[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 210 (Thursday, October 29, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68688-68703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23984]



[[Page 68687]]

Vol. 85

Thursday,

No. 210

October 29, 2020

Part III





Department of Agriculture





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





Forest Service





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





36 CFR Part 294





Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands 
in Alaska; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 210 / Thursday, October 29, 2020 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 68688]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 294

RIN 0596-AD37


Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System 
Lands in Alaska

AGENCY: Forest Service, Agriculture Department (USDA).

ACTION: Final rule and record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA or Department), is 
adopting a final rule to exempt the Tongass National Forest from the 
2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule), which 
prohibits timber harvest and road construction/reconstruction with 
limited exceptions within designated inventoried roadless areas. In 
addition, the rule directs an administrative change to the timber 
suitability of lands deemed unsuitable, solely due to the application 
of the 2001 Roadless Rule, in the 2016 Tongass National Forest Land and 
Resource Management Plan (Tongass Forest Plan or Forest Plan), Appendix 
A. The rule does not authorize any ground-disturbing activities, nor 
does it increase the overall amount of timber harvested from the 
Tongass National Forest.

DATES: This rule is effective October 29, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Tu, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, 
at 303-275-5156 or [email protected]. Individuals using 
telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Services at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The USDA Forest Service manages 
approximately 21.9 million acres of federal lands in Alaska, which are 
distributed across two national forests (Tongass and Chugach National 
Forests). These national forests are characterized by a diverse array 
of landscapes, ecosystems, natural resources, and land use activities.
    In January 2001, the USDA promulgated a discretionary rulemaking 
establishing prohibitions on timber harvesting and road construction on 
approximately 58 million acres of the National Forest System (NFS), 
including over 14 million acres within Alaska. The 2001 Roadless Rule 
has been the subject of litigation for almost two decades. Initially, 
the 2001 Roadless Rule was challenged in multiple lawsuits, including a 
suit brought by the State of Alaska. Another suit filed by the State of 
Alaska in 2015 is still ongoing. Citing various concerns, including 
damage to the economic and social fabric of southeast Alaska and 
compliance with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 
(ANILCA) and Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA), the State of Alaska 
petitioned the USDA to exempt the Tongass National Forest from the 2001 
Roadless Rule.
    Having carefully considered the petition, public comments on the 
proposed rule, and a wide range of alternative approaches to the 2001 
Roadless Rule, the USDA is granting the State of Alaska's request to 
exempt the Tongass National Forest from the 2001 Roadless Rule. The 
Tongass Forest Plan along with other conservation measures, will assure 
protection allowing roadless area values to prevail on the Tongass 
National Forest while offering additional flexibility to achieve other 
multiple-use benefits.

Background

    On January 12, 2001, the USDA promulgated the Roadless Area 
Conservation Rule (hereafter 2001 Roadless Rule) (66 FR 3244), 
establishing nationwide prohibitions on timber harvest, road 
construction, and road reconstruction within inventoried roadless areas 
(IRAs) with certain limited exceptions. The intent of the 2001 Roadless 
Rule is to provide lasting protection for IRAs within the NFS in the 
context of multiple-use land management. Based on the State of Alaska's 
Roadless Rule Petition (described below) and a review of public 
comment, the USDA analyzed rulemaking alternatives addressing whether 
and how the national prohibitions on timber harvesting, road 
construction, and road reconstruction should apply on the Tongass 
National Forest.
    In 2001, the State of Alaska filed a lawsuit challenging the USDA's 
promulgation of the 2001 Roadless Rule and its application in Alaska. 
State of Alaska v. USDA, A01-039 CV (JKS) (D. Alaska). The USDA and the 
State of Alaska reached a settlement in 2003, and the USDA subsequently 
issued a rule temporarily exempting the Tongass National Forest from 
the 2001 Roadless Rule. In 2011, a Federal district court set aside the 
Tongass Exemption Rule and reinstated, with clarifying instructions, 
the 2001 Roadless Rule on the Tongass National Forest. The district 
court's ruling was initially reversed by a three-judge panel of the 
Ninth Circuit but was ultimately upheld in a 6-5 en banc ruling in 
2015. Consequently, the 2001 Roadless Rule (as provided for in the 
district court's Judgment) remains in effect in Alaska and the Forest 
Service continues to apply the 2001 Roadless Rule to both the Tongass 
and Chugach National Forests.
    Currently there are over 21.9 million acres of NFS lands within the 
State of Alaska, of which approximately 14.7 million acres (67%) are 
designated IRAs as defined by the 2001 Roadless Rule, including both 
the Tongass and Chugach National Forests. The Tongass National Forest 
is approximately 16.7 million acres of which approximately 9.3 million 
(55%) acres are designated IRAs. The Alaska Roadless Rule focuses on 
the Tongass National Forest only and does not apply to the Chugach 
National Forest.

State of Alaska Petition

    In January 2018, then-Commissioner of the Department of Natural 
Resources for the State of Alaska, Andrew Mack submitted a petition on 
behalf of the State of Alaska to Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue 
pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The petition 
requested USDA consider creation of a state-specific rule to exempt the 
Tongass National Forest from the 2001 Roadless Rule and conduct a 
forest plan revision for the Tongass National Forest. In June 2018, the 
Secretary of Agriculture accepted the petition and agreed to review the 
State's concerns on roadless area management and economic development 
opportunities in southeast Alaska through a rulemaking process. The 
Secretary directed the Forest Service to begin working with 
representatives from the State of Alaska concerning a state-specific 
roadless rule. However, the Secretary did not commit to the State's 
request for a forest plan revision. On August 2, 2018, the State of 
Alaska and the USDA Forest Service signed a memorandum of understanding 
concerning the development of a state-specific rule. The Forest Service 
initiated its environmental analysis process with the publication in 
the Federal Register of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) on August 30, 2018 (83 FR 44252).
    On September 6, 2018, Governor Walker issued Administrative Order 
299 to establish the Alaska Roadless Rule Citizen Advisory Committee 
(the committee) to provide an opportunity for Alaskans to advise the 
State of Alaska on the future management of Tongass National Forest 
roadless areas. The committee was comprised of 13 members, appointed by 
Governor

[[Page 68689]]

Walker, intended to represent a diversity of perspectives, including 
Alaska Native tribes and corporations, fishing, timber, conservation, 
tourism, utilities, mining, transportation, local government, and the 
Alaska Division of Forestry. The committee's specific task was to 
present a written report on the rulemaking process to the Governor and 
State Forester, which included options for a state-specific roadless 
rule. The committee met for three in-person meetings during the fall of 
2018 (October 2-3 in Juneau; October 24-26 in Ketchikan; and November 
6-8 in Sitka). Meetings were open to the public and each meeting 
included opportunity for public comment. The committee's report was 
submitted to the Governor and State Forester during late November 2018, 
and recommendations from the committee informed the State of Alaska 
input, as a cooperating agency, to the Forest Service in the 
development of the alternatives and comments on the Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement (DEIS).
    On October 17, 2019, the USDA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking to exempt the Tongass National Forest from the 2001 Roadless 
Rule (84 FR 55522). The Office of Federal Activities of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency published a Notice of Availability 
(NOA) for the DEIS in the Federal Register on October 18, 2019 (84 FR 
55952), with corrected end of comment period published on October 25, 
2019 (84 FR 57417).

Consideration of the State of Alaska's Petition

    In response to the State of Alaska's petition for rulemaking, the 
USDA has sought a long-term, durable approach to roadless area 
management that accommodates the unique biological, social, and 
economic situation found in and around the Tongass National Forest. The 
Tongass is unique from other national forests with respect to size, 
percentage of IRAs, number of communities dependent on federal lands 
(the Tongass comprises almost 80% of southeast Alaska and supports 32 
communities), and Alaska and Tongass-specific statutory considerations 
(e.g., ANILCA, TTRA).
    The USDA and Forest Service believe that both roadless area 
conservation and other multiple-use values with important local socio-
economic consequences are meaningfully addressed through local and 
regional forest planning on the Tongass, without the 2001 Roadless Rule 
prohibitions on timber harvest and road construction/reconstruction.

Decision

    The USDA hereby promulgates a regulation exempting the Tongass 
National Forest from the 2001 Roadless Rule as described in Alternative 
6 of the Rulemaking for Alaska Roadless Areas Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA Forest Service, 2020). This decision is 
not subject to Forest Service administrative review regulations, which 
allow the public to administratively challenge certain agency 
decisions. In addition, the final rule directs the Tongass Forest 
Supervisor to issue a notice of an administrative change pursuant to 36 
CFR 219.13(c) to the timber suitability determination as described in 
Appendix A of the Forest Plan. The final regulatory text differs 
slightly from the text published with the FEIS, reflecting nontechnical 
changes made to conform to the Office of Federal Register's guidelines.

Alternatives Considered

    In addition to Alternative 6, the selected alternative, the FEIS 
analyzes five other alternatives for managing roadless areas on the 
Tongass National Forest. Alternative 1 is the no action alternative and 
would result in the continued implementation of the 2001 Roadless Rule 
as prescribed in the Alaska District Court's Judgement. Alternative 2 
provides limited additional timber harvest opportunity while maximizing 
roadless area designations. It removes approximately 142,000 acres from 
roadless designation that have been substantially altered by prior road 
construction or timber harvest generally conducted during periods of 
time the Tongass National Forest was exempted from the 2001 Roadless 
Rule. These substantially altered areas are generally known as ``roaded 
roadless'' acres, but include additional areas considered to be 
substantially altered. Alternative 2 also adds 110,000 acres as Alaska 
Roadless Areas. Following an approach similar to that taken for the 
other two State-specific roadless rules, Colorado and Idaho, the FEIS 
uses the term Alaska Roadless Areas to refer to the areas in which the 
Alaska Roadless Rule would apply in Alternatives 2 through 5.
    Alternative 3 would increase the available land base from which 
timber harvest opportunities could occur by making timber harvest, road 
construction, and road reconstruction permissible in areas where 
roadless characteristics have already been substantially altered and 
areas immediately adjacent to existing roads and past harvest areas. 
Adjacent areas are considered to be the logical extensions of the 
existing road and/or harvest systems, which would remove approximately 
401,000 acres from the roadless classification system. The adjacent 
areas represent the most likely locations where future timber harvest 
could occur and have the least environmental impacts to overall 
roadless characteristics while providing for additional timber harvest 
opportunities.
    Alternative 3 also establishes a Community Priority category which 
allows for small-scale timber harvest and associated road construction 
and reconstruction. In addition, it allows for infrastructure 
development to connect and support local communities, recreation 
opportunities, and traditional Alaska Native cultural uses. Alternative 
3 includes the Watershed Priority category, which is more restrictive 
than the 2001 Roadless Rule, and applied to approximately 3.26 million 
acres primarily identified in the Forest Plan as the Tongass 77 
Watersheds and The Nature Conservancy/Audubon Conservation Priority 
Areas (T77 and The Nature Conservancy/Audubon Conservation Areas) and 
high-priority sockeye salmon watersheds. Approximately 90% of those 
3.26 million acres fall within roadless area boundaries identified in 
Alternative 3. To provide heightened balance and integrity of watershed 
protections and establish management continuity across these high-
priority watersheds, Alternative 3 would also include a prohibition on 
old-growth timber harvesting on the portion of the T77 and The Nature 
Conservancy/Audubon Conservation Areas that extend beyond roadless 
areas boundaries established by Alternative 3. The remaining 4,595,000 
acres of Alaska Roadless Areas in Alternative 3 would be managed under 
a roadless management category called Roadless Priority, which is 
similar to the 2001 Roadless Rule but less restrictive and addresses 
Alaska-specific concerns for infrastructure development to connect and 
support local communities and access to renewable energy and leasable 
minerals.
    In addition to roaded roadless and adjacent acres being removed 
from the roadless classification system, approximately 854,000 acres 
designated as land use designation (LUD) II areas would be removed from 
the roadless classification system in Alternative 3. LUD II areas are 
statutory land use designations managed in a roadless state to retain 
their wildland character as defined in the TTRA (Pub. L. 101-626, Title 
II, Section 201) and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

[[Page 68690]]

Year 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291, 128 Stat. 3729, Section 3720(f)). These 
areas are proposed for removal from regulatory roadless classification 
because having two layers of protection (statutory and regulatory 
direction) that are substantially similar but slightly different does 
not make a meaningful difference to the level of conservation provided 
and can create confusion for land managers, stakeholder groups, and the 
public. Removal of the LUD II areas from regulatory roadless 
classification is an attempt to eliminate that confusion while 
remaining consistent with the congressionally established management 
regime for the LUD II areas. The statutory direction managing in a 
roadless state for wildland character within LUD II areas would remain 
in effect regardless of which alternative is selected.
    Alternative 4 provides additional available land base from which 
timber harvest opportunities could occur while maintaining roadless 
designations for areas defined in the Tongass Forest Plan as Scenic 
Viewsheds, T77 Watersheds, and The Nature Conservancy/Audubon 
Conservation Priority Areas. Additional timber harvest opportunities 
are provided by removing approximately 401,000 acres of roaded roadless 
areas and adjacent extensions, as described in Alternative 3, from 
roadless classification. In addition, timber harvest opportunities are 
provided by managing approximately 757,000 acres of Timber Production 
and Modified Landscape LUDs, as defined in the Tongass Forest Plan, in 
a roadless management category called Timber Priority, which allows for 
timber harvest, road construction, and road reconstruction.
    Alternative 4 designates approximately 7,000 acres as Alaska 
Roadless Areas, which were statutorily designated as LUD II areas, but 
not included in the 2001 roadless inventory. These 7,000 acres combined 
with the LUD II areas included in the 2001 roadless inventory total 
854,000 acres that would be designated as roadless with regulatory 
direction mirroring the statutory direction.
    The remaining 7,363,000 acres of Alaska Roadless Areas in 
Alternative 4 would be managed as Roadless Priority, which is similar 
to the 2001 Roadless Rule, but less restrictive and addresses Alaska-
specific concerns for infrastructure development to connect and support 
local communities and access to renewable energy and leasable minerals.
    Alternative 5 maximizes the land base from which timber harvest 
opportunities could occur by removing 2.32 million acres from roadless 
area designation. Taken together, the six alternatives represent the 
spectrum of management regimes identified to the Forest Service through 
public comments, public meetings, tribal and Alaska Native corporation 
consultations, and cooperating agency input.
    The table below displays the acreage changes from the 2001 Roadless 
Rule to acreages that would be designated under each of the six 
alternatives displayed in the FEIS.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Alternatives
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 1               2              3 *              4               5         6 Final rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Roadless Acres....................................       9,368,000       9,336,000       8,224,000       8,975,000       7,047,000               0
Roadless Acres Removed..................................               0         142,000       1,252,000         401,000       2,321,000       9,368,000
Roadless Acres Added....................................               0         110,000         107,000           7,000               0               0
Net Acre Change **......................................               0         -32,000      -1,144,000        -394,000      -2,321,000      -9,368,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Alternative 3 has less total areas designated as roadless than Alternative 4 due to 854,000 of LUD II areas removed but they are still managed for
  wildland character based on statutory direction, hence Alternative 3 is more restrictive than Alternative 4.
** Numbers may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that 
best promotes the national environmental policy as provided by Section 
101 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4331. In 
application, the environmentally preferable alternative causes the 
least damage to the biological and physical environment. It also best 
protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural 
resources. It is the alternative that achieves the widest range of 
beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health 
and safety, or other undesirable or unintended consequences.
    Alternative 2 is the environmentally preferable alternative. While 
it represents a slight decrease (approximately 32,000 acres) in total 
acres to be managed as Alaska roadless areas, all the acres designated 
as Alaska Roadless Areas in Alternative 2 are undeveloped at this time. 
Alternative 1 (the 2001 Roadless Rule) includes more total roadless 
acres; however, approximately 142,000 acres have been roaded, 
harvested, or significantly altered and those lands no longer retain 
the roadless characteristics and values the 2001 Roadless Rule is 
intended to conserve. In addition, approximately 110,000 acres of 
undeveloped land not included in the 2001 Roadless Rule were designated 
as Alaska Roadless Areas. Alternative 2 limits timber harvesting, road 
construction, and road reconstruction on the most undeveloped roadless 
acres of all the alternatives considered. While the Roadless Priority 
management category assigned to approximately 5.2 million acres in 
Alternative 2 includes more exceptions than Alternative 1, the 
Watershed Priority management category, which is more restrictive than 
the 2001 Roadless Rule, is applied to approximately 3.3 million acres 
in Alternative 2. For all these reasons, Alternative 2 is the 
alternative that best protects, preserves, and enhances roadless 
characteristics and values on the Tongass National Forest.

Decision Rationale and Important Considerations

    On July 12, 2001, the 2001 Roadless Rule was promulgated. Views on 
applying roadless restrictions on the Tongass National Forest changed 
dramatically over the course of that rulemaking, and since. Originally, 
the USDA's proposed rule sought to exclude the Tongass from any 
roadless restrictions while promising to revisit the question in five 
years. Seven months later, the USDA's Final EIS (FEIS) instead 
identified a preferred alternative to apply the roadless prohibitions 
after a five-year delay. A mere month later, the final Record of 
Decision (ROD) instead elected to apply the regulation's roadless 
prohibitions immediately upon the effective date of the rule.
    In 2003, USDA settled litigation with the State of Alaska 
challenging the promulgation of the 2001 Roadless Rule. The USDA 
proposed and finalized a rule temporarily exempting the Tongass

[[Page 68691]]

National Forest from operation of the 2001 Roadless Rule (e.g., Tongass 
Exemption Rule--68 FR 75136). However, the Tongass Exemption Rule 
itself was judicially set aside in 2011, and the 2001 Roadless Rule was 
reinstated under the terms set forth in the final judgment of the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Alaska. Since that time, no further 
regulatory action regarding this matter has taken place, and the 2001 
Roadless Rule remains in effect as to the Tongass National Forest.
    Considerable congressional interest has resulted in the 
introduction of competing legislative bills designed to alternatively 
codify or strike down the operation of the 2001 Roadless Rule, in whole 
or in part, since the rule was promulgated. These legislative proposals 
have included attempts to legislate an outcome for the rule's 
application to the Tongass National Forest, but none of these bills 
have been enacted into law.
    Combined with the complex, and sometimes even conflicting, judicial 
rulings applicable to the 2001 Roadless Rule itself, the recent history 
of roadless management on the Tongass National Forest demonstrates that 
while differences in opinion seem inevitable, a wide variety of 
approaches are available for roadless area management. Roadless area 
management, like all multiple-use land management, is fundamentally an 
exercise in discretion and policy judgment concerning the best use of 
the NFS lands and resources, informed by the underlying facts and 
reasonable projections of possible social, economic, and environmental 
consequences.
    While the Tongass National Forest has endured debate regarding land 
and natural resource management for decades, there are common 
agreements. Tongass National Forest roadless areas are vast and 
valuable. The Tongass National Forest contributes ecological values 
locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally. Local communities 
are reliant on or impacted by federal land management decisions, and 
there is not always consensus, at the local level, on land management 
priorities. All acknowledge that there are diverse opinions and views 
concerning whether and how road construction and timber harvesting 
should be restricted. To be sure, the USDA has received many comments 
that highlight differences in views concerning factual matters and 
methodologies, as well as general opinions and preferences. The USDA is 
grateful for the attention and interest that communities, stakeholder 
groups, and individuals have devoted to helping shape and improve the 
FEIS for decision-making purposes.
    Importantly, the final rule's change in policy does not 
fundamentally rest on new factual findings contradicting the factual 
findings the USDA made in its 2001 Roadless Rule. Rather, the policy 
judgments implemented through this new rulemaking are ultimately the 
result of assigning different value or weight to the various multiple 
uses. Although many circumstances have changed since 2001, such as the 
size and economic role of the timber industry in southeast Alaska, the 
nature and role of southeast Alaska's roadless areas have not changed. 
The currently-designated roadless areas continue to provide large 
tracts of undeveloped land for roadless values, watershed protection, 
and ecosystem health even while the Tongass National Forest was 
exempted from the 2001 Roadless Rule from 2001 to 2011.
    The FEIS carefully analyzes the environmental consequences of both 
continued operation of and exemption from the 2001 Roadless Rule. That 
analysis reveals only a modest difference in potential environmental 
consequences between those (or any) alternatives. For example, although 
9.4 million acres would no longer be subject to the 2001 Roadless Rule 
with the final rule, only 186,000 more acres would become available for 
timber production, and road construction is estimated to increase 
Tongass-wide from 994 miles in the no-action alternative to 1,043 miles 
in the final rule over the next 100 years. As many commenters have 
pointed out, the results of this analysis are attributable to the fact 
the 2001 Roadless Rule is not the primary limiting factor for Tongass 
National Forest timber harvest, and that the level of timber harvest 
defined in the Forest Plan has a greater influence. Similarly, the 2001 
Roadless Rule would not seem to be the impediment to certain vital 
infrastructure and energy projects as claimed by some, given that some 
infrastructure and energy development is allowed under various statutes 
and/or the 2001 Roadless Rule.
    Under the current Administration, the USDA has refocused policies, 
programs, and resources on increasing rural economic opportunity, 
decreasing federal regulation, and streamlining federal government 
services. The USDA concludes in light of the FEIS that a policy change 
for the Tongass National Forest can be made without major adverse 
impacts to the recreation, tourism, and fishing industries, while 
providing benefits to the timber and mining industries, increasing 
opportunities for community infrastructure, and eliminating unnecessary 
regulations.
    The Secretary of Agriculture has broad authority to protect and 
administer the NFS through regulation as provided by the Organic 
Administration Act of 1897 (Organic Act), the Multiple-Use Sustained 
Yield Act of 1960, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 
(NFMA). These statutes provide the Secretary of Agriculture with 
discretion to determine the proper uses within any area, including the 
appropriate resource emphasis and mix of uses. In doing so, USDA 
considers the relative values of the various resources and seeks to 
provide for the harmonious and coordinated management of all resources 
in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American 
people. Roadless areas provide real and important values, such as high 
quality or undisturbed soil, water and air; sources of public drinking 
water; diversity of plant and animal communities; habitat for 
threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species; 
primitive and semi-primitive classes of dispersed recreation; reference 
landscapes; natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality; 
traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and other locally 
identified unique characteristics. However, roadless values are not the 
only values that should be taken into consideration. The Organic Act 
and Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act mandate the Forest Service to 
manage NFS lands for multiple uses and sustained yield of the various 
renewable surface resources to meet the needs of the American people.
    The State of Alaska's Citizens Advisory Committee devoted 
considerable time and effort capturing the many and varied aspects of 
roadless characteristics from an Alaska-specific viewpoint, and the 
USDA is grateful for their dedication and insights. Similarly, tribal 
government cooperating agencies expressed concern about removal of the 
2001 Roadless Rule but expressed an interest in expanded regulatory 
flexibility within their traditional territories. Here too, the USDA is 
grateful for their participation as cooperating agencies and for the 
knowledge and insights they have brought to the rulemaking.
    Unquestionably, there are differences of perspective and opinion as 
to how to best shape restrictions that protect a beloved resource while 
providing cultural, social, and economic benefit for both local 
communities and the nation, which is reflected in the 267,000 comments 
received on the proposed

[[Page 68692]]

rule and DEIS (summarized in Appendix H of the FEIS). The USDA's 
assessment is that the best mechanism to account for these many and 
competing interests is to return the regulatory landscape back to what 
it was prior to the promulgation of 2001 Roadless Rule and to allow 
land management to be governed through the NFMA forest planning 
process.

Alaska-Specific Statutes

    The USDA has also considered several Alaska-specific statutes 
applicable to the Tongass National Forest in selecting the final rule. 
To be clear, all the alternatives considered are within the lawful 
discretion of the USDA to select, and all would comply with applicable 
statutes. No statute compels or prohibits establishment of any of the 
various roadless rule alternatives; these alternatives would all be 
within the USDA's discretion.
    In assessing roadless management for these lands, the USDA has 
considered the Alaska-specific legislation that Congress has enacted 
during the past forty years, especially the TTRA and ANILCA.

Tongass Timber Reform Act

    The TTRA directs the Forest Service to seek to provide a supply of 
timber from the Tongass National Forest that meets annual market demand 
and the market demand for each planning cycle to the extent consistent 
with providing for the multiple-use and sustained-yield of all 
renewable resources and other applicable requirements, including the 
NFMA. The Tongass Forest Plan anticipates sufficient timber 
availability to meet projected demand as described in the 2016 Forest 
Plan FEIS and ROD. In addition, the Tongass Forest Plan provides 
guidance to conduct annual monitoring and review of current timber 
demand. Similarly, TTRA provides for protection of riparian habitats 
and the multiple use and sustained yield of all renewable surface 
resources.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act--Subsistence 
Determination

    ANILCA, as amended, contains several provisions that apply to 
management of the Tongass National Forest. An ANILCA Section 810 
evaluation and determination is not required to exempt the Tongass 
National Forest from the 2001 Roadless Rule--a rulemaking process and 
programmatic-level decision that is not a determination whether to 
``withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or 
disposition'' of NFS lands. However, a forest-wide evaluation and 
determination is included in this roadless area rulemaking to honor 
regional commitments and inform future project-level planning and 
decision-making subject to ANILCA Section 810 (16 U.S.C. 3120). An 
ANILCA Section 810 subsistence analysis and determination was not 
prepared when the 2001 Roadless Rule was promulgated.
    The final rule has been evaluated for potential effects on 
subsistence uses and needs in a manner consistent with Section 810 of 
ANILCA. The FEIS discloses direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on 
three subsistence use factors including: (1) Resource distribution and 
abundance; (2) access to resources; and (3) competition for the use of 
resources (Chapter 3, Subsistence). Importantly, the final rule does 
not authorize ground-disturbing activities, but instead offers greater 
flexibility in locating future road construction, road reconstruction, 
and timber harvest activities. The Tongass Forest Plan will continue to 
guide timber harvest and road construction, with the administrative 
change prescribed in this rule only serving to conform and clarify the 
lands available for timber harvest following the exemption from the 
2001 Roadless Rule.
    Consequently, total timber harvest volume will remain constant 
across alternatives, and the risk of a significant restriction to 
subsistence resource abundance and distribution is largely equivalent 
across alternatives. The final rule may eventually influence 
subsistence resource access due to timber management activities, but 
these changes will be addressed on a site-specific basis, including 
appropriate public engagement opportunities, as projects are proposed.
    Competition for subsistence wildlife and seafood resources near 
rural communities is affected by a variety of factors including 
regulations, technology, wildlife distribution, modes of access, and 
natural decreases in population. The final rule assumes new roads near 
communities connected to other communities by ferry or road, combined 
with increasing habitat reductions and consistent user demand, will 
likely increase subsistence resource competition over time.
    Based on the identified assumptions and analysis, the final rule 
may eventually indirectly result in a significant restriction of 
subsistence use of deer by increasing overall competition for the 
subsistence resource by urban and rural residents. This finding is most 
applicable to Chichagof, Baranof, and Prince of Wales Islands where 
competition for deer and some other land mammals is already high and 
habitat capacity has been significantly reduced due to prior timber 
harvest and road construction activities. Notably, the predicted 
restriction of subsistence use of deer due to increased competition in 
the FEIS is substantially similar to Forest Plan subsistence effects 
analysis because the Forest Plan will continue to guide total timber 
harvest volume.
    ANILCA subsistence hearings were conducted for the DEIS and 
proposed rule, consistent with Section 810, by: (1) Giving notice to 
the appropriate state agency, local committees, and regional councils; 
and (2) giving notice of, and holding, ``a hearing in the vicinity of 
the area involved.'' As the geographic area of interest is the entire 
Tongass National Forest, subsistence hearings were conducted in 18 
communities located across southeast Alaska to collect oral testimony 
regarding the DEIS and associated subsistence resource and use 
analysis.
    Section 810 requires that when a use, occupancy, or disposition of 
public lands may result in a significant subsistence use restriction, a 
determination must be made whether: (A) Such a significant restriction 
of subsistence uses is necessary, consistent with sound management 
principles for the utilization of the public lands, (B) the proposed 
activity will involve the minimal amount of public lands necessary to 
accomplish the purposes of such use, occupancy, or other disposition, 
and (C) reasonable steps will be taken to minimize adverse impacts upon 
subsistence uses and resources resulting from such actions. Each of 
these three points are discussed below.
    Necessary, Consistent with Sound Management of Public Lands. The 
final rule has been examined to determine whether the potential for a 
significant restriction of subsistence uses is necessary, consistent 
with the sound management of NFS lands. The final rule is designed to 
provide a mix of resources and benefits to best meet the needs of the 
American people. Some of the resource uses necessary to achieve these 
benefits have the potential to adversely affect subsistence uses within 
the Tongass National Forest. In light of the Forest Service's multiple-
use mandate and other requirements of law, the Forest Service has 
determined that these effects to subsistence uses are necessary and 
consistent with the sound management of NFS lands. (The Forest Service 
again notes that making this determination is not required for purposes 
of issuing this rule, but it is the Department's policy preference to 
make this determination, and the other

[[Page 68693]]

determinations explained below related to ANILCA Section 810, on a 
voluntary basis in light of the considerations noted above.)
    Amount of Public Land Necessary to Accomplish the Purposes of the 
Proposed Action. The land area evaluated through this rulemaking is the 
Tongass National Forest and the IRAs therein. These lands constitute 
the amount of land necessary to assess operation of the 2001 Roadless 
Rule within the Tongass National Forest as requested by the State of 
Alaska's petition. This rulemaking considered applying various 
prohibitions and exceptions to different numbers of acres through the 
development and analysis of a range of alternatives. The final rule, 
however, removes the 2001 Roadless Rule's land classification system 
and associated prohibitions and exceptions, and allows management to 
return to operation under the Forest Plan. Accordingly, the final rule 
addresses the amount of NFS land necessary to accomplish the proposed 
action.
    Reasonable Steps to Minimize Adverse Impacts to Subsistence Uses 
and Resources. The continuation of subsistence opportunities, and 
reasonable steps to minimize effects on subsistence resources, are 
provided by Tongass Forest Plan forest-wide standards and guidelines 
for subsistence, as well as related standards and guidelines for 
riparian areas, fish, and wildlife. Many important subsistence areas 
are assigned LUDs that exclude timber harvesting and road construction. 
Beach and estuary fringe forest-wide standards and guidelines generally 
apply to beach fringe and estuarine areas not under more restrictive 
designations. Adverse impacts to subsistence resources and uses are 
minimized through these measures. The potential site-specific effects 
on subsistence uses, and reasonable ways to minimize these effects, 
will be analyzed and considered during project-level design and 
decision-making.
    The final rule does not authorize ground-disturbing activities, but 
instead offers greater flexibility in locating future development 
activities on the Tongass National Forest. It is not possible to 
substantially reduce timber harvest in some areas by concentrating it 
in other areas without affecting subsistence resources and uses 
important to other communities. Also, concentrating timber harvest 
outside more important subsistence areas while still meeting Tongass 
Forest Plan timber harvest goals could not be done without affecting 
the natural distribution of wildlife species or without potential 
significant effects to watersheds. These potential environmental 
effects will be comprehensively studied and disclosed through the 
future analysis of Tongass National Forest projects.

2001 Roadless Rule's Original Purpose

    The USDA is mindful of the original stated purposes of the 2001 
Roadless Rule in lifting the rule's restrictions for the Tongass 
National Forest. The stated purposes of the 2001 Roadless Rule included 
retention of the largest and most extensive tracts of undeveloped land 
for the roadless values, watershed protection, and ecosystem health; 
and fiscal considerations, mainly the cost of managing the road system 
to safety and environmental standards. Specific to the Tongass, the 
2001 Roadless Rule's Record of Decision noted that social and economic 
considerations were key factors in analyzing alternatives, along with 
the unique and sensitive ecological character of the Tongass National 
Forest, the abundance of roadless areas where road construction and 
reconstruction are limited, and the high degree of ecological health. 
(66 FR 3254). The past 20 years of experience managing the Tongass 
National Forest, with and without the rule in operation, provides an 
important window for assessing whether the 2001 Roadless Rule's 
prohibitions should be maintained.
    From 2001 to 2011, the Tongass National Forest was exempt from the 
2001 Roadless Rule. During this time, about 4,300 acres of IRAs were 
entered for timber harvest and about 19 miles of roads were constructed 
in association of that timber harvest. Of that only 300 acres of timber 
harvest and 0.5 miles of road were authorized during the exemption 
period and the remaining timber harvest and road construction were 
authorized prior to the promulgation of the 2001 Roadless Rule. After 
the harvest units and roads are buffered in GIS, this accounts for 
about one percent of the substantially altered areas (roaded roadless 
areas) removed from roadless designation in Alternatives 2 through 5. 
The remaining 99 percent of the roaded roadless areas are from mapping 
errors and activities that occurred before 2001 (36%) or were allowed 
under the 2001 Roadless Rule (62%).
    A significant percentage of the Tongass National Forest remains 
undeveloped, providing for large, extensive tracts of undeveloped land, 
but much of that is characterized as rock, ice, or muskeg. The final 
rule will make an additional 188,000 forested acres available for 
timber harvest with the majority characterized as old-growth timber. 
The young-growth transition strategy as described in the 2016 Tongass 
Forest Plan ROD outlines a glide path to decrease old-growth harvest 
annually on the Tongass until it reaches about 5 million board feet 
(MMBF) harvest per year, expected to occur in about 2032. After the 
young-growth transition is fully implemented, it is unlikely that a 
significant portion of the areas previously designated as IRAs would be 
considered for harvest because the focus for timber harvesting will 
shift to the previously roaded, young-growth areas.
    Watershed protection was a prominent aspect in the decision to 
adopt the nationwide 2001 Roadless Rule. Looking at the Tongass 
National Forest today, watershed protection goals are well provided for 
even without the current roadless rule. Large tracts of undeveloped 
lands and watershed protections are provided by existing statutory and 
forest plan direction, including lands in designated Wildernesses and 
National Monuments. In addition, the TTRA (Pub. L. 101-626, Title II, 
Section 201) and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015 (Pub. L. 113-291, 128 Stat. 3729, Section 3720(f)) designated 
approximately 856,000 acres as LUD II areas, which are managed in a 
roadless state to retain their wildland character. Approximately 3.6 
million acres in key watersheds (defined in the Forest Plan as Tongass 
77 Watersheds and The Nature Conservancy/Audubon Conservation Areas) 
are managed for no old-growth timber harvest, thus minimizing adverse 
impacts to fisheries. Management direction of LUD II areas and key 
watersheds would remain unaffected with the final rule.
    Ecosystem health was another important element of the 2001 
rulemaking. Once again, the FEIS reveals only a moderate difference 
between implementation of the 2001 Roadless Rule and the final rule. A 
key indicator of ecosystem health for the Tongass National Forest is a 
functional and interconnected old-growth ecosystem. Under the final 
rule, long-term protection of productive old growth would continue to 
occur under the Forest Plan's old-growth habitat conservation strategy. 
Connectivity between old-growth reserves would continue to be 
maintained through Forest Plan direction for stream buffers, the beach 
and estuary fringe, and legacy forest structure. Under the final rule, 
the projected amount of old-growth harvest and percent of original 
productive old-growth remaining over the next 100 years would remain 
unchanged from

[[Page 68694]]

implementation of the 2001 Roadless Rule (Alternative 1--No Action).
    Although it may seem counter-intuitive that eliminating the 2001 
Roadless Rule's timber harvest restrictions across 9.3 million acres 
would not increase old-growth timber harvest, timber harvest levels are 
controlled to a far greater extent by other factors, primarily economic 
factors. Additionally, the Forest Plan's young-growth transition 
strategy will transition harvest locations away from roadless areas 
containing old growth and into areas where timber harvest has 
previously occurred, avoiding or reducing effects to roadless areas. 
The underlying economic considerations and the young-growth transition 
strategy are far greater influences than the 2001 Roadless Rule. This 
strategy will remain in place, with or without the 2001 Roadless Rule.
    Limited road maintenance budgets were another factor cited in 
support of the 2001 Roadless Rule. The 2001 Roadless Rule cited fiscal 
concerns over building new roads in IRAs due to an $8.4 billion backlog 
of deferred maintenance across the NFS transportation system at that 
time. Recent deferred maintenance records were reviewed; a sound 
comparison could not be made with the deferred maintenance levels of 
2001, due to substantial changes in defining and interpreting deferred 
maintenance. Since 2001, the inventory methods and roads considered to 
be part of deferred maintenance have changed multiple times (2002, 
2005, 2007, 2012, and 2013). These changes make a direct comparison 
with 2001 deferred maintenance numbers impracticable.
    The FEIS projects that about 1,043 miles of new road construction 
could occur over the next 100 years across the Tongass National Forest, 
mainly to support timber harvest operations, as compared with the 
approximately 994 miles of new roads projected forest-wide over the 
next 100 years under Alternative 1--No Action. The 994 miles of new 
road construction projected for Alternative 1 are outside of 
inventoried roadless areas. The final rule is not expected to 
materially increase the amount of timber harvested in the Tongass, as 
that is prescribed and managed by the Forest Plan. However, the final 
rule does impact the location from which the timber may be harvested, 
by allowing access to areas that were off limits under the 2001 
Roadless Rule.

National Versus Local Decision-Making

    For decades, the USDA has worked with states, tribes, local 
communities and collaborative groups toward land management solutions 
for roadless areas. Sometimes solutions have been found nationally. 
Sometimes a state-by-state approach has been the best option. Often, 
the solutions are found forest-by-forest or even area-by-area. In this 
instance, the national rule's one-size-fits-all approach to roadless 
area management is not the best approach for roadless area management 
on the Tongass National Forest. Other states, Idaho and Colorado, have 
sought and been granted the opportunity for roadless management to be 
tailored to their needs. Indeed, the USDA received at least thirteen 
individual state petitions seeking various state-specific solutions 
during the timeframe in which the 2001 Rule had been judicially 
invalidated. The State of Alaska's 2018 rulemaking petition implores 
the USDA to recognize that in contrast to the scarcity of undeveloped 
lands that occurs in many other states, undeveloped areas are plentiful 
in Alaska. Instead, the State of Alaska maintains that the 
circumstances of the Tongass National Forest appear to be best managed 
through the local planning processes. The Forest Service's 40 years of 
experience with forest planning under NFMA, which includes forest plans 
subject to periodic review and adjustment, routinely demonstrates the 
planning system's capacity to account for both local and national 
interests and provide durable and widely accepted solutions providing 
for the multiple use and sustained yield of the many goods and services 
provided by the NFS.
    The final rule would leave the roadless area management issue open 
for future consideration in the forest planning process. The forest 
planning process is more flexible than the 2001 Roadless Rule's 
regulatory approach, because plans are expected to be designed and 
attuned to local circumstances and are intended to be periodically 
reviewed. The 2001 Rule's prescriptive approach forecloses a full 
balancing of interests during future forest planning processes. The 
final rule will allow local decision makers the flexibility to address 
roadless management based on changed local conditions, new unforeseen 
issues, and take into account state and local economic development 
plans. In addition, the final rule will provide local discretion during 
future forest planning efforts to explore roadless area management 
alternatives, unconstrained by the 2001 Roadless Rule, with local 
stakeholders, communities, and tribal governments.
    In selecting the final rule among the several alternatives 
considered, the USDA has given substantial weight to the State of 
Alaska's policy preferences as expressed in its Petition. The State of 
Alaska's preference to emphasize rural economic development 
opportunities is consistent with the findings of the Interagency Task 
Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity established by Executive 
Order 13790 issued April 25, 2017.\1\ The USDA recognizes that ensuring 
rural Americans can achieve a high quality of life is one of the 
foundations of prosperity.\2\ The State of Alaska's views on how to 
balance economic development and environmental protection offer 
valuable insight when making management decisions concerning NFS lands 
within Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Report to the President of the United States from the 
Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity (Oct. 21, 2017), 
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/rural-prosperity-report.pdf).
    \2\ See id. at 2, 21-25; see also id. at 26-29, 35-42 (calls to 
action for supporting a rural workforce and developing the rural 
economy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Southeast Alaska's rural communities have relied upon the Tongass 
for important natural resources and environmental opportunities 
supporting recreation, fishing, and the timber industries. In 
particular, the timber industry has historically played an important 
economic role in southeast Alaska's rural economy providing jobs in 
small and remote communities with high unemployment rates and limited 
employment opportunities. In these isolated communities, every job has 
impacts at household and community levels. Notably, the timber industry 
has faced sustained hardship during the past two decades, with rural 
communities suffering the socioeconomic consequences. The final rule 
will increase the number of acres available for timber harvest acres 
and improve overall flexibility in locating timber sales. In turn, this 
would provide additional opportunity for the struggling timber industry 
and support rural communities with limited employment opportunities 
without increasing the amount of overall timber harvested. USDA and the 
State of Alaska believe both roadless area conservation and other 
multiple-use values with important local socioeconomic consequences are 
meaningfully addressed through local and regional forest planning on 
the Tongass National Forest without 2001 Roadless Rule prohibitions on 
timber harvest and road construction/reconstruction.
    The USDA recognizes that the majority of Alaska Native tribes and

[[Page 68695]]

local communities throughout southeast Alaska support keeping the 2001 
Roadless Rule in place, as expressed in the multitude of resolutions 
and comment letters received during the 60-day comment period. USDA 
appreciates that not all local communities share the State of Alaska's 
views and has carefully considered the views and preferences provided 
by all the leaders and citizens that have participated through various 
public meetings and comment periods. The USDA urges those groups and 
individuals to regularly engage with the Tongass National Forest and 
Forest Service Alaska Region concerning forest planning efforts and 
project design. The lifting of the 2001 Roadless Rule on the Tongass 
National Forest in no way impedes citizen participation; rather, it 
affords interested parties the opportunity to work with the Forest 
Service to seek more efficient solutions that account for all 
interests.

Relationship of the Alaska Roadless Rule to the Forest Plan

    The NFMA requires the Forest Service to develop, maintain and, as 
appropriate, revise land and resource management plans for units of the 
NFS. Land management plans provide a framework for integrated resource 
management and for guiding project and activity decision-making, but 
plans do not authorize projects or activities or commit the Forest 
Service to take action. A revised Tongass Forest Plan was issued in 
1997 and amended in 2008 and 2016. Forest planning is a distinct and 
separate process from USDA's various roadless rulemakings.\3\ Excluding 
the Tongass from the 2001 Roadless Rule's prohibitions returns 
management discretion to the Agency's standard planning process. The 
existing Forest Plan provides adequate direction and protection of 
roadless characteristics such that retention of the 2001 Roadless Rule 
is not required. Future plan revisions will assure roadless 
characteristics are periodically assessed and management direction can 
be adjusted if warranted (increased, decreased or blended differently) 
in order to account for the best multiple use management possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F. 3d 1094, 1117 
n.20 (9th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Wilderness 
Society v. USFS, 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011); and Wyoming v. USDA, 
661 F.3d 1209, 1269-72 (10th Cir. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All forest plans must conform to existing laws and regulations as 
well as new laws and regulations. See 36 CFR 219.1(f) and 219.13(c). 
The USDA's previous roadless rules, national and state-specific, have 
directed that: (1) No amendment or revision of any forest plan was 
compelled by promulgation of such rules; (2) subsequent forest planning 
decisions could not revise the Secretary's regulatory instructions; and 
(3) line officers were to conform project decisions to the prohibitions 
and exceptions set forth in the applicable rules. The final rule 
continues this approach, with one exception necessitated by a single 
element of the 2016 Tongass Forest Plan Amendment.
    The final rule directs the Tongass Forest Supervisor to issue a 
ministerial Notice of Administrative Change pursuant to 36 CFR 
219.13(c) identifying plan changes made in conformance with the 
regulatory determinations of this subpart; specifically the rescission 
of the portion of the December 9, 2016, ROD concerning suitable timber 
lands attributed exclusively to implementation of the January 12, 2001, 
Roadless Area Conservation Rule (66 FR 3244). This administrative 
change is appropriate because the Region took the step in 2016 of 
amending the Tongass Forest Plan to directly implement the 2001 
Roadless Rule's timber harvesting prohibitions despite the 2001 
Roadless Rule's express admonition that it did not compel the amendment 
or revision of any land and resource management plan. See 2016 Tongass 
Forest Plan, Appendix A, page A-3, Appendix I, page I-177 (indicating 
all IRA were removed from the suitable land base during Stage 1 of the 
suitability analysis due to the 2001 Roadless Rule) and 36 CFR 
294.14(b) (directing that the 2001 Rule does not compel the amendment 
or revision of any land and resource management plan). The 2016 Forest 
Plan sought to directly implement the 2001 Roadless Rule prohibitions 
via the timber suitability analysis. Today's decision to rescind the 
2001 rule's prohibition as to the Tongass National Forest makes the 
2016 Amendment's effort to implement the 2001 rule's prohibitions 
obsolete. Because allowing the inconsistent portion of the 2016 
suitability designations to stand would effectively nullify the 
Department's regulatory choice to remove the 2001 timber harvest 
prohibitions, the final regulation gives an express regulatory 
instruction to conform the plan to the new regulatory regime. As 
explained in greater detail below, there is no requirement or credible 
justification that warrants undertaking additional planning efforts 
above and beyond the administrative change directed by this rulemaking. 
The administrative change simply provides conformance of the Forest 
Plan with the final rule in regard to lands suitable for timber 
production and does not change the level of timber harvest, how timber 
is harvested on the Tongass, or any other aspects of the Forest Plan.
    As previously noted, forest planning is a distinct and separate 
process from USDA's various roadless rulemakings. The referenced 2001 
Roadless Rule's scope and applicability language was designed to avoid 
conflicts between itself and forest plans, as well as avoiding 
unnecessary or duplicative administrative processes for the operation 
of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Just as it was unnecessary to immediately 
install the 2001 Roadless Rule's higher order prohibitions through 
individual plan amendments, it is unnecessary here to duplicate these 
rulemaking efforts through a separate plan amendment. Fortunately, the 
2012 NFMA planning regulations (36 CFR 219.13(c)) make provision for 
instances where overriding statutes or regulations change. The planning 
regulations direct that plans may be adjusted via notice of 
administrative change without resorting to the standard plan amendment 
process. The USDA is empowered to prescribe such regulations as it 
determines necessary and desirable to carry out the planning process 
(16 U.S.C. 1613) as well as to redeem and reconcile its regulations 
governing overall multiple use management responsibilities, including 
roadless matters.
    To promote clarity, transition language has been added to the final 
rule. The language is similar as was set out for the other action 
alternatives in the DEIS. The operational result will be that 188,000 
acres will be returned to the suitable timber base via the 
administrative change provision of the planning regulations (36 CFR 
219.13(c)). The revised transition language assures that all other 
aspects of the Tongass Forest Plan remain operational under the rule 
including the goals, objectives, management prescriptions, standards, 
guidelines, projected timber sale quantity, projected wood sale 
quantity, and the young-growth transition strategy. This includes 
direction for non-timber resources including riparian management 
standards and guidelines, which provide protection for fisheries with 
subsistence and commercial importance. Any timber harvest, including 
any timber harvesting in areas formerly designated as IRAs, would be 
compelled to adhere to these resource standards and guidelines 
including fish habitat, water quality, air, recreation, and other 
resources. Consistency with Forest Plan direction continues under all 
alternatives.

[[Page 68696]]

    Although the Forest Service has broad discretion to amend or revise 
forest plans management direction, any change would need to be 
consistent with applicable law, regulation, and policies. Any future 
forest plan amendments or revisions would include a public involvement 
process pursuant to the Agency's planning regulations and NEPA.

Public Comment Process

    The Forest Service published an NOI to prepare an EIS for the 
Alaska Roadless Rule in the Federal Register (83 FR 44252) on August 
30, 2018. The NOI initiated a 45-day scoping period which ended on 
October 15, 2018. During this time period, the Forest Service conducted 
17 public meetings including meetings in Anchorage, AK; Washington, DC; 
and communities throughout southeast AK: Angoon, Craig, Gustavus, 
Hoonah, Kake, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Point Baker, Sitka, Tenakee 
Springs, Thorne Bay, Wrangell, Yakutat, and two meetings in Juneau. 
During the scoping period, just over 144,000 comment letters or emails 
were received.
    On October 17, 2019, the Department published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking in the Federal Register (84 FR 55522) and on October 18, 
2019, an NOA for the DEIS was published (84 FR 55952). On October 25, 
2019 an amended NOA was published (84 FR 57417) which amended the 
comment closing date of the 60-day comment period to December 17, 2019. 
During the 60-day comment period, the Forest Service conducted 21 
public meetings including Anchorage, Alaska; Washington, DC; and 
southeast Alaska communities: Angoon, Craig, Gustavus, Haines, Hoonah, 
Hydaburg, Juneau, Kake, Kasaan, Ketchikan, Pelican, Petersburg, Point 
Baker, Sitka, Skagway, Tenakee Springs, Thorne Bay, Wrangell, and 
Yakutat. Approximately 267,000 comment letters or emails were received 
during the 60-day comment period, including 11 petitions containing 
about 117,000 signatures.

Cooperating Agencies

    On July 30, 2018, the Forest Service invited 32 Alaska federally 
recognized tribes to participate as cooperating agencies during the 
rulemaking process. Originally six tribes agreed to become cooperating 
agencies including Angoon Community Association, Central Council 
Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Hoonah Indian Association, 
Hydaburg Cooperative Association, Organized Village of Kake, and 
Organized Village of Kasaan. After the publication of the proposed rule 
(October 17, 2019), the Organized Village of Kake withdrew as a 
cooperating agency. After the publication of the FEIS (September 25, 
2020), the remaining tribal cooperating agencies, Angoon Community 
Association, Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, 
Hoonah Indian Association, Hydaburg Cooperative Association, and 
Organized Village of Kasaan withdrew as cooperating agencies.
    The State of Alaska agreed to become a cooperating agency on August 
2, 2018. Cooperating agencies participated throughout the rulemaking, 
providing their knowledge and expertise to design alternatives, analyze 
alternatives, and refine the analysis set out in the DEIS and FEIS.
    The Forest Service made several trips to several of the villages to 
work individually with tribal cooperators, provide technical expertise, 
and collect input. All tribal cooperators opposed the proposed rule 
(Alternative 6), however, were supportive of additional local control, 
increased opportunity for local forest product businesses, and limited 
increased access for a variety of local needs.
    Based on input from tribal cooperating agencies, USDA considered 
the use of the Alaska Native tribes' traditional use areas for the 
community use analysis boundaries in the development of the DEIS. USDA 
did not utilize the traditional use areas for the impact analysis 
because they are considerably larger than the community use areas. The 
use of larger analysis areas diffuses the impacts and the Agency wanted 
the impacts to be focused by community. The Agency added an appendix 
displaying the traditional use areas to recognize the importance of the 
traditional use areas to the Alaska Native tribes.
    The Agency revisited the analysis boundary issue between the DEIS 
and FEIS, and solicited subsistence use data by community from the 
State of Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game provided updated 
survey information from six communities regarding areas of subsistence 
gathering. Data indicate southeast Alaskans are traveling further for 
subsistence gathering, meaning the community use areas are larger. 
Again, the larger area would diffuse the impacts. The agency determined 
this would not be an improvement to the impact analysis and would make 
it more difficult for readers to determine the impacts.
    The USDA appreciates and recognizes the contributions of the five 
Alaska Native tribes who withdrew as cooperating agencies on October 
13, 2020. The USDA understands that the final rule is not the outcome 
the tribal cooperating agencies had hoped for, and the Department 
recognizes the concerns they expressed. The Department and Forest 
Service greatly value each tribal cooperating agency. The participation 
and advice of tribal cooperating agencies improved the analyses and 
alternatives. The Department's hope is that removal of the 2001 
Roadless Rule's blanket prohibitions will create space for more 
creative solutions that are sensitive to the diverse interests of 
Alaskan Native Tribal communities. As the tribal cooperating agencies' 
withdrawal letter eloquently suggests, the Department too desires to 
invest in solutions that will tend the land and serve the people.

Comments on the Proposed Rule

    Approximately 267,000 comments were received on the proposed rule 
and DEIS, including 11 petitions containing about 117,000 signatures, 
during the 60-day comment period. A large majority of written comments 
and oral subsistence testimony supported retaining the 2001 Roadless 
Rule on the Tongass National Forest. Notably, a significant proportion 
of the 267,000 comments letters were from outside Alaska. A significant 
proportion of southeast Alaska municipal and tribal governments 
submitted resolutions supporting the 2001 Roadless Rule's application 
on the Tongass National Forest. However, many of the State's elected 
officials, including the Governor, the federal delegation, and some 
municipal governments support changing the 2001 Roadless Rule. The USDA 
considered all substantive comments as part of the rulemaking, 
including testimony given at the subsistence hearings. The following is 
a summary of the comments received relating the final rule and the 
agency response. A full detailed response to comments is contained in 
Appendix H of the FEIS.
    Sec.  294.50 Tongass National Forest. No substantive comments were 
received in regard to the rule language for this section. Therefore, no 
changes were made to this section.
    Sec.  294.51 Chugach National Forest. Comments were received 
expressing concerns regarding the proposed administrative correction 
and boundary modification provisions for the Chugach National Forest. 
Commenters and cooperating agencies were concerned that the proposed 
provisions were too broad and could be used by the Forest Service to 
open significant portions of the Chugach to additional logging.
    Based on the experience of implementing the 2001 Roadless Rule,

[[Page 68697]]

boundary modifications are sometimes needed to account for errors, 
better mapping technology, land exchanges, etc. Thus, the two state-
specific roadless rules, Idaho and Colorado, have administrative 
correction and modification provisions (36 CFR 294.27 for Idaho and 36 
CFR 294.47 for Colorado) that operate differently than the 2001 
Roadless Rule. The intent of the administrative correction and 
modification provisions for Alternatives 2 through 5 was to align 
processes and install a single system for the two National Forests of 
Alaska. However, some members of the public expressed alarm that the 
provision could be used to entirely undo roadless protections on the 
Chugach National Forest. This was never USDA's intent. While alignment 
of administrative procedures between all state-specific roadless rules 
might have offered some administrative efficiencies for managing 
roadless boundaries nation-wide, the final rule gains some 
administrative efficiencies by fully removing roadless rule provisions 
for the Tongass National Forest.
    Section 294.51 has since been retitled as ``Transition,'' and now 
includes the instruction to the Tongass Forest supervisor to issue an 
administrative change in regard to the lands suitable for timber 
production. This provision was inadvertently not included in the 
Alternative 6 rule language but was included in Alternatives 2 through 
5 rule language and noted in the DEIS as applying to the final rule.
    Comments regarding perceived impropriety associated with the 
State's petition. Commenters expressed concern that the State developed 
the petition and the Secretary accepted the petition without public 
involvement, and that the petition was motivated by politics and 
outdated timber economics.
    The APA and USDA's implementing regulation (7 CFR 1.28) allows any 
interested person to petition the Secretary to change a regulation. 
There is no prescribed process for developing or responding to a 
petition other than that it must be given prompt consideration and the 
petitioner will be notified promptly of the disposition made of their 
petition. The Secretary has no control over the underlying motivations 
or data offered in support of a petition. However, once a petition is 
accepted, a rulemaking in response to a petition will be conducted in 
compliance with applicable law and regulations. The USDA has conducted 
this rulemaking in compliance with all applicable law and carefully 
considered the information provided by all those who participated in 
the various public meetings and comment periods. The Department has 
drawn its own conclusions based on the information provided by all 
parties and its own analysis.
    Comments on sufficiency of public outreach and involvement. 
Commenters raised concerns regarding whether the length of comment 
periods and the quantity and locations of public meetings were 
sufficient.
    The Forest Service conducted two cycles of public comment: the 
first was a 45-day scoping period from August 30, 2018, to October 15, 
2018, in which about 144,000 comment letters were received; and the 
second was a 60-day comment period on the proposed rule and DEIS from 
October 18, 2019, to December 17, 2019, which resulted in about 267,000 
comment letters. During the scoping period 17 public meetings were held 
and during the comment period 21 public meetings were held throughout 
southeast AK, Anchorage, AK, and Washington, DC. The USDA recognizes 
that many would have desired long scoping and comment periods. The 
length of the scoping and comment periods are standard for both the 
rulemaking and EIS processes. The robust meeting attendance and the 
411,000 total comments received indicates the timing and length were 
clearly adequate for many.
    Comments on consideration of public input. Commenters were 
concerned that input from the public was ignored because a large 
majority of comments supported retaining the 2001 Roadless Rule and 
opposed the full exemption, which was identified as the proposed rule 
and preferred alternative.
    The USDA values the comments received, and the concerns expressed 
during the rulemaking process. The USDA considered public comments 
received, the range of alternatives examined in the DEIS and FEIS, and 
input from cooperating agencies and elected officials. Public comments 
were utilized to craft the range of alternatives examined in the DEIS 
and FEIS, modify the alternatives between DEIS and FEIS, and modify 
analyses. The NEPA and rulemaking public comment process are not vote-
counting processes. Every comment has value, whether expressed by one 
individual or thousands. The public comment process considers the 
substance of each individual comment rather than the number received. 
No interest group's views or comments are given preferential treatment 
or consideration, and comments are considered without regard to their 
origin, commenter's affiliation, or number received. Based on the 
comments received, the Secretary reconsidered all alternatives and has 
opted for alternative 6, the full exemption alternative.
    Comments on tribal government-to-government consultation. 
Commenters expressed concern that tribal consultation was inadequate.
    In 2018, the Forest Service sent letters to the 32 federally 
recognized tribes and 27 Alaska Native corporations in southeast and 
southcentral Alaska to invite government-to-government and government-
to-corporation consultation. The in-region consultation invitation was 
continuous throughout the rulemaking process.
    The Alaska Region and the Tongass National Forest have an ongoing 
government-to-government relationship with all federally recognized 
tribes in southeast Alaska. The agency will continue to meet its 
responsibility to consult with federally recognized tribes and Alaska 
Native corporations through government-to-government and government-to-
corporation consultation on all topics. In addition to district 
rangers, Regional Office staff also met with tribes, tribal 
cooperators, and other interested parties to answer questions and 
provide information as requested when feasible. Forest and Regional 
Office staff provided briefings, information meetings, supported formal 
consultations, and formal public hearings in or within the vicinity of 
communities throughout southeast Alaska. Most tribal governments took 
advantage of these opportunities. To date, twelve government-to-
government consultations have occurred in association with this 
rulemaking effort.
    Comments on the State's Citizen Advisory Committee. Commenters 
expressed concerns regarding the composition and role of the committee 
in the rulemaking process, whether the committee had undue influence, 
and whether their involvement violated the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (FACA).
    The committee was established by the State of Alaska under an 
Administrative Order issued by Governor Walker in September 2018. The 
committee was charged with providing recommendations to assist the 
State of Alaska in fulfilling its role as a cooperating agency. The 
thirteen committee members were selected by Governor Walker, and the 
USDA and Forest Service had no part in the selection. The Forest 
Service provided an individual to participate on the committee as a 
non-voting member to provide procedural and technical information to 
the committee.
    The committee does not meet the definition of an advisory committee 
as

[[Page 68698]]

defined by the FACA implementing regulations at 41 CFR 102-3.25. The 
committee was established under state law by the Governor of Alaska. 
The committee reported directly to the Governor who submitted the 
committee's report to the USDA as part of the State's participation as 
a cooperating agency. Intergovernmental coordination with the Governor 
or his appointees is not subject to FACA. In any event, the USDA and 
Forest Service did not manage or control the committee's operation and 
did not utilize its work within the meaning of FACA. USDA's involvement 
with the committee was limited to non-voting participation, providing 
technical assistance. The committee did not have undue influence over 
the rulemaking process.
    Comments on support to the State of Alaska. Commenters expressed 
concern that granting funds to the State of Alaska to support the 
State's involvement in the Alaska roadless rulemaking process was a 
misuse of congressional appropriations.
    The agency provided the State of Alaska's Forestry Division with $2 
million from the fiscal year 2018 Consolidated Program Grant (CPG), 
Modification 2, utilizing the State Fire Assistance budget line item as 
the source code. The modification discussed the specific use of the 
funding, which could be used for: convening and facilitating a group 
with a diverse mix of state-specific interests to inform the State's 
input as a cooperating agency, public meetings, cooperating agency 
support, economic analysis and planning, and to coordinate the proposed 
state rule with existing land management planning efforts in progress 
within the State of Alaska. A subsequent modification has been executed 
utilizing $1.3 million of the funding to undertake wildland fire risk 
reduction projects in several Alaska communities, primarily 
construction of fuel breaks and maintenance of established fuel breaks. 
USDA Office of the Inspector General has been asked to investigate this 
matter and the agency is cooperating with the investigation.
    Comments on the need to change from the 2001 Roadless Rule. 
Commenters highlight that the DEIS projects minimal benefit for the 
forest products industry and thus contend that the analysis does not 
support the conclusion that eliminating the roadless rule will support 
rural economic development. In addition, commenters questioned any need 
for change and rationale in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 
support a change.
    USDA's approach to rural economic development is a long-term multi-
faceted strategy outlined in the Report to the President of the United 
States from the Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity (October 
21, 2017), which includes regulatory reform, increasing the production 
of natural resources, modernizing rural utilities, and improving 
transportation infrastructure. The final rule reduces the regulatory 
barrier to achieving these aspects of USDA's strategy for rural 
economic development. Although there is only a minimal benefit from the 
final rule to the forest products industry at this time, small 
incremental change can help achieve rural prosperity over the long-
term. The final rule is a step in the right direction for rural 
prosperity.
    Comments on a local approach for roadless management. Commenters 
questioned the proposed rule's assertion that the Tongass should be 
managed locally suggesting it ignores the Forest Service's 2001 
conclusion that national rulemaking was needed to protect roadless 
areas.
    As noted above, the unique circumstances of the Tongass National 
Forest have been recognized and assessed since the 2001 rulemaking. 
Then, as now, inclusion of the Tongass National Forest under the 
national rule was not mandatory but represented a policy choice, as did 
the national rule itself. In 2001 the Department eventually opted for 
inclusion of the Tongass National Forest. In 2008 and 2012, two other 
states requested and were granted the opportunity to discontinue 
operation under the national rule. Today, the USDA concludes that the 
interests furthered by the national rule are not improperly undone by 
exempting a single forest that is now, and will remain for the 
foreseeable future, substantially undeveloped and roadless. The 
estimate of 49 miles of additional road construction (from 994 to 
1,043) spread across 9 million acres of land, over the next 100 years, 
will not undo the national rule's underlying goal of protecting 
roadless area characteristics within the NFS, and moreover are well 
within the USDA's discretion to further in light of the mix of mandates 
and policy discretion embodied in the relevant governing statutory 
provisions.
    Comments on the administrative change procedure. Commenters were 
concerned with the administrative change instruction for the lands 
suitable for timber production in the Forest Plan, alleging it is 
inconsistent with the National Forest System Land Management Planning 
regulations at 36 CFR part 219 (2012 Planning Rule) and would require 
an amendment. In addition, commenters were concerned that the agency 
did not include this aspect of the rule during scoping.
    The administrative change provision at 36 CFR 219.13(c) clearly 
states that an administrative change includes changes to conform to new 
regulatory requirements. Although the provision was not expressly 
included in the proposed action during scoping, it was highlighted in 
the DEIS and conforms to the requirements of the NEPA implementing 
regulations.
    Comments on subsistence mitigation. Commenters allege that the 
Forest Service violated ANILCA and NEPA by refusing to consider 
updating the roadless inventory to include lands important to the 
Organized Village of Kake, mitigation measures proposed by Kake, and 
allowing a greater management role for Kake in their traditional 
territory.
    The roadless inventories were updated and additional areas were 
included in Alternatives 2 and 3 as designated Alaska Roadless Areas. 
All unroaded areas were reviewed and some areas identified in the 2003 
and 2008 roadless analyses associated with Tongass forest planning 
efforts were included. In addition, small islands previously excluded 
from roadless designation were included if not substantially altered.
    Mitigation measures such as identifying specific road segments, 
selling carbon credits, and workforce development are outside the scope 
of the Alaska roadless rulemaking, which is programmatic and does not 
evaluate projects or partnerships.
    Co-management of the Tongass National Forest with tribal partners 
was considered as an alternative but eliminated from detailed analysis 
as it does not comport with existing legal authorities.
    Comments on the site-specificity and qualitative nature of the 
impact analyses. The analyses in the FEIS are a generalized review 
which the Council on Environmental Quality recognizes as appropriate 
for any broad or high-level NEPA review of proposed policies, plans, 
programs, or projects. It is reasonable and efficient to limit detailed 
site-specific impact analyses to when specific proposals are brought 
before the agency. Locations of potential timber harvest and road 
construction are not known at this time. While locations of other 
developments, such as a regional energy or transportation project, may 
be more predictable based on published information, it is not known if, 
when, or specifically where they would occur. When specific timber 
harvest or other

[[Page 68699]]

projects are proposed, site-specific NEPA analysis and required pubic 
involvement would be conducted at that time. No on-the-ground actions 
are authorized by the final rule.
    Comments on the adequacy of the impact analyses. Commenters 
variously questioned the adequacy of the impact analyses, disagreed 
with the conclusions made, and contended that the effects are 
understated. Commenters noted the obvious impacts of past timber 
harvesting and road construction as evidence the impacts were 
understated. In addition, commenters noted that the basis of the 2001 
Roadless Rule was the recognition that timber harvesting and road 
construction were impactful to roadless area values and 
characteristics.
    USDA does not dispute that timber harvesting and road construction 
impact roadless area values and characteristics. However, the impact 
analyses in the Rulemaking for Alaska Roadless Areas DEIS and FEIS do 
not analyze the effects of harvesting timber and constructing roads in 
a specific roadless area. Rather, the DEIS and FEIS analyze the 
difference in effects under the 2001 Roadless Rule, the current Tongass 
Forest Plan, and the other action alternatives. The baseline for 
comparison of alternatives is not a pristine wilderness. Rather it is 
the continuation or adjustment of current management. Under the 2001 
Roadless Rule and Tongass Forest Plan, the Forest Service projects the 
harvest of about 46 MMBF of timber per year across 227,000 available 
acres of old-growth and 334,000 available acres of young-growth lands 
with about 994 miles of new road construction across the 100-year 
analysis period. Under the final rule (Alternative 6) the agency 
projects the harvest of about 46 MMBF of timber per year across 395,000 
available acres of old-growth and 354,000 available acres of young-
growth lands with about 1,043 miles of new road construction across the 
100-year analysis period.
    In addition, the impact analyses considered the continuation of the 
young-growth transition strategy in all alternatives analyzed, 
including the no-action alternative and the final rule alternative. The 
young-growth transition strategy defines a 16-year period starting in 
2016 in which the old-growth contribution to the projected timber sale 
quantity decreases over time as young-growth matures and becomes more 
economical to harvest. At year 16, the old-growth contribution to the 
projected timber sale quantity would stabilize at 5 MMBF per year. The 
young-growth transition strategy has a large beneficial environmental 
effect on roadless areas because it shifts the focus of the Tongass 
timber sale program to young-growth areas which are largely already 
roaded. In addition, the smaller contribution of old-growth to the 
projected timber sale quantity makes roadless areas less economical 
because there are fewer acres of old-growth to off-set the high cost of 
road construction in the Tongass National Forest. Old-growth is 
generally more profitable than young-growth to harvest due to higher 
volume per acre and the higher value of the larger trees. The impact 
analyses in the FEIS is reflective of the small change between the 
baseline and the action alternatives, and the impact of the young-
growth transition strategy.
    Comments on cost-benefit analysis. Commenters expressed concern 
about the cost-benefit analysis using changes in suitable old-growth 
and young-growth acres as an indicator for potential displacement of 
recreationists interested in primitive recreation experiences. 
Primitive recreation is a class of recreation utilized to describe and 
manage recreation opportunities. Primitive recreation opportunities 
occur more than 3 miles from a road or motorized trail; in areas 
generally greater than 5,000 acres; where social setting provide for 
less than 6 party encounters on a trail; and are non-motorized, 
typically include hiking, horse packing, fishing, hunting, and camping. 
There was concern about the methodology used to measure adverse visitor 
impacts. Commenters sought consideration of scenic values in the cost-
benefit analysis. Commenters also sought a cost-benefit economic 
analysis that uses best available science to assess socioeconomic 
impacts of each alternative as well as analysis of the socioeconomic 
value and impact on fisheries, ecotourism, special use permits, 
recreation, game populations, and subsistence resources. Other 
commenters expressed concern about the inclusion of harvesting costs 
(felling, yarding, and loading) and recreation expenditures, as a 
distributional impact, in the cost-benefit analysis.
    In response to public comment, the analysis of recreation 
visitation related displacement and associated expenditures, in the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), has been updated based on new 
information received during proposed and final rule preparation. Scenic 
values, game species, and subsistence are discussed qualitatively in 
the RIA and examined in more detail in the EIS. A cost-benefit analysis 
has also been included in the RIA with new data and information 
received during proposed and final rule preparation. This analysis 
includes benefits from a more efficiently managed timber sale program 
alongside agency costs, forgone conservation value, and costs of 
potentially displaced recreationists. The revised RIA includes 
discussion and analysis of costs from felling, yarding, and loading 
timber and acknowledges their limited scope alongside other costs to 
the timber industry and costs to the agency from road maintenance. In 
addition, detail has been added to the RIA, noting that road cost 
changes before and after 2011 were twice as high during the exemption, 
and the relevance of these costs alongside haul cost savings. Potential 
recreation related revenue losses can be considered distributional if 
there are substitute opportunities in southeast Alaska or on the 
Tongass National Forest. However, in some cases visitors may choose to 
not come to southeast Alaska due to impacts from harvesting and road 
construction; thus, these estimates are appropriate for inclusion in 
the costs and benefits analysis.
    Comments on ecosystem services. Commenters sought an effects 
analysis disclosing how the rule will directly and indirectly impact 
ecosystem services in the region, including economic cost and benefits 
related to impacts on ecosystem services. There was concern that 
exemption from the rule could lead to removal of trees and damage to 
ecosystems which can adversely impact ecosystem services.
    In response to the comments received, additional qualitative 
information and discussion related to biological and physical ecosystem 
services values has been added to the RIA between proposed and final 
rule preparation. In addition, the cost-benefit analysis includes 
quantitative estimates of forgone conservation value, from peer 
reviewed research designed to facilitate the consideration of ecosystem 
services in land management. Cost of forgone conservation value are 
applied to the net-change in suitable old-growth acres across the 
alternatives. While only a portion of suitable acres will be harvested, 
the analysis includes an upper estimate of value associated with all 
suitable old-growth acres and a lower estimate assuming all suitable 
old-growth acres would be harvested over 100 years. This range of 
estimates accounts for uncertainty application of value associated with 
conservation demand.
    Comments on road costs. Commenters sought cost data for road 
building and maintenance (per mile) in the areas considered for 
exemption from the rule.
    The RIA for the final rule includes new information on road costs. 
Road construction and decommissioning

[[Page 68700]]

costs are not considered since it is unlikely that they would be paid 
by the agency given the influence of the limited export policy. In 
2007, the Forest Service approved a limited export policy, and this 
boost to appraised values has made rare the construction of roads by 
the agency in advance of timber sales. Road maintenance costs are 
considered quantitatively in the cost-benefit analysis of the final 
rule and regulatory alternatives.
    Comments on agency costs. Commenters were concerned that the 
reduction in expenses from exempting the Tongass from the 2001 Roadless 
Rule were not quantified. In addition, commenters disagreed with the 
assertion that the rule would not increase agency costs because it 
would not increase timber harvest levels and sought a more 
comprehensive estimate of anticipated agency costs and losses from 
below-cost timber sales. In addition, commenters asserted that analysis 
should include an overall assessment of the Tongass timber program 
costs including road costs. In addition, commenters noted the agency 
costs section should also include the estimated cost for conducting 
this rulemaking.
    Details on agency costs from road maintenance have been added to 
the RIA for the final rule in the RIA section called ``Agency Costs 
including Control of Regulatory Costs''. Detailed analysis of 
reductions in environmental compliance cost are not possible. This 
final rule and the regulatory alternatives are programmatic, meaning 
that they establish direction for broad land areas, rather than 
schedule specific activities in specific locations. None of the 
alternatives authorize any site-specific projects or other ground-
disturbing activities and, therefore, it is not possible to estimate 
future activities and subsequent marginal changes in environmental 
activities. However, potential incremental reductions in compliance 
costs are noted in the RIA for the final rule. The cost of rulemaking 
is the cost of managing NFS lands as a part of normal agency operation 
and exists as part of the baseline 2001 roadless rule so there are not 
incremental costs.
    Comments on recreation and tourism. Some commenters suggested that 
the recreation-related assessment provided in the RIA understated 
potential impacts to the visitor industry because it considers only 
changes in suitable timber acres and does not address indirect effects 
to adjacent areas, whereas, timber harvest and road construction have 
the potential to affect much larger areas than the area that is logged. 
In addition, commenters expressed concern that the Forest Service did 
not analyze the corresponding effects on rural communities from the 
displacement of outfitters, guides, and tour operators.
    The analysis of recreation in the RIA for the final rule is not a 
site-specific review; rather, it uses available information to 
illustrate broad patterns of use and differentiate between the 
regulatory alternatives. It assumes all visitation, and half of 
visitation, is displaced under the highest level of timber suitability 
designation, under the final rule, to provide an upper- and lower 
estimate of displacement, for a broad orders of magnitude comparison 
with other costs and benefits. Assuming all visitation is displaced 
considers not just effects on visitation occurring physically on lands 
suitable for timber production but also effects on visitation in other 
areas. The revised analysis also includes assessing the economic 
importance of nature-based tourism in southeast Alaska, as measured by 
business revenue, from data collected by the University of Alaska, 
Anchorage.
    Comments on the DEIS climate and carbon analysis. Commenters were 
concerned that the DEIS analysis did not utilize the best available 
science and the qualitative nature of the analysis is not sufficient.
    The climate and carbon analysis in the DEIS and FEIS is based on 
the best available science on carbon stocks and fluxes, and is 
consistent with the latest literature including the Pacific Northwest 
Research Station's Science Findings that became available after 
publication of the DEIS (Forestry as a Natural Climate Solution: The 
Positive Outcomes of Negative Carbon Emissions, March 2020). The DEIS 
and FEIS analysis utilized Forest Inventory and Analysis data sets 
specific to the Tongass National Forest to assess forest carbon stocks 
and disturbance trends over a recent 20-year period. The influence of 
potential future climate on the Forest was detailed using recent global 
circulation model projections and relevant scientific literature 
detailing climate impacts.
    The foreseeable impacts of the final rule on carbon emissions and 
forest carbon stocks are extremely small because the level of timber 
harvesting is expected to be the same between implementation of the 
2001 Roadless Rule and a full exemption. Therefore, a qualitative 
approach is appropriate and sufficient.
    Comments on the DEIS timber analysis--level of harvest. Commenters 
were concerned that the timber analysis assumed no increased level of 
timber harvest.
    The level of harvest used in the DEIS and FEIS timber analysis is 
based on the Forest Plan projected timber sale quantity of 46 MMBF feet 
per year. This is a reasonable, conservative assumption for the 
analysis because it is based on estimates of long-term market demands. 
The Tongass National Forest actual volume sold was approximately 30.9 
MMBF in fiscal year 2017, 9.3 MMBF in fiscal year 2018, and 5.6 MMBF in 
fiscal year 2019. Thus, 46 MMBF remains a reasonable estimate to 
utilize for effects analyses based on volume sold since 2016, when the 
forest plan was most recently amended, and more importantly it remains 
the agency's best estimate despite a few years of lower harvest levels.
    The USDA recognizes the projected timber sale quantity is not a 
cap, like the allowable sale quantity from the 1982 Planning Rule. It 
is only an estimate, and at this time it is the agency's best estimate.
    The agency has no reason to believe harvest levels will increase 
from the 2016 Forest Plan annual projected timber sale quantity based 
on implementation of the final rule. Although, the final rule will 
increase the acres of old-growth available for harvest by about 168,000 
acres, this opportunity is likely to be constrained by the 
implementation of the young-growth transition strategy and the 
economics of timber harvesting in general. As previously mentioned, 
after 2032 the transition old-growth timber harvest will be limited to 
5 MMBF per year, at which point entry into roadless areas will become 
less attractive because there will be fewer high-volume acres to off-
set the cost of new road construction. As the young-growth matures and 
becomes a greater proportion of the annual harvest, the Tongass timber 
sale program will become more focused on previously roaded areas, where 
the majority of the young-growth stands exist. In addition, between 
2003 and 2011 when the Tongass National Forest was exempted from the 
2001 Roadless Rule, only about 300 acres of timber were harvested 
within IRAs. This indicates that there will likely not be a rush to 
harvest old growth within roadless areas under the final rule.
    Comments on the DEIS timber analysis--distribution of harvest. 
Commenters were concerned that the DEIS timber analysis assumed old-
growth and young-growth harvest would be evenly disturbed across 
suitable acres. Commenters were concerned this made it difficult to 
fully

[[Page 68701]]

understand the impacts of the alternatives to a community.
    Based on these concerns, the timber analysis was refined to 
estimate where old growth is most likely to be harvested within the 
suitable acreage over the next 100 years. Estimates considered timber 
sale economics, old-growth volume, and timber sale history on the 
Tongass National Forest. The result of the analysis is a shift of 
expected timber harvest from the northern ranger districts to the 
southern ranger districts. The biggest declines in the north are in the 
Sitka and Hoonah ranger districts, and the largest increases are in the 
Thorne Bay and Petersburg ranger districts.
    Comments regarding environmental justice. Commenters expressed 
concerns that tribal members rely on roadless areas for food security, 
cultural practices, and their traditional way of life and that the 
final rule would disproportionately impact them, which would be a 
violation of environmental justice principles.
    The final rule is programmatic and, as such, does not schedule 
specific activities in specific locations. The final rule will increase 
the acres available for timber harvest, but harvest levels are expected 
to remain the same as they would under the 2001 Roadless Rule. The 
amount of new or reconstructed road miles is expected to be similar as 
the 2001 Roadless Rule. This makes it challenging to evaluate the 
effects of the final rule on communities or populations. However, the 
Civil Rights Impact Analysis (Departmental Regulation 4300-004) 
recognizes that although the rule itself does not have a 
disproportionate effect on any specific population, specific activities 
associated with implementation of the Forest Plan within roadless areas 
can have environmental justice implications. An opportunity for review 
for environmental justice concerns will be available if and when 
activities are proposed, and specific locations and extent are defined.

Regulatory Certifications

Regulatory Planning and Review

    The OMB determined this rulemaking to be a significant regulatory 
action as it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of 
legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth 
in Executive Order 12866. The agency has prepared a regulatory 
requirements analysis of impacts and discussion of benefits and costs 
of the final rule.
    The final rule exempting the Tongass National Forest from the 2001 
Roadless Rule will provide additional opportunities for timber harvest 
and road construction to occur; however, it does not materially affect 
the total quantity of timber expected to be harvested or miles of new 
roads constructed. As to timber harvest activities, the final rule 
would increase the flexibility for land managers to locate and design 
timber sales. Improved flexibility could, in turn, improve the Forest 
Service's ability to offer economic sales that meet timber industry 
needs and contribute to rural economies. While many factors can 
influence the cost of timber harvest, areas along existing roads or 
those using marine access facilities are typically more economically 
efficient, followed by areas where existing roads can be easily 
extended. The most expensive harvesting costs are associated with areas 
without existing road or marine access facilities.
    Cost savings from improved flexibility for timber harvest 
activities would accrue alongside other benefits, including reduced 
costs for leasable mineral availability and increased potential for 
development of renewable energy and transportation projects. While many 
of these activities were allowed under the 2001 Roadless Rule, industry 
advocates believe that the 2001 Roadless Rule discouraged private 
sector investment in projects within roadless areas. Although it is 
difficult to estimate the extent of investments that did not occur due 
to fear of regulatory burden, the perception of this does affect the 
level of investment, and the final rule will eliminate that concern.
    Stumpage value benefits are quantified alongside agency road 
maintenance costs, cost of forgone conservation value, estimated lost 
revenue to outfitters and guides from visitors potentially displaced by 
annual harvest of suitable young- and old-growth, and forgone value of 
access to recreationists not using outfitter and guides. Dollars spent 
by visitors are not necessarily lost but subject to displacement-
related changes. Some businesses may lose revenue if visitors choose 
not to travel to southeast Alaska, but others may see increases in 
revenue if visitors choose to stay longer or travel to substitute sites 
within southeast Alaska. Discounted upper bound estimates of net 
present value are positive for the final rule and regulatory 
alternatives.

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Consideration of Small Entities

    The USDA certifies that the final rule does not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as determined 
in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis because the final rule does not 
directly subject small entities to regulatory requirements. Therefore, 
notification to the Small Business Administration's Chief Council for 
Advocacy is not required pursuant to Executive Order 13272. A number of 
small and large entities may experience time or money savings as a 
result of flexibility provided by the final rule, or otherwise benefit 
from activities on NFS lands under the final rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not require any additional record keeping, 
reporting requirements, or other information collection requirements as 
defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already approved for use and, 
therefore, imposes no additional paperwork on the public. Accordingly, 
the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do 
not apply.

Regulatory Risk Assessment

    A risk assessment is only required under 7 U.S.C. 2204e for a 
``major'' rule, the primary purpose of which is to regulate issues of 
human health, human safety, or the environment. The statute (Pub. L. 
103-354, Title III, Section 304) defines ``major'' as any regulation 
the Secretary of Agriculture estimates is likely to have an impact on 
the U.S. economy of $100 million or more as measured in 1994 dollars. 
Economic effects of the final rule are estimated to be less than $100 
million per year.

Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs, issued January 30, 2017, requires that significant 
new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the 
elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior 
regulations.
    The final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 
13771 on reducing regulation and controlling regulatory costs and is 
considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.

Federalism

    The USDA has considered the final rule in context of Executive 
Order 13132, Federalism, issued August 4, 1999. The USDA has determined 
the final rule conforms with federalism principles set out in Executive 
Order 13132, would not impose any compliance costs on any state, and

[[Page 68702]]

would not have substantial direct effects on states, on the 
relationship between the National Government and the State of Alaska, 
or any other state, nor on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the 
USDA concludes that this final rule does not have federalism 
implications. The final rule is based on a petition submitted by the 
State of Alaska under the APA (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) and pursuant to USDA 
regulations at 7 CFR 1.28. The final rule responds to the State of 
Alaska's petition, considers public comment received during the Forest 
Service's public comment periods, and considers input received from 
cooperating agencies. The State of Alaska is a cooperating agency 
pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6 of the Council on Environmental Quality 
regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the NEPA.

No Takings Implications

    The USDA has considered the final rule in context with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights, issued March 15, 1988. The USDA has determined that 
the final rule does not pose the risk of a taking of private property 
because it only applies to management of NFS lands and contains 
exemptions that prevent the taking of constitutionally protected 
private property.

Consultation With Indian Tribal Governments

    On July 30, 2018, the Forest Service initiated government-to-
government consultation with 32 Alaska federally recognized tribes and 
27 Alaska Native corporations, and invited them to participate as 
cooperating agencies during the rulemaking process. Six tribes 
initially agreed to become a cooperating agency including Angoon 
Community Association, Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes 
of Alaska, Hoonah Indian Association, Hydaburg Cooperative Association, 
Organized Village of Kake, and Organized Village of Kasaan. The 
Organized Village of Kake withdrew as a cooperating agency after 
publication of the proposed rule, and the remaining tribal cooperating 
agencies withdrew after the publication of the FEIS in collective 
protest over the identification of the full exemption alternative as 
the preferred alternative in the FEIS. Periodic cooperating agency 
meetings were held throughout the rulemaking process that included the 
tribal cooperating agencies. Furthermore, government-to-government 
consultations occurred by request and twelve consultation meetings were 
held throughout the rulemaking process. Two of the twelve government-
to-government consultation meetings were conducted by USDA Under 
Secretary James Hubbard and the remaining ten meetings were conducted 
by the Alaska Region of the Forest Service.
    On July 21, 2020, the Secretary of Agriculture received a petition 
from nine southeast Alaska Tribal governments, requesting the United 
States government to commence a new rulemaking in collaboration with 
Tribes to create a Traditional Homelands Conservation Rule to identify 
and protect traditional and customary uses of the Tlingit, Haida, and 
Tsimshian peoples in the Tongass National Forest. This petition also 
requests the USDA create a new process for engaging in consultation 
with Tribes based on the principle of ``mutual concurrence''. The 
petition states that it was submitted in response to the Tribes' 
experience in the Alaska Roadless Rulemaking process and their belief 
that their contributions were not adequately considered. The petition 
is currently under review by the Secretary.
    The final rule was reviewed in accordance with the requirements of 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments. Executive Order 13175 requires federal agencies to consult 
and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on 
policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, 
legislative comments, or proposed legislation, and other policy 
statements or actions that may have substantial direct effects on one 
or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
    The USDA's Office of Tribal Relations assessed the impact of the 
final rule on Indian tribes and determined the final rule has tribal 
implications that require continued outreach efforts in the 
implementation of the final rule to determine if tribal consultation 
under Executive Order 13175 is required. To date, as part of the 
regulatory review process noted above, the Forest Service conducted 
various outreach efforts to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, 
villages, and corporations regarding the development of this final 
rule, and the tribal cooperation in this process.
    If a tribe requests consultation, the Forest Service will work with 
the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation 
is provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified 
herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.

Civil Justice Reform

    The USDA reviewed the final rule in context of Executive Order 
12988. The USDA has not identified any state or local laws or 
regulations that conflict with the final rule or would impede full 
implementation of the rules. However, if the rule is adopted, all state 
and local laws and regulations that conflict with this rule or would 
impede full implementation of this rule would be preempted. No 
retroactive effect would be given to this rule, and the final rule 
would not require the use of administrative proceedings before parties 
could file suit in court.

Unfunded Mandates

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the USDA has 
assessed the effects of the final rule on state, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. The final rule does not compel the 
expenditure of $100 million or more by any state, local, or tribal 
government, or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement 
under section 202 of the Act is not required.

Energy Effects

    The USDA has considered the final rule in context of Executive 
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, issued May 18, 2001. The USDA has 
determined the final rule does not constitute a significant energy 
action as defined in Executive Order 13211. Therefore, a statement of 
energy effects is not required.

E-Government Act

    The USDA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to 
promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to 
provide increased opportunities for citizen access to government 
information and services, and for other purposes.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 294

    National forests, Navigation (air), Recreation areas, Roadless area 
management.


0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the USDA amends part 294 of 
title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding subpart E, 
consisting of Sec. Sec.  294.50 and 294.51, to read as follows:

[[Page 68703]]

PART 294--SPECIAL AREAS

Subpart E--Alaska Roadless Areas Management

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


Sec.  294.50   Tongass National Forest.

    Subpart B of this part, revised as of July 1, 2001, shall not apply 
to the Tongass National Forest.


Sec.  294.51   Transition.

    The Tongass Forest Supervisor shall issue a ministerial Notice of 
Administrative Change pursuant to 36 CFR 219.13(c) identifying plan 
changes made in conformance with the regulatory determinations of this 
subpart; specifically, the portion of the December 9, 2016, Record of 
Decision concerning suitable timber lands attributed exclusively to 
implementation of the January 12, 2001, Roadless Area Conservation Rule 
(see 36 CFR part 294, revised as of July 1, 2001) shall be designated 
as suitable.

    Dated: October 26, 2020.
Stephen Censky,
Deputy Secretary of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2020-23984 Filed 10-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411-15-P