[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5252-5272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01483]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 294

RIN 0596-AD51


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

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule and record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA or Department) is 
repealing an October 2020 rule (the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule) that 
exempted the Tongass National Forest (the Tongass) from the 2001 
Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). Repealing the 
2020 Alaska Roadless Rule will reinstate the pre-existing management 
regime, which prohibited timber harvest and road construction/
reconstruction with limited exceptions within designated Inventoried 
Roadless Areas (IRAs).

DATES: This rule is effective January 27, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Krueger, Interdisciplinary Team 
Leader, at 202-649-1189 or [email protected]. Individuals 
using telecommunication devices for the deaf

[[Page 5253]]

(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: 

Background

    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 the 2001 Roadless Rule (66 FR 
3244), 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 intent 
of the 2001 Roadless Rule is to provide lasting protection for IRAs in 
the context of overall multiple-use land management.
    During the development of the 2001 Roadless Rule, the Forest 
Service analyzed an alternative that would have exempted the Tongass 
from the Rule's application, but in the final rulemaking, the 
Department applied the Rule to the Tongass, with an additional 
mitigation measure designed to protect natural resources and 
accommodate an adjustment to the timber program in Southeast Alaska to 
focus harvest activities outside of designated inventoried roadless 
areas. In 2003, the Department reversed that decision and exempted the 
Tongass from the 2001 Roadless Rule (68 FR 75136, December 30, 2003). 
The 2003 rulemaking was later overturned by the U.S. District Court for 
the District of Alaska and the 2001 Roadless Rule was reinstated on the 
Tongass (with special instructions). See Organized Village of Kake v. 
USDA, 776 F. Supp. 2d 960 (D. Alaska, 2011). That decision was appealed 
by the State of Alaska, and ultimately the District Court's ruling was 
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the 
Supreme Court declined further review. See Organized Village of Kake v. 
USDA, 795 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc), cert denied sub. nom 
Alaska v. Organized Village of Kake, Alaska, 577 U.S. 1234 (2016).
    Following the reinstatement of the 2001 Roadless Rule on the 
Tongass in 2011, the State of Alaska filed a new lawsuit in the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the legality of 
the 2001 Roadless Rule, both nationwide and as applied within Alaska. 
Ultimately, the District Court ruled that the State had not shown that 
USDA violated any Federal statute in promulgating the 2001 Roadless 
Rule, see Alaska v. USDA, 273 F. Supp. 3d 102 (D.D.C. 2017). The State 
appealed the ruling, but the appeal was subsequently held in abeyance 
(temporarily placed on hold) pending resolution of the State's 
rulemaking petition discussed immediately below. Following promulgation 
of the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule, the Federal Government filed a motion 
with the D.C. Circuit to dismiss the appeal and vacate the underlying 
District Court ruling on the basis of mootness. On November 16, 2021, 
the D.C. Circuit dismissed the State of Alaska's challenge to the 2001 
Roadless Rule, directing that Alaska's claims regarding application of 
the Roadless Rule to the Tongass be dismissed as moot, those portions 
of the District Court's decision regarding the Tongass be vacated, and 
the remaining claims on appeal (regarding the Chugach National Forest) 
be dismissed for lack of standing, see Alaska v. USDA, 17 F.4th 1224 
(D.C. Cir. 2021).
    On January 19, 2018, the State of Alaska submitted a rulemaking 
petition to Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue pursuant to the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In the petition, the State 
requested that USDA consider creation of a state-specific rule to 
exempt the Tongass from the 2001 Roadless Rule and conduct a forest 
plan revision or amendment for the Tongass. In June 2018, Secretary 
Perdue accepted the State's petition and agreed to review the State's 
concerns on roadless area management. The Secretary then directed the 
Forest Service to move forward with a State-specific roadless rule. The 
Secretary did not commit to the State's request for a forest plan 
revision or amendment. A proposed state-specific rule and draft 
environmental impact statement (DEIS) were issued in October 2019. USDA 
released a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in September 
2020 (the 2020 FEIS) and published the final rule exempting the Tongass 
from the 2001 Roadless Rule on October 29, 2020 (85 FR 68688, part 294 
of title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), subpart E). That 
rule will be referred to as the ``2020 Alaska Roadless Rule.''
    At the time of rulemaking in 2020, USDA stated that land use 
designations, standards, and guidelines in the 2016 Tongass Land 
Management Forest Plan (2016 Forest Plan), along with other 
conservation measures, would assure protection of roadless values on 
the Tongass while offering modest additional flexibility to achieve 
other multiple-use benefits.
    On January 20, 2021, President Biden directed all executive 
departments and agencies to immediately review and, as appropriate and 
consistent with applicable law, take action to address the promulgation 
of Federal regulations during the prior four years that may conflict 
with important national objectives including protecting the 
environment, and to immediately commence work to confront the climate 
crisis (Executive Order 13990). On January 26, 2021, President Biden 
directed all Federal agencies to review Tribal consultation policies 
and practices and recommit to more robust nation-to-nation 
relationships and respect for our Federal trust responsibilities 
(Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation 
Relationships). On November 23, 2021 (86 FR 66498), the USDA proposed 
to repeal the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule. The USDA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for repeal of the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule 
and requested comments, thus initiating a comment period ending January 
24, 2022 (86 FR 66498, November 23, 2021). Approximately 112,000 
comment documents were received, of which about 9,000 were unique 
submissions; the majority of these comments were in favor of the 
proposed repeal. In addition to the comments, 14 petitions with over 
130,000 names attached were received, all in favor of repeal. The 
Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service invited consultation 
with 19 tribes in Southeast Alaska regarding the repeal of the 2020 
Alaska Roadless Rule. Four formal consultation sessions were held 
beginning in July 2021 with 12 of the 19 tribes represented in at least 
one session. The Tribes represented at these consultations expressed 
their desire to return to the 2001 Roadless Rule as quickly and 
expeditiously as administratively possible.

