule as proposed may
unwisely limit the agency’s management options. Certainly, there
are times and places where the necessary management prescriptions
can be accomplished through means that do not require temporary road
construction. However, if constructing a temporary road is the
only viable means to restore healthy forest conditions, the League
feels that the agency should do so. Of course, such roads
should be constructed so as to avoid or minimize to the maximum
extent possible any adverse environmental impacts and should be
immediately obliterated, re-contoured and re-vegetated upon
cessation of needed management activities. Also, access to
these temporary roads should be restricted for land management
activities in order to minimize any potential resistance to eventual
road closure. [Note: Also see comments regarding the DEIS
prohibition alternatives below.]
-
Sec.
294.13 Consideration of roadless area conservation during forest
plan revision – The
League supports the requirement to evaluate the enumerated roadless
characteristics outlined in the proposed rule during the forest plan
revision process. Furthermore, we strongly support the
guidance that distance from and scarcity of other unroaded areas is
an important consideration in selecting areas smaller than 5,000
acres for protection, especially in eastern national forests.
With the exception of commercial
timber harvest and OHV use (discussed in detail under the DEIS
procedural alternatives below), the League feels that permitting local
Forest Service officials to determine, in the context of forest plan
revisions, whether and what additional management protections should
apply to unroaded portions of inventoried roadless areas is sensible
approach. As a general proposition, however, we feel that
activities that degrade fish and wildlife habitat (e.g., mineral
extraction, oil and gas development) are inappropriate in these areas.
Conversely, we consider it axiomatic that hunting, fishing and other
non-motorized outdoor recreational pursuits are legitimate and
appropriate uses of roadless and other unroaded areas with the
National Forest System.
Local input is important to sound
decision making and public acceptance. However, we caution that it
should not be the determinative factor, especially when it
fundamentally conflicts with sound stewardship of fish and wildlife
habitat and other roadless area characteristics.
Finally, in light of our review of
additional and more specific information, and in consideration of the
unique circumstances relating to the Tongass National Forest (i.e.,
1999 Tongass Land Management Plan, Tongass Timber Reform Act § 101),
the League accepts the proposal to defer application of the proposed
roadless area management rule until the Tongass Land Management Plan
is reviewed in April, 2004.
In addition to the comments
addressing specific regulatory changes contained in the proposed rule,
the League offers the following substantive comments of the alternatives
considered and proposed by the Forest Service in developing the roadless
area conservation rule:
- Prohibition
Alternatives: The Forest Service’s proposed action and
preferred alternative (Alternative 2) prohibits only road
construction and reconstruction in the unroaded portion of
inventoried roadless areas. The League, however, feels that a
national prohibition on commercial timber harvest within the
unroaded portions of inventoried roadless areas (i.e., Alternative
3) is needed. Although timber harvest for stewardship purpose
should certainly be permissible, we see no compelling reason to
accommodate commercial timber harvest in these areas. Very
little (6.5% of the estimated total from NFS lands in the next five
years) timber is harvested commercially from inventoried roadless
areas, much of that in the Tongass National Forest. Moreover,
commercial timber harvest can be and often is at least as
destructive to roadless characteristics as road
construction/reconstruction. Consequently, the League urges
the Forest Service to modify the proposed rule to accommodate the
additional prohibition on commercial timber harvest. Although
we strongly concur with the prohibition on permanent road
construction to accommodate timber harvest for stewardship purposes,
we feel that in certain limited situations, where logging by
helicopter, cable or forwarder is not practical, construction of temporary
roads should be permitted to facilitate active management.
In addition, the League is
disappointed that the Forest Service has
apparently determined that regulation of Off Highway
Vehicle (OHV) use is an inherently local
issue. We disagree and feel that the agency should establish
national guidelines to assist local Forest Service officials make
sound management decisions regarding when and where
use of OHV should be
permitted. We are not persuaded that unroaded portions of
inventoried roadless areas are generally an appropriate location for
such an activity, particularly given the enumerated roadless area
characteristics that the proposed rule is designed to protect.
Accordingly, we urge the Forest Service to either incorporate
nationwide restrictions on OHV use within the proposed roadless area
conservation rule, or alternatively to expeditiously initiate a
separate rulemaking proceeding to regulate the use of OHVs within
unroaded and roadless areas of the National Forest System.
