|
|
|
|
|
||||
| Recreational Access and Conservation - Alerts and Notices | ||||
| | Introduction | News | Notices | Activities| Education | Forums | Columns | Links |
Dedicated to conservation and multiple use of public lands for recreation opportunities. Edited by: John Stewart |
Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation
The Final EIS (FEIS) was published on the Forest Service website on November 13, 2000. The Final Rule is expected to be issued in the middle of December, but no sooner than December 13, 2000.
There were three major improvements to the FEIS. These improvements can be attributed to the comments made by United, it members, and other pro-access comments.
1) Change in Definitions:
The FEIS changed the definition for “Road”, “Classified Road”, and “Unclassified Road”, compared to those that were proposed in the DEIS.
Road
DEIS: “A road is a motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, unless classified and managed as a trail”.
UNITED: “A motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, unless categorized and managed as a trail where such trail is authorized for motorized access”.
United suggested that the word “classified” in the DEIS definition be omitted since it was confusing to use it as a verb here but also introduce the term as a noun (as in “classified road”). We also suggested that the Forest Service differentiate between trails used exclusively for foot travel and those accessible by motorize vehicle (See comment 16(a) of United’s official comments).
FEIS: “A road is a motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, except those managed and designated as a trail. A road may be classified, unclassified, or temporary”. (See Glossary in Volume 1 of FEIS).
Classified Road
DEIS: “A road within National Forest System lands planned or managed for motor vehicle access including state roads, county roads, private roads, permitted roads, and Forest Service roads”.
UNITED: “Any road within National Forest System lands, including state roads, county roads, private roads, roads authorized for use by permit, and Forest Service roads formerly referred to as Forest Development Roads planned or managed for motor vehicle access which are evidenced by their existence on a Forest Transportation Map prepared pursuant to a Forest Plan, Forest Plan Revision or Amendment, or pursuant to 36 CFR 212.2”.
United suggested that the definition should be changed to reflect that a Forest Service road was a “classified road” if it possessed a Forest Development Road #, a name, or appeared on a Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). We believed that if the Forest Service put in writing that all system roads (all 373,000 miles of them) were considered “classified” we could prevent a wholesale closure of roads used primarily for OHV recreation.
United also suggested that the word “permitted” in the definition be omitted because it was confusing. It seemed the intent of the word in the DEIS meant “allowed”, but it could be confused with the meaning “written license” (as in a Permit issued by the Forest Service). (See comment 16(b) of United’s official comments).
FEIS: “Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System Lands that are determined to be needed for motor vehicle access, such as State roads, County roads, privately owned roads, National Forest System roads, and roads authorized by the Forest Service that are intended for long-term use”.
Notice that the agency has added the last 6 words to the definition found in the FEIS. Although United applauds the Forest Service for implementing its suggestions for changes in this definition, the addition of this subjective tail on the definition is a cause for concern. It is feared that the agency will claim that many Level 2 roads (roads suitable only for high-clearance vehicles and rightfully categorized as classified) will not be categorized as “classified” under the new definition because the agency will claim these roads were never “intended” for long-term use. Our fears are waylaid to a great extent by the affirmative statement by the agency that system roads are considered “classified” in their totality. However, it remains to be seen what effect this new definition will have on road decommissioning under the Transportation Policy. (See Glossary in Volume 1 of FEIS).
Unclassified Road
DEIS: “A road not intended to be part of, and not managed as part of, the forest transportation system, such as temporary roads, unplanned roads, off-road vehicle tracks, and abandoned travelways”.
UNITED: “Any road which fails to appear on a Land and Resource Management Plan Transportation Map prepared pursuant to a Forest Plan, Forest Plan revision or Amendment, or pursuant to 36 CFR 212.2; except state roads, county roads, private roads, roads authorized for use by permit, and any other roads protected by pre-existing rights”.
United suggested this definition to prevent the Forest Service from claiming that Level 1 or Level 2 system roads were “unclassified”. Once these roads were categorized into “unclassified” it was felt that agency could more easily make blanket closures of these categories of roads. (See comment 16(c) of United’s official comments).