Decision

    The USDA hereby repeals the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule and returns 
roadless management on the Tongass to the regulatory regime previously 
in force, resulting in the reinstatement of the 2001 Roadless Rule as 
provided for in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska's 
Judgement in Organized Village of Kake v. USDA, 776 F. Supp. 2d 960 (D. 
Alaska 2011). This rulemaking is not subject to pre-decisional 
administrative objection regulations set out in 36 CFR part 218 or 219 
as it is neither a project nor plan level decision.

[[Page 5254]]

Alternatives Considered

    As discussed below in the section titled ``National Environmental 
Policy Act,'' the USDA has determined that the 2020 FEIS adequately 
analyzes the environmental effects of this final rule and has relied on 
that FEIS in issuing this rule.
    The 2020 FEIS analyzes six alternatives. Alternative 1 was the no 
action alternative in the 2020 FEIS and would maintain the 2001 
Roadless Rule, as prescribed in the Alaska District Court's Judgement. 
Alternative 1 would maintain the designation of 9,368,000 acres of 
Inventoried Roadless Area on the Tongass that was established in the 
2001 Roadless Rule.
    Alternative 2 provided limited additional timber harvest 
opportunities in comparison to Alternative 1 by removing protections 
from certain areas designated as roadless in 2001 while maximizing 
protection for unroaded areas by adding other Roadless Area 
designations. It removed from roadless designation approximately 
142,000 acres that were substantially altered by road construction or 
timber harvest conducted during periods when the Tongass National 
Forest was exempted from the 2001 Roadless Rule. Alternative 2 also 
would have added 110,000 acres of unroaded lands as Alaska Roadless 
Areas that were not designated by the 2001 Rule, and by extension, 
remained undesignated in Alternative 1.
    Alternative 3 would have provided moderately more timber harvest 
opportunities than Alternative 1 by increasing the available land base 
from which timber harvest opportunities could occur. It would have 
accomplished this 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. Alternative 3 also established a 
Community Priority category to allow exceptions for small-scale timber 
harvest and associated road construction and reconstruction within 
certain designated roadless areas. Overall, Alternative 3 proposed a 
net decrease of 1.14 million roadless acres relative to Alternative 1.
    Alternative 4 provided substantial more timber harvest opportunity 
than Alternative 1 while maintaining inventoried roadless designations 
for areas defined in the 2016 Forest Plan as Scenic Viewsheds, T77 
Watersheds, and The Nature Conservancy/Audubon Conservation Priority 
Areas. Overall, alternative 4 proposed a net decrease of 394,000 
roadless acres relative to Alternative 1.
    Alternative 5 provided the greatest amount of additional timber 
harvest and road construction/reconstruction opportunities by removing 
2.32 million acres from Roadless designation, including areas defined 
as Scenic Viewsheds and some T77 Watersheds and TNC/Audubon 
Conservation areas.
    Alternative 6 fully exempted the Tongass from the 2001 Roadless 
Rule, removing 9.37 million acres from roadless area designation. This 
was the alternative selected for the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule.
    Taken together, the six alternatives represent the spectrum of 
management regimes identified by the Forest Service through public 
comments, public meetings, Tribal and Alaska Native corporation 
consultations, and cooperating agency input.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    The Council on Environmental Quality's regulations require that a 
Record of Decision specify the alternative or alternatives considered 
environmentally preferable, 40 CFR 1505.2(a)(2). As defined in the 
USDA's regulations, the environmentally preferable alternative is the 
alternative that will best promote the national environmental policy as 
expressed in section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321). Ordinarily, the environmentally preferable 
alternative is that which causes the least harm to the biological and 
physical environment; it also is the alternative that best protects and 
preserves historic, cultural, and natural resources. In some 
situations, there may be more than one environmentally preferable 
alternative (36 CFR 220.3).
    NEPA does not require the decisionmaker to select the 
environmentally preferable alternative or prohibit adverse 
environmental effects. Indeed, Federal agencies often have other 
concerns and policy considerations to take into account in the 
decision-making process, such as social, economic, technical, or 
national security interests, as well as agencies' statutory missions.
    As described in the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule decision, Alternative 
2 has been determined to be the environmentally preferred alternative, 
although the environmental benefits of Alternative 2 in comparison to 
Alternative 1 are minor. While Alternative 2 would designate and manage 
slightly fewer acres (approximately 32,000 acres) as Alaska Roadless 
Areas relative to the acres of Inventoried Roadless in Alternative 1, 
it would increase conservation of roadless characteristics and values 
because all the acres designated and managed as Alaska Roadless Areas 
under Alternative 2 are undeveloped at this time. Specifically, 
Alternative 2 would remove the roadless designation from 142,000 acres 
that are designated as Inventoried Roadless Areas under Alternative 1, 
but have already been roaded, harvested, or substantially altered, and 
therefore do not currently possess the roadless characteristics and 
values the 2001 Roadless Rule is intended to conserve. At the same 
time, Alternative 2 would designate as Alaska Roadless Areas 
approximately 110,000 acres that are undeveloped land but that were not 
designated as Inventoried Roadless Areas under the 2001 Rule and, by 
extension, are not designated as such in Alternative 1. Alternative 2 
limits timber harvest opportunities, road construction, and road 
reconstruction, on the most acres of undeveloped land out of all the 
alternatives considered. All other action alternatives considered in 
the 2020 FEIS involve sizeable roadless area reductions. For this 
reason, Alternative 2 is the environmentally preferred alternative.
    That conclusion is appropriate notwithstanding modest changes 
between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 in certain designated roadless 
areas. Alternative 2 assigns a Roadless Priority management category to 
5.2 million acres that include more exceptions than allowed under 
Alternative 1, thereby modestly diminishing protection for those areas. 
However, Alternative 2 also includes a Watershed Priority category, 
applied to 3.28 million acres, which is more restrictive than 
Alternative 1. Therefore, on balance, Alternative 2 is at least as 
protective as Alternative 1.
    The differences between Alternatives 1 and 2 are minor in 
comparison to the differences between these alternatives and the 2020 
Alaska Roadless Rule (analyzed as Alternative 6). No old-growth 
harvesting would occur in ``logical extensions'' or areas ``distant 
from roads'' under either Alternatives 1 or 2, for example, while 35% 
of old-growth logging would likely occur in such areas under 
Alternatives 4-6. Similarly, Alternatives 1 and 2 are comparable and 
preferable in terms of tree harvest for Alaska Native cultural purposes 
because of the relatively low level of competition with commercial 
timber harvest they would create. Alternatives 1 and 2 are also 
expected to generally result in very little to no effect on communities 
compared to Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 (especially Alternatives 5 and 6) 
which have an

[[Page 5255]]

increased potential for effects on communities relative to the other 
alternatives, especially in those communities where the visitor 
industry sector is important. This is primarily because those 
communities rely on undisturbed landscapes, which in turn may affect 
visitor use. The smaller and less economically diversified communities 
have a greater risk of effects.
    While Alternative 2 is the environmentally preferred alternative, 
the USDA has determined that the minor environmental benefits of 
Alternative 2 in comparison to Alternative 1 do not warrant adopting it 
for the reasons set forth in the following section. These reasons are 
primarily because Alternative 1 promotes stability and predictability, 
and because it reflects the overwhelming consensus recommendation of 
Alaskan Native Tribes as expressed through formal consultation.

Decision Rationale and Important Considerations

    The USDA has selected Alternative 1 to reinstate the pre-existing 
management regime established in the 2001 Roadless Rule because the 
USDA believes that this alternative strikes the appropriate balances 
among the various values that the Department must consider when 
managing the Tongass. In particular, the USDA believes that Alternative 
1 best addresses the needs and concerns of local communities, including 
Tribal communities. These needs include the need for stability and 
predictability after over two decades of shifting management, which can 
best be served by restoring the familiar framework of the 2001 Roadless 
Rule.
    Adopting Alternative 1 also takes appropriate consideration of 
consultation with sovereign Tribal Nations, which uniformly and 
strongly supported Alternative 1. Although Alternative 2 serves many of 
the same values as Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would introduce 
potentially confusing changes both to the location of designated Alaska 
Roadless Areas and to the management prescriptions associated with 
certain management categories. Alternative 2 also lacks a history of 
implementation consistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule and the 2016 
Forest Plan, potentially complicating implementation. The minor 
environmental advantages of Alternative 2 do not outweigh Alternative 
1's other advantages and those environmental benefits could be achieved 
under Alternative 1 through alternative planning and program mechanisms 
that provide greater flexibility for achieving program goals. The 
Forest Service employs various planning and project-specific efforts to 
maintain and restore watersheds by strategically focusing investments 
on watershed improvement projects and conservation practices at the 
landscape and watershed scales. For example, watersheds have unique 
characteristics and can best be addressed through Forest Planning and 
site-specific planning. Alternatives 3 through 6, meanwhile, are 
insufficiently protective of the roadless characteristics and values 
the 2001 Roadless Rule is intended to conserve.