- Procedural
Alternatives:
The Forest Service’s proposed action and preferred alternative
(Alternative B) is a sensible way to require local forest managers
to evaluate roadless area characteristics in inventoried roadless
areas and other unroaded areas and decide whether and how to protect
them within the context of multiple-use objectives. However,
we see no reason why managers should not consider roadless
characteristics on a project-by-project basis up until such time as
the forest plan is revised. Given that some forest plans have
just recently been completed, an unreasonable length of time may
elapse in which roadless area characteristics can be compromised
through lack of project specific review. If project-by-project
evaluation becomes unduly burdensome, then it would seem appropriate
to initiate the forest plan revision process. Accordingly, the
League objects to the preferred alternative and instead encourages
the Forest Service to utilize Alternative D in finalizing the
roadless area conservation rule.
In closing, we wish to again commend
the Forest Service for taking on the controversial, yet critical, task
of developing a comprehensive management strategy for protecting
roadless areas within our national forests. We also believe that the
agency has more or less struck a reasonable and workable balance in
imposing a national restriction on road construction/reconstruction in
unroaded portions of inventoried roadless areas while allowing
management decisions regarding other unroaded areas to occur through the
forest planning process. As previously stated, however, we feel
that in addition to eliminating road construction/reconstruction,
nationwide regulations governing OHV use and a national prohibition on
commercial timber harvest in unroaded areas of inventoried roadless
areas are necessary and appropriate. We are hopeful that these
comments will prove constructive and useful for making further
improvements in the proposed rule in order to enhance the stewardship of
our national forest such that future generations of hunters, anglers and
other outdoor enthusiasts may enjoy their benefits as much as we do
today. The League looks forward to continuing to work with the Forest
Service on this and other national forest management policy matters that
may arise. If you have questions regarding these comments, please
contact me at (301) 548-0150, ext. 225, or by e-mail at conserve@iwla.org.
Respectfully,
Jim Mosher
Conservation Director
May 16, 2000
USFS CAET
Attention: Roads
P.O. box 221090
Salt Lake City, UT 84122
RE: Comments on
proposed rulemaking (65 FR 11680-11683) and administrative policy
revision (65 FR 11684-11693) regarding the National Forest
Transportation System.
On behalf of the Izaak Walton League
of America and our 50,000 members and supporters nationwide, I am
writing to share our comments regarding the proposed revisions of the
rules and administrative policies governing the National Forest
Transportation System. At the outset, I should emphasize that the
League believes that roads, defined in the proposed changes as a
“motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches, unless classified and managed
as a trail”, provide important access for users of the national
forests. At the same time, however, we clearly recognize that many
poorly sited, constructed or maintained roads are causing significant
environmental degradation and harm to fish and wildlife resources.
In general, the League believes that
the approach to managing the network of roads within the National Forest
System embodied in the proposed changes is a sensible one. We especially
support requiring the use of science-based analysis to determine the
minimum amount of new and existing roads that are needed to meet Forest
Service natural resource management objectives, inventorying
unclassified roads, and aggressive decommissioning of roads that are
unauthorized, damaging to the environment or no longer necessary.
The League also believes that maintaining or improving roads that are
needed for reasonable and sufficient motorized access into and through
the national forests for recreation, resource management, commodity
extraction and rural access is a similarly important objective.
One concern that we continue to have
with both the proposed rule and policy guidance for the National Forest
Transportation System and the proposed roadless area management rule is
how they will impact the Service’s ability to effectively address the
issue of forest health. We are aware that many of the areas affected by
these new rules are at great risk of catastrophic wildfire and/or
infestation by insects or disease. Timber harvest for stewardship
purposes may not always be feasible through helicopter logging or other
techniques that do not require roads. Consequently, we believe that in
limited situations, the Service should retain flexibility to permit
construction of temporary roads to permit timber harvest where
there is a clear and compelling need to actively manage forest to
benefit fish and wildlife habitat or other forest resources. Such roads
should be constructed so as to avoid or minimize to the maximum extent
possible any adverse environmental impacts and should be immediately
obliterated, re-contoured and re-vegetated upon cessation of management
activities.
With regard to specific proposed
changes in the Forest Service Manual, we offer the following comments
for consideration:
Section
1922.15: The League supports
the direction taken by the Service that implementation of the proposed
road management strategy will occur chiefly within the forest plan
amendment and revision process. We believe this is the logical process
in which to consider access requirements, in terms of biological,
physical, social, economic factors and environmental design as
outlined in proposed new paragraph 20. In general, integration of
planning and management tasks and responsibilities required under
various statutes (e.g., NFMA, ESA, NEPA, etc.) and regulations, is a
sensible and efficient approach. Recognizing the need to maintain
sufficient roaded access into national forests for recreation,
resource management and other legitimate purposes, we fully support
the proposed new paragraph 28, stating that the forest planning
process must ensure that management prescriptions protect values
associated with unroaded conditions.
Section
7702: The League endorses the
three objectives of managing the forest transportation system –
providing sustainable access for administration, protection and
utilization of the land and resources; managing the system within the
ecological capacity of the land; and ensuring user safety, convenience
and efficiency of operations, while minimizing adverse ecological
effects of roads.
Section
7703: We support the concept
of providing the minimum transportation system needed to serve the
current and anticipated future land management needs and public use
needs as identified through the forest planning process. At the same
time, we recognize that this is likely to be one of the more
controversial aspects to the proposed policy revisions and that the
word “minimum” is open to subjective interpretation. We certainly
agree that access should not compromise land health or water quality
and that funding for maintenance is a significant factor to be
considered. However, we also believe that uncertainty regarding a
particular forest’s future maintenance and reconstruction funding or
relatively minor impacts to natural resources associated with roads
should not be used as sole justification to eliminate access where
there is a demonstrated current need or highly probable future need
for forest access.
Section
7703.1: The League embraces
the policy of decommissioning truly unneeded roads – especially
unplanned, unauthorized or unclassified roads. However, in instances
where unclassified roads, such as those established prior to
acquisition of national forest land, have traditionally been used for
recreational access, consideration of inclusion into the classified
road system should occur. Such roads may require reconstruction as a
condition of inclusion within the classified road system. Unneeded
roads that are causing adverse environmental impacts should be
aggressively decommissioned, rehabilitated and restored to their
natural condition. The Service should, however, consider if
environmental impacts could be adequately addressed through seasonal
or temporary closures in instances where there is also a demonstrated
need for access. In addition, if an unneeded road is causing no
significant environmental degradation, physically blocking from
vehicular access and conversion to trail usage should also be given
consideration. Of course, in addition to physical road closures,
aggressive enforcement action will be necessary to eliminate the
illegal use of OHV’s within units of the National Forest System.
Section
7710.2: We acknowledge that a
primary objective of Forest Service transportation analysis should be
to determine the minimum transportation facilities necessary “to
achieve agency and forest land and resource management goals and
safeguard ecosystem health” and that current and anticipated future
funding levels should be a significant consideration in this analysis.
Although it may be implicit in the language used (i.e., management
goals), we feel that this section would be improved by expressly
indicating that these transportation facilities provide for
recreation, resource management, commodity extraction and rural
access.
Section
7710.32: We support the
utilization of the science-based road analysis process developed by
the Forest Service and described in “Roads Analysis: Informing
Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation System”.
We further believe that there is value in using a uniform analytical
process nationwide, absent some clear and compelling reason to approve
an alternative process (e.g., distinct regional variations). The
League also supports preserving agency flexibility to incorporate new
information and procedures in the context of the proposed rule on this
matter, while conditioning the use of alternative processes upon
approval by the Deputy Chief, National Forest System under the
administrative policy guidance.
Regarding the application of the
proposed administrative policy guidanceduring the transition period
(i.e., until a comprehensive road inventory and analysis has been
conducted and integrated into a forest plan), we generally feel that
the Service has taken a prudent approach. However, there is some
concern about restricting road construction/reconstruction in
1,000-acre tracts of unroaded land adjacent to Wilderness areas due to
prohibitions on buffer zones in the release language of some state
wilderness acts. We are also unsure why the Service would propose
restricting road construction in 1,000 acre tracts contiguous to
federally managed “wild” areas of the National Wild and Scenic
River System and to 5,000 acre tracts of unroaded land in other
federal ownership, when the recently proposed roadless area management
rule is limited to unroaded sections of inventoried roadless areas. It
would seem that even though these are separate rulemakings, there
should be greater conceptual consistency between them in terms of road
construction and reconstruction in unroaded and roadless areas of the
National Forest System during the transition period.
Additionally, we note that although
the “Summary of Proposed Changes” section of the announcement
states that the Tongass NF may be exempted from the requirement to
demonstrate compelling need in terms of public safety, critical
resource restoration and mandatory access, the actual proposed changes
in the Forest Service Manual does not. We suggest that the Service
definitively state whether the Tongass NF is or is not excepted from
the general requirement and, in the case of the former, to
specifically include this exemption in the Forest Service Manual.
While the League has reservations about the prudence of excepting any
particular forest from requirements of the transition policy, we are
sensitive to the unique nature of the Tongass and the recently
completed Forest Plan revision process. Consequently, we do not object
to permitting the Regional Forester to permit road construction in
roadless areas within the Tongass NF in order to meet timber harvest
quotas established in the Tongass NF Land and Resource Management
Plan. This acceptance is conditioned upon the fact that the exception
applies only during the transition period and that it is expected that
the Tongass NF will incorporate elements of the final roadless area
and road management rules into the Forest Plan during the five year
plan review in 2004 or a written determination that no amendment or
revision is required has been made.
Finally, we suggest that
prohibiting maintenance of all unclassified roads in unroaded
(not just roadless) areas may be excessively rigid. Although it would
certainly be inappropriate to maintain or upgrade most unclassified
roads in most of these areas, as previously mentioned, there may be
instances where an unclassified road that is not causing environmental
degradation should be maintained/upgraded and incorporated into the
classified road system.
Section
7712.12 Objectives: The League
supports the objectives outlined in the proposed section, but
encourages the Service to add the word “meaningfully” to the
public involvement component. This will help to further clarify that
participation by actual users of the national forest in the decisions
regarding forest roads is crucial to making sound choices and to the
long-term acceptance of these decisions by the public.
The League also wishes to provide the
following comments on the proposed regulatory changes concerning the
National Forest Transportation System:
36 CFR 212:
The League endorses the changes proposed in section 212.2 that mandate
the use of a science-based transportation needs assessment that takes
into consideration environmental, social and economic effects of
roads, as well as transportation facilities requirements to meet
resource management objectives at various ecological scales. We also
support the direction expressed in section 212.5 for agency officials
to identify the minimum transportation system needed to administer and
protect National Forest System lands, using science-based
transportation analysis and taking into consideration current and
likely future funding levels. Our support is, of course, prefaced by
the substantive comments addressing the proposed administrative policy
guidance (listed above) pertaining to these same issues. The League
feels that giving priority to identifying and decommissioning unneeded
roads that pose the most serious risk of environmental degradation is
a wise choice. Lastly, we believe that the requirement contained in
section 212.20 to provide the public with readily accessible maps
identifying trails and appropriate on-the-ground signage is especially
important. We suggest that to the extent possible, such maps identify
permitted activities or modes of transportation (e.g., hiking,
snowmobile, equestrian, etc.) in order to minimize any confusion or
potential user conflicts.
36 CFR
Parts 261 and 295: The League
fully supports the proposed conforming amendments to the existing
rules that eliminate the term “development” from the phrase
“forest transportation development system.” We believe that this
definitional change is consistent with the spirit and substance of the
proposed changes in 36 CFR 212 and the Forest Service Manual.
In closing, we wish to again commend
the Forest Service for taking on the controversial, yet critical, task
of developing a comprehensive management strategy for the National
Forest Transportation System. We are hopeful that these comments will
prove constructive and useful for making further improvements in the
proposed Forest Service administrative policies and rules. Ultimately,
the success of the effort to manage the transportation system will hinge
on the agency making available sufficient fiscal and human resources to
accomplish what is being proposed, as well as continuing to provide the
necessary leadership to assure enthusiastic implementation at the forest
and ranger district levels. The League looks forward to continuing to
work with the Forest Service on this and other national forest
management policy matters that may arise. If you have questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at (301) 548-0150, ext. 225,
or by e-mail at jmosher@iwla.org.
Respectfully,
Jim Mosher
Conservation Director
|
McCabe Home