FEIS: “Roads on National Forest System lands that are not needed for, and not managed as part of, the forest transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travelways, off-road vehicle tracks which have not been designated and managed as a trail, and those roads no longer under permit or authorization”.
Note that this definition adds the qualifier “not needed” as a description for which roads may constitute “unclassified”. Bear in mind the significance that will be placed on “unneeded” roads by the Transportation Policy. Unneeded roads will be decommissioned under the Transportation Policy. (See Glossary in Volume 1 of FEIS).
2) The Forest Service has removed all procedural alternatives from consideration in the FEIS.
DEIS: The DEIS proposed four alternatives to determine whether prohibitions and additional protections should be established for uninventoried roadless areas. The purpose behind these alternatives was to establish a method for inventorying areas that are not currently categorized as Roadless Areas and then managing them with the same road construction and reconstruction prohibitions as implemented by this rule for the Roadless Area that ARE currently identified.
UNITED: A method currently exists for land managers to evaluate areas for their Roadless characteristics through planning. New procedural alternatives were unnecessary and could have caused inconsistencies between this rule and the proposed Transportation Policy. Such inconsistencies would have existed if an area were categorized for protection under this rule but simultaneously determined to be suitable to support road construction under the Transportation Policy. “Therefore, either the procedural alternatives needed to be omitted, Alternative A implemented, or a new comment period established regarding the Transportation Policy”. (See comments 6 – 8 of United’s official comments).
FEIS: “Public comments on the proposed Planning Rule and Agency comments on the DEIS for the Roadless Rule suggested that the procedures for roadless area protection were best suited for the Planning Regulations. Therefore, the procedural alternatives discussed in the Draft EIS were removed from the FEIS”. (See page S-3 of the Summary for the FEIS).
3) The Forest Service has finally made an affirmative statement that all existing “system” roads will be re-categorized as “classified roads”.
DEIS: The agency did not offer any quantitative statements as to which roads it believed met the definition of “classified”. The Forest Service often equated “non-system” roads with “unclassified roads”, but never indicated whether there could be other roads which also met the definition of “unclassified”.
UNITED: See explanation #1 above
FEIS: Table 3-5 lists, “National Forest System Roads” as classified roads. The table indicates there are 385,572 miles of System roads which are now categorized as “classified”. This figure correlates with the number of system road miles reported by the agency in earlier documentation. (See page 3-25 of the FEIS).
WITHOUT THIS RULE, the agency could maintain 625 miles of Level 3 roads constructed in Roadless Areas for 140 years, “protect” 99.99% of all Roadless Areas from entry, maintain ecological diversity of untold plant and animal species by preventing wildfires, AND saved over $9.4 million.
1) DELETION OF CONCEPT OF “UNROADED PORTIONS” ADDS MORE ACRAGE OF LANDS SUBJECT TO RULEMAKING
The concept and definition of “unroaded portions” of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) has been deleted from the alternatives in the FEIS. This change means that more acreage is subject to the restrictions and prohibitions in the FEIS than in the DEIS.
DEIS: “The Prohibition Alternatives refer to the activities that would not be allowed to occur in the UNROADED portions of inventoried roadless areas”.
The acreage of areas subject to the DEIS equaled 51.5 million acres. (page S-4 of the DEIS).
FEIS: “Depending on which alternative is selected, the prohibitions on road construction and reconstruction and timber harvest would apply to the entire area within the boundaries of inventoried roadless areas, including those portions that contain existing roads (2)”. Footnote “2” from this quote states, “As described in the DEIS, the prohibition alternatives would have applies to the ‘unroaded portion of an inventoried roadless area’. Public comments indicated that this concept was confusing and would be difficult to apply and administer consistently…Therefore, both the concept and the definition of ‘unroaded portion’ were deleted from the alternatives and analysis in the FEIS”.
The acreage of areas subject to the FEIS equal 58.5 million acres (page S-4 of the FEIS). A total increase from the DEIS of 7 million acres. 2.8 million acres of the 7 million acre increase is due to the extension of the rule to roaded portions of Roadless Areas. The other 4.2 million acres of the 7 million acre increase is due to re-computation in Roadless Area acreage at the National Forest level (pages A-3 and A-4 of the FEIS).
UNITED: “One of the purposes of this rulemaking is to ‘protect large parcels of lands that don’t contain roads of any kind, and in most cases, never have…’ (page S-1 of the DEIS, President Clinton, October 13, 1999)”. (See comment 11(b) of United’s official comments).
It is problematic that the agency and President Clinton would state in writing that one of the purposes of the rule is to protect lands that do NOT have any roads, and then turn around and implement the FEIS which adds 2.8 million acres of roaded lands to the rule, subjecting them to further road building and reconstruction prohibitions. The agency has added prohibitions to a land mass about the size of the state of Connecticut to the Roadless Rule with just the stroke of the pen, without public input!
EXAMPLE: In the Dry River District of the George Washington National Forest in Virginia, one of the Inventoried Roadless Areas contains approximately 28 miles of Forest Development Roads. See GWNF IRA Map in the FEIS, the IRA South of Rt. 33 in Virginia. Of the approximately 28 miles of Forest Service Roads in the area, 15.9 miles are “featured OHV routes” by the Final Management Plan for the forest (page 3-55 of the Final Land and Resource Management Plan for the George Washington National Forest). The 15.9 miles is comprised of 7.0 miles – FDR 225 (Union Springs road); 5.4 miles – FDR 227 (Skidmore Fork road); and 3.5 miles – FDR 304 (Dry Run). Page S-1 of the FEIS states, “Inventoried roadless areas posses social and ecological values and characteristics….provide unique opportunities for dispersed recreation, sources of clean drinking water, and large undisturbed landscapes that offer privacy and seclusion” (emphasis added). To complicate the matter further, the Forest Service, in the DEIS and the FEIS, has failed to show any of the Forest Development Roads which exist in this area. In fact, no Forest Development Roads are shown on any of the maps. One last helpful piece of data: the Drive River District is only about 10 miles Harrisonburg, VA – population 30700; and just 145 miles from Washington, D.C.
This example raises three questions:
(1) Does the Dry River District IRA even remotely resemble pristine Roadless Areas “with large parcels of lands that don’t contain roads of any kind, and in most cases, never have…representing some of the last, best, and unprotected wildland anywhere in our nation” (President Clinton, October 13, 1999, during his announcement of the need for this rule – Page S-1 of the DEIS)?
(2) If the agency fails to disclose the truth about the existence of “featured OHV routes” for the Dry River District, how many other IRAs are void of the “large undisturbed landscapes that offer privacy and seclusion” that the agency is supposedly protecting?
(3) If the agency has failed to show where roads under their direct management are in relation to the areas designated for “additional protection” under this final rule, how can the public make meaningful comments on the suitability of this rule?
2) CHANGES IN REPORTED FIGURES BETWEEN THE DEIS and the FEIS
(1998 figures and 1999 figures respectively)
DEIS: “Total Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) subject to rule = 51,527,000 acres”. (Page B-4 of the DEIS minus 2.8 million acres of roaded areas not subject to the rule).
FEIS: “Total Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) subject to rule = 58,518,000 acres”. (Page A-4 of the FEIS).
UNITED: The acreage of areas subject to the prohibitions increased by 7 million acres in the FEIS over those figures reported in the DEIS.
* Overall, the FEIS found 1.87 million more acres of IRAS which do NOT currently allow road construction
* Overall, the FEIS found 1.79 million more acres of IRAs which do NOT currently allow road construction and the forest plan recommends as WILDERNESS
* Overall, the FEIS found 500,000 more acres of IRAs that currently ALLOW road construction. However, in a comparison between the percentage of acres allowing construction compared to the total IRA acreage, the FEIS saw a 3.57% decrease in areas which allow road construction.
3) HIGH FINANCIAL COST TO IMPLEMENT A NATIONAL RULE THAT ISN’T NEEDED
The agency has developed a national policy, costing over $9.4 million1, to prohibit road construction in Inventoried Roadless Areas for the purpose of “protecting IRAs from activities that pose the greatest risk to the social and ecological values of these areas” (page S-2 of the FEIS). However, the FEIS prohibits just 173 miles of roads/year from being built in IRAs (page S-15 of the FEIS).
If a road causes an impact 100 feet wide, then 1 mile of road impacts 12.12 acres of land.2 If 173 miles of roads are estimated to be built by the agency, UNLESS WE ADOPT THIS RULE, then 2,096 acres of land are being “protected” by this rule each year.3 The FEIS shows that there are only 34,336,000 acres of IRAs which ALLOW road building. So of the 34,336,000 acres which allow road construction4, only 2,096 acres would be been impacted by the 173 miles of roads which are now prohibited by this rule. If the agency FAILED TO ADOPT THIS RULE, then 2,096 acres of IRAs would be affected by road construction. Which means, without this rule 58,515,904 acres of IRAs are still protected, even if 173 miles of roads are allowed to be built.5 And, without this rule, 34,333,904 acres of IRAs which currently permit road construction would still be unentered by new road construction.6 If only 2,096 acres are affected by road construction without this rule, then only .01% (1/100th of one percent) of all IRAs currently open for road construction would be affected WITHOUT THIS RULE.7 Stated conversely, this rule is only protecting 1/100th of one percent of all Inventoried Roadless Areas from being entered by new roads.
American Taxpayers just spent over $9.4 million to “protect” 1/100th of one percent of IRAs, some of which do NOT even contain “large undisturbed landscapes that offer privacy and seclusion” or other similar values that the rule is justified for.
4) INCREASED FIRE FIGHTING NEEDS IN IRAs
As discussed above, this rulemaking has already cost Americans just over $9.4 million. But, if the FEIS is implemented in the final rule, as expected, Americans could pay an additional $52.4 million in fire fighting costs directly attributed to this rule!
The FEIS states that there are approximately 11 million acres if IRAs at high to moderate risk of “uncharacteristic wildfire effects” (the new terminology for catastrophic fire) (page 3-85, table 3-14 of the FEIS). Of those 11 million acres, 90,000 to 95,000 acres (just over 1%) would receive fuels treatment if the no-action alternative would have been implemented (page 3-91 of the FEIS). Stated conversely, 90,000 – 95,000 acres of high to moderate risk of catastrophic wildfire will be compromised by this rule by prohibiting timber related fuels treatment.
The agency has stated that one of the driving forces behind this Roadless Area Conservation rule is to prevent new road construction since the agency has failed to maintain the roads it currently has.8 If the agency implemented the no-action alternative and permitted 625 miles of timber-related road to be constructed over the next 5 years9, it would cost the agency about $62,500.00 per year to maintain these roads as Level 2 roads10, or $375,000.00 a year to maintain them as Level 3 roads11. However, it will cost the agency an estimated $52,469,100.00 ($52.4 million) every year to fight wildfires on these same 90,000 – 95,000 acres.12
The $52.4 million the agency will have to spend to fight fires in these Roadless Areas could be spent to maintain Level 3, double-lane aggregate roads for 140 years13, or less intrusive, less costly Level 2 roads for 839 years14!
Therefore, based on figures presented by the agency in the FEIS, it is exponentially more costly to prohibit road construction in Roadless Areas at high to moderate risk of catastrophic wildfire than it is to permit road construction even with future maintenance requirements.
WITHOUT THIS RULE, the agency could maintain 625 miles of Level 3 roads constructed in Roadless Areas for 140 years, “protect” 99.99% of all Roadless Areas from entry, maintain ecological diversity of untold plant and animal species by preventing wildfires, AND saved over $9.4 million.
| Contacts: | Related Links: |
|
Heidi Valetkevitch |
|
| 4X4Wire
| Site Index
| Links Index
| Search 4x4Wire |
|
|||||