Alternative 1 Appropriately Balances Competing Values

    When it issued the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule, the USDA stated that 
the final rule's change in policy does not rest on new factual findings 
contradicting the factual findings the USDA made in its 2001 Roadless 
Rule. The policy judgments implemented through the 2020 rulemaking were 
ultimately the result of assigning different value or weight to the 
various multiple uses. Although 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. (85 FR 68691)
    Like the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule, this rulemaking is based on a 
reevaluation of the social value of the various uses of the Tongass, 
rather than on new factual findings. As the USDA noted at the time, the 
2020 FEIS estimates that exempting the Tongass from the 2001 Roadless 
Rule (Alternative 6) would make 168,000 more acres of old-growth forest 
available for timber production (FEIS at 3-18) and would result in 
nearly 46 miles of additional roads on NFS land over the next 100 
years, compared with Alternative 1 (FEIS at 3-121). The USDA also noted 
at the time of the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule that ``tribal government 
cooperating agencies expressed concern about removal of the 2001 
Roadless Rule.'' (85 FR 68691) Nonetheless, the USDA believed at the 
time that these consequences were acceptable in light of the 
Administration's policy preferences, which emphasized ``increasing 
rural economic opportunity, decreasing federal regulation, and 
streamlining federal government services.'' (85 FR 68691)
    By contrast, the USDA now believes that the adverse consequences of 
exempting the Tongass from the 2001 Roadless Rule, particularly the 
increase in acreage available for timber production, the increase in 
road construction, and the lack of consideration for the views of 
Tribal Nations, outweigh the benefits of ``decreasing federal 
regulation'' and the other advantages cited in the 2020 Alaska Roadless 
Rule. Moreover, restoring the protections afforded in the 2001 Roadless 
Rule will advance or is consistent with other USDA policy priorities, 
including promoting the continued health and resilience of mature and 
old-growth forests; retaining and enhancing carbon storage; conserving 
biodiversity; mitigating the risk of wildfires; enhancing climate 
resilience; enabling subsistence and cultural uses; providing outdoor 
recreational opportunities; and promoting sustainable local economic 
development. See also Executive Order 14072 on Strengthening the 
Nation's Forests, Communities, and Local Economies. As the 2020 FEIS 
notes, roadless areas on the Tongass provide important ecosystem 
services 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.
    Roadless areas on the Tongass are also the world's largest 
remaining, intact, old-growth temperate rainforest, which supports 
biodiversity and stores carbon. The Tongass holds more biomass per acre 
than any other rainforest in the world and stores more carbon than any 
other national forest in the United States. Both old-growth and young-
growth forests are important for carbon storage and sequestration: old-
growth forests are capable of storing large amounts of carbon in the 
ecosystem, while young-growth forests are capable of rapid rates of 
carbon sequestration with new growth. By restoring protection to 
188,000 forested acres, including 168,000 acres of old-growth forest, 
from future timber harvest and associated roadbuilding, Alternative 1 
would support retention of the largest and most extensive tracts of 
undeveloped land for the roadless values, watershed protection, climate 
benefits, and ecosystem health those lands provide.
    Roadless areas on the Tongass also include watersheds and areas 
important for fishing, hunting, outdoor recreation, and tourism, which 
support revenue and jobs in Southeast Alaska as well as

[[Page 5256]]

local community well-being. Subsistence, commercial, and sport 
fisheries in both marine and freshwater systems, for example, are all 
important to the way of life for Southeast Alaskan residents. As the 
2020 FEIS explains, ``[r]oads pose the greatest risk to fish resources 
on the Tongass (Dunlap 1996), partly because they pose the largest risk 
of management-caused sediment input to streams.'' (FEIS at 3-134) 
Restoring the 2001 Roadless Rule will reduce the amount of potential 
new road construction and thereby minimize the potential for road and 
harvest operations to increase sediment displacement or delivery, thus 
minimizing associated adverse effects on fisheries and providing more 
durable protections to these resources than those provided under the 
forest plan.
    Restoring the 2001 Roadless Rule protections also responds to the 
unanimous input provided by Tribal Nations during government-to-
government consultation sessions conducted in 2021, and therefore 
honors the Nation-to-Nation relationship. See President Biden's January 
26, 2021, Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-
to-Nation Relationships (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-29/pdf/2021-02075.pdf). Roadless areas on the Tongass hold immense 
cultural significance for Alaska Native peoples. Restoring the 2001 
Roadless Rule on the Tongass is in keeping with the broad 
Administration commitment to strengthening Nation-to-Nation 
relationships, and incorporating indigenous knowledge, stewardship, and 
priorities into land management decision-making.
    By adopting Alternative 1, this final rule also is more responsive 
to the vast majority of comments received as part of the 2020 
rulemaking as well as in response to this rulemaking. In issuing the 
2020 Alaska Roadless Rule, the USDA noted that ``[a] large majority of 
written comments and oral subsistence testimony supported retaining the 
2001 Roadless Rule on the Tongass National Forest,'' and that ``A 
significant proportion of southeast Alaska municipal and Tribal 
governments submitted resolutions supporting the 2001 Roadless Rule's 
application on the Tongass National Forest,'' while also noting that 
``many of the State's elected officials, including the Governor, the 
federal delegation, and some municipal governments support changing the 
2001 Roadless Rule.'' The comments received by the USDA on this 
proposed rulemaking demonstrated a similar pattern and breadth of 
support for Alternative 1. Notably, in its 2021 comments, the Southeast 
Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council (SEARAC) expressed the 
view that an exemption from the 2001 Roadless Rule would result in a 
decrease in the availability of subsistence resources and subsistence 
opportunities throughout the Tongass.
    While agency rulemaking need not always reflect the views of a 
simple majority of commenters, the USDA believes that the strong 
support for restoring the 2001 Roadless Rule, especially from some 
local municipal and all the Tribal governments that were consulted, 
reflects the extraordinary ecological values of the Tongass National 
Forest and the cultural, social, and economic needs of the local forest 
dependent communities in Southeast Alaska. The USDA therefore believes 
that Alternative 1 represents the best balance of multiple uses and 
values for the Tongass.
    Furthermore, in light of the 2020 FEIS and the additional comments 
received on the proposed rule, the USDA believes that selecting 
Alternative 1 would not have major adverse impacts to the timber, 
energy, and mining industries, and would be beneficial at best or 
neutral at worst for the primary economic drivers in Southeast Alaska, 
which include fishing and tourism.
    The USDA acknowledges the continued importance of forest products 
from the Tongass. A number of businesses, Tribes and individuals rely 
on timber harvested from the Tongass for forest products, including 
cultural uses such as totem poles, canoes, and Tribal artisan use. 
Timber harvest and forest products from the Tongass for personal or 
administrative use (e.g., firewood and Christmas trees) would continue 
as provided by the Roadless Rule's exceptions.
    Since the Alaska Region of the Forest Service began documenting and 
tracking certain decisions for projects within roadless areas in 2009, 
the Tongass has received 59 project proposals in IRAs that included 
tree removal and/or road construction using the exceptions authorized 
by the 2001 Roadless Rule, including for mineral, energy, recreation, 
and transportation projects. All 59 projects were approved. These 
project approvals demonstrate that the 2001 Roadless Rule's exceptions 
for access and mineral rights, as well as appropriate special uses, 
have been effective, and that the operation of the 2001 Roadless Rule 
on the Tongass has coexisted with State, Tribal, and private interests 
and allowed the Forest Service to fulfill its multiple use mission. 
Proposed projects in IRAs will continue to be evaluated for consistency 
with Roadless Rule and forest plan requirements.
    For these reasons, the USDA concludes that adopting Alternative 1 
and reinstating the pre-existing management regime under the 2001 
Roadless Rule strikes a more appropriate balance among the relevant 
values and policy objectives than Alternative 6, represented by the 
2020 Alaska Roadless Rule. Similarly, Alternatives 3-5, like 
Alternative 6, would also significantly reduce roadless area 
protections on the Tongass in comparison to Alternative 1.
    At the same time, the USDA believes that Alternative 1 strikes a 
better balance of relevant values and policy objectives than 
Alternative 2. Although, as noted above, Alternative 2 is the 
environmentally preferred alternative and might provide slightly 
greater protection to the roadless values on the Tongass than 
Alternative 1, Alternative 2 also represents a departure from the 
management approaches that have governed the Tongass over the last two 
decades. Notably, the comments received by the USDA during both the 
2020 rulemaking process and this rulemaking process, including comments 
from Tribal, State, and local government entities, expressed very 
limited interest in Alternative 2, and instead focused on the choice 
between Alternatives 1 and 6.
    Alternative 2 also lacks a history of implementation in comparison 
to the experience of managing under the 2001 Roadless Rule, potentially 
complicating implementation. The 2016 Forest Plan was designed to be 
consistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule, and in adopting the Plan, the 
Tongass Forest Supervisor concluded that ``the best way to bring 
stability to the management of roadless areas on the Tongass is to not 
recommend any modifications to the Roadless Rule'' (2016 Forest Plan 
Record of Decision (ROD) at 4, 19). Alternative 2 would represent a 
departure from this approach.
    Therefore, the USDA believes that selecting Alternative 2 would 
conflict with the expectations of commenters and cooperating agencies, 
inject new uncertainty into the management of the Tongass, undermine 
the goal of stability and predictability that the USDA hopes to promote 
with this rulemaking, and insufficiently consider consultation with 
Tribal Nations.

[[Page 5257]]

Adopting Alternative 1 is Permissible and Appropriate Under the 
Governing Laws

General Authorities

    The Secretary of Agriculture has broad authority to protect and 
administer the National Forest System (NFS) through regulation as 
provided by the Organic Administration Act of 1897 (Organic Act) and 
the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960. 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.
    Combined with the complex, and sometimes even conflicting, judicial 
rulings applicable to the 2001 Roadless Rule, the recent history of 
roadless management on the Tongass demonstrates that 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, cultural, and 
environmental consequences.
    While the Tongass has endured debate regarding land and natural 
resource management for decades, there are common agreements. The 
Tongass roadless areas are vast and valuable. The Tongass contributes 
social, cultural, economic, and 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 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. The USDA has received many 
comments that highlight differences in views concerning the best 
available information, as well as general opinions and preferences. The 
USDA is grateful for the attention and interest that Tribal nations, 
local communities, State offices, stakeholder groups, and individuals 
have devoted to helping shape the decision-making process.
    Perspectives and opinions differ as to how to best shape 
restrictions that protect a valuable resource while providing cultural, 
social, and economic benefits for both local communities and the 
nation, which is reflected in the nearly 500,000 comments received 
throughout the analysis and promulgation of the 2020 Alaska Roadless 
Rule (input received during official comment periods is summarized in 
Appendix H of the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule FEIS as well as in the 
Scoping Summary) and the 112,000 comments provided in response to the 
2021 NOPR.
    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 the 2001 Roadless Rule. The USDA believes that the 
underlying goals and purposes of the 2001 Roadless Rule continue to be 
important, especially in the context of the values that roadless areas 
on the Tongass represent for local communities and Native peoples, and 
the multiple ecologic, social, cultural, and economic values supported 
by roadless areas on the Forest. This final rule therefore falls within 
the discretion afforded to the USDA under the Organic Act and the 
Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 to determine the proper uses 
within the Tongass.

Alaska-Specific Statutes

    The USDA has also considered several Alaska-specific statutes 
applicable to the Tongass in selecting the final rule, including the 
Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) and Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act (ANILCA).

Tongass Timber Reform Act

    The TTRA directs the Forest Service to seek to provide a supply of 
timber from the Tongass that meets annual market demand and the market 
demand for each planning cycle subject to appropriations and to the 
extent consistent with providing for the multiple-use and sustained-
yield of all renewable resources and other applicable requirements, 
including the requirements of the National Forest Management Act 
(NFMA). The 2016 Forest Plan, which was prepared at a time when the 
2001 Roadless Rule was in effect, anticipates sufficient timber 
availability to meet projected demand as described in the 2016 Forest 
Plan FEIS and ROD. In addition, the 2016 Forest Plan provides guidance 
to conduct annual monitoring and review of current timber demand. 
Because the Department has considered market demand for timber as one 
of the goals to be balanced with environmental preservation and other 
multiple-use goods and services, reinstating the 2001 Roadless Rule 
fully complies with the TTRA.

Section 810 of ANILCA--Subsistence Determination

    Section 810 of ANILCA (16 U.S.C. 3120) provides that in determining 
whether to withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, 
occupancy, or disposition of public lands under any provision of law 
authorizing such actions, the head of the Federal agency shall evaluate 
the effect of such use, occupancy, or disposition on subsistence uses 
and needs, the availability of other lands for the purposes sought to 
be achieved, and other alternatives which would reduce or eliminate the 
use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands needed for subsistence 
purposes. Section 810 also specifies that if the ``withdrawal, 
reservation, lease, permit, or other use, occupancy or disposition'' of 
Federal lands ``would significantly restrict subsistence uses,'' the 
agency must take certain additional steps. Specifically, the agency 
must give notice to the appropriate State agency and the appropriate 
local committees and regional councils and give notice of, and hold, a 
hearing in the vicinity of the area involved, and determine that (1) 
such a significant restriction of subsistence uses is necessary, 
consistent with sound management principles for the utilization of the 
public lands, (2) the proposed activity will involve the minimal amount 
of public lands necessary to accomplish the purposes of such use, 
occupancy, or other disposition, and (3) reasonable steps will be taken 
to minimize adverse impacts upon subsistence uses and resources 
resulting from such actions.
    When it issued the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule, the USDA determined 
that an ANILCA section 810 analysis was not required because the action 
it was taking was ``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.'' Nonetheless, the USDA conducted a subsistence use analysis in 
order ``to honor regional commitments and inform future project-level 
planning and decision-making subject to ANILCA Section 810,'' and 
provided notices and conducted subsistence hearings consistent with 
section 810.
    After analyzing potential impacts to subsistence uses and resources 
in the 2020 FEIS, the USDA concluded in the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule 
ROD that ``the risk of a significant restriction to

[[Page 5258]]

subsistence resource abundance and distribution is largely equivalent 
across'' the six alternatives considered in that rulemaking, that ``the 
final rule may eventually influence subsistence resource access due to 
timber management activities,'' and that ``[t]he 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.'' The USDA therefore 
proceeded to make the three factual determinations required by section 
810, determining that the anticipated subsistence impacts are 
necessary, consistent with the sound management of NFS land; that ``the 
final rule addresses the amount of NFS land necessary to accomplish the 
proposed action;'' and that implementation of the 2016 Forest Plan will 
result in ``reasonable steps [being taken] to minimize effects on 
subsistence resources.''
    Like the 2020 rulemaking, this final rule is a rulemaking and 
programmatic-level decision, and does not ``withdraw, reserve, lease, 
or otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or disposition'' of National 
Forest System land. Therefore, no section 810 subsistence analysis is 
required for this rulemaking.
    However, for consistency with its practice when promulgating the 
2020 Alaska Roadless Rule and in order ``to honor regional commitments 
and inform future project-level planning and decision-making subject to 
ANILCA Section 810,'' the USDA has reviewed the subsistence impact 
analysis in the 2020 FEIS, which was conducted ``in a manner consistent 
with Section 810 of ANILCA.'' This review relies on the information 
contained in the 2020 FEIS (see the section below titled ``National 
Environmental Policy Act''). In addition, because the 2020 rulemaking 
process took place recently and addressed the same issues as this 
rulemaking, the USDA did not conduct additional subsistence hearings, 
but instead relied on the notices and hearings conducted as part of the 
2020 rulemaking process, as supplemented by the general notices and 
consultations carried out in connection with this rulemaking.
Likelihood of Significant Restriction of Subsistence Uses
    This subsistence impact review begins by considering whether 
reinstating the 2001 Roadless Rule may ``significantly restrict 
subsistence uses.'' The 2020 FEIS analyzes the effects of each of the 
alternatives on three subsistence use factors: (1) resource 
distribution and abundance; (2) access to resources; and (3) 
competition for the use of resources.
    With regard to distribution and abundance of subsistence resources, 
the 2020 FEIS indicates that ``[a]s a result of their association with 
old-growth forest habitat, which is the main terrestrial habitat type 
affected by the alternatives, deer are considered the `indicator' for 
potential subsistence resource consequences'' related to distribution 
and abundance. The 2020 FEIS acknowledges that both the 1997 Tongass 
Forest Plan Revision FEIS and the 2008 Tongass Plan Amendment FEIS 
concluded that deer habitat capabilities in several areas of the 
Tongass may not be adequate to sustain current levels of deer harvests, 
and, therefore, implementation of any of the 1997 or 2008 Forest Plan 
alternatives could lead to a significant possibility of a significant 
restriction on the abundance or distribution of the subsistence use of 
deer. The 2016 Forest Plan EIS made the same conclusion with regard to 
abundance and distribution, although it concluded that the possibility 
of a significant restriction would be less than the possibility under 
the 1997 or 2008 Forest Plans because of the lower than anticipated 
rates of timber harvests. Because harvest levels were expected to be 
the same under all of the alternatives considered for roadless 
rulemaking, the 2020 FEIS found that ``future [timber] harvest and road 
building is not expected to result in large reductions in abundance or 
a major redistribution of deer under any of the alternatives [compared 
to the 2016 Forest Plan],'' and that ``the risk of a significant 
restriction would be the same under all of the alternatives.''
    Regarding access to resources, the 2020 FEIS found that ``[n]ew 
road construction is likely to result in the development of some new 
use patterns around some communities, but these changes are not likely 
to lead to a significant possibility of a significant restriction of 
subsistence access to the resources.'' The analysis identified some 
differences between the alternatives, with Alternatives 1 ``likely [to] 
have the lowest impact on subsistence users who prefer unroaded 
areas,'' while likely resulting in ``increase[d] road density in 
already developed areas,'' such that ``[m]ore harvest is likely to 
occur in the vicinity of existing roads.'' Nonetheless, across all 
alternatives, the FEIS found that ``future harvest and road building 
are not expected to result in substantial interference with access to 
active subsistence use sites.''
    Regarding competition for subsistence resources, the 2020 FEIS also 
noted the findings in the 2016 Forest Plan FEIS, and again found that, 
for all the alternatives considered, ``[t]he significant possibility of 
a significant restriction [in subsistence use], resulting from a change 
in competition, still exists but would be less than the possibility 
under [past Forest Plans] . . . because of the much lower anticipated 
rates of timber harvest and road construction'' under the 2016 Forest 
Plan. When considering potential differences between alternatives, the 
FEIS noted that increases in competition could result from a variety of 
factors, including habitat reduction and the types of community access 
to subsistence resources. The FEIS assumed that ``[n]ew road 
construction adjacent to communities with ferry access'' and ``[n]ew 
road construction adjacent to existing road systems where interties 
between communities exist'' could result in increased competition, and 
noted that ``Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would have a higher potential to 
result in additions to existing road systems because harvest would be 
limited to areas outside existing IRAs,'' whereas under Alternatives 4, 
5, and 6, ``harvest could also occur in these areas . . . but 
additional acres in presently undeveloped areas would also be available 
for harvest.'' Under all of the alternatives, increased competition for 
subsistence resources was found to be most likely on Chichagof, 
Baranof, and Prince of Wales Islands, where competition for deer and 
other land mammals is already high and habitat has been significantly 
reduced due to prior timber harvest and associated road construction.
    Considering these potential impacts, the USDA concludes that a 
significant possibility of a significant restriction of the subsistence 
use of deer due to increased competition exists in some locations under 
the reinstated 2001 Roadless Rule. While the FEIS noted that 
Alternative 1 would ``likely have the lowest impact on subsistence 
users who prefer unroaded areas,'' it assumed that concentrating 
development outside of IRAs would lead to increased competition in some 
locations, particularly areas near existing roads with existing roaded 
interties or ferry access to other communities. Therefore, the USDA 
conservatively concludes that reinstating the 2001 Roadless Rule may 
indirectly result in a significant restriction of subsistence use of 
deer by increasing competition for the resource in some locations. This 
conclusion is consistent with the conclusion reached in the 2020 Alaska 
Roadless Rule ROD.
    Because the USDA concludes that there is a significant possibility 
of a significant restriction of subsistence use,

[[Page 5259]]

it proceeds to consider whether: (1) such a significant restriction of 
subsistence uses is necessary, consistent with sound management 
principles for the utilization of the public lands, (2) the proposed 
activity will involve the minimal amount of public lands necessary to 
accomplish the purposes of such use, occupancy, or other disposition, 
and (3) reasonable steps will be taken to minimize adverse impacts upon 
subsistence uses and resources resulting from such actions. The 
Department again notes, however, that it is not required to make these 
determinations for purposes of issuing this rule, but rather, makes 
these determinations voluntarily in light of the considerations noted 
above.
Necessary, Consistent With Sound Management of Public Lands
    The USDA concludes that any significant restriction of subsistence 
uses that may result from reinstating the 2001 Roadless Rule is 
necessary, consistent with sound management principles for the 
utilization of NFS lands. As noted in the previous section, the 
potential restriction of subsistence uses exists under all of the 
alternatives. This decision reinstates restrictions on development 
within IRAs and may lead to the concentration of new development in 
areas near existing roads, indirectly leading to increased competition 
for subsistence resources in those areas. As explained above, however, 
reinstating these restrictions on development within IRAs will promote 
many important values that are central to the USDA's management of NFS 
lands, including protection of soil, water and air resources, species 
habitat, opportunities for recreation, traditional and cultural uses, 
and respect for indigenous knowledge, stewardship, and priorities. 
Moreover, this alternative would minimize overall road miles, and would 
therefore minimize some impacts to subsistence uses, including impacts 
on subsistence users who prefer roadless areas. The USDA also notes 
that in its 2021 comments, the Southeast Alaska Subsistence Regional 
Advisory Council (SEARAC) expressed the view that an exemption from the 
2001 Roadless Rule would result in a decrease in the availability of 
subsistence resources and subsistence opportunities throughout the 
Tongass. Therefore, any restriction on subsistence uses that may result 
under Alternative 1 (which restores the 2001 Roadless Rule) is 
necessary, consistent with the sound management of NFS lands.
Amount of Public Land Necessary To Accomplish the Purposes of the 
Proposed Action
    As explained in the 2021 NOPR, ``[t]he stated purposes of the 2001 
Roadless Rule included retention of the largest and most extensive 
tracts of undeveloped land for the roadless values of watershed 
protection and ecosystem health that these lands provide'' (86 FR 
66503). Specific to the Tongass, the 2021 NOPR noted that the 2001 
Roadless Rule recognized ``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'' (86 FR 66501-66502). In addition to 
these original purposes of the 2001 Roadless Rule, the proposed action 
also serves the purpose of respecting indigenous knowledge, 
stewardship, and priorities.
    Each of these purposes requires the USDA to evaluate, and take 
action with respect to, the Tongass as a whole. The Tongass as a whole 
was addressed in the 2001 Roadless Rule and analyzed in the 2020 FEIS. 
As explained above, in the section titled ``Alternative 1 Appropriately 
Balances Competing Values,'' the USDA believes that Alternative 1--
which would reinstate the 2001 Roadless Rule throughout the Tongass--
best balances the competing values that the Department must consider 
when managing the Tongass, which include both the ecological and social 
values served by the 2001 Roadless Rule and the need of local and 
Tribal communities for stability and predictability. Therefore, the 
USDA concludes that restoring the 2001 Roadless Rule's land 
classification system and associated prohibitions and exceptions to all 
IRAs within the Tongass is necessary to accomplish the purposes of this 
action, and that the action will involve the minimal amount of lands 
necessary to accomplish those purposes.
Reasonable Steps To Minimize Adverse Impacts to Subsistence Uses and 
Resources
    The 2016 Forest Plan provides forest-wide standards and guidelines 
for subsistence and related standards and guidelines for riparian 
areas, fish, and wildlife, which collectively minimize adverse impacts 
to subsistence uses and resources. Many important subsistence areas are 
assigned land use designations that limit timber harvesting and road 
construction. For example, beach and estuary fringe forest-wide 
standards and guidelines generally apply to beach fringe and estuarine 
areas not under more restrictive designations.
    In addition, any adverse subsistence impacts of the proposed action 
are likely to be modest, at most. While the 2020 FEIS concluded that 
both this final rule (Alternative 1 in the FEIS) and the 2020 Alaska 
Roadless Rule (Alternative 6) could lead to a significant possibility 
of a significant restriction on the subsistence use of deer, the final 
rule is expected to result in fewer overall road miles than the 2020 
Alaska Roadless Rule, and to have ``the lowest impact on subsistence 
users who prefer unroaded areas.''
    The potential site-specific effects of future actions, including 
potential future development near existing roads, on subsistence uses, 
and reasonable ways to minimize these effects, will be analyzed and 
considered during project-level design, analysis, and decision-making. 
Therefore, reasonable steps will be taken to minimize any potential 
adverse impacts on subsistence uses and resources resulting from the 
final rule.

2001 Roadless Rule's Original Purpose

    The USDA is increasingly mindful of the original stated purposes of 
the 2001 Roadless Rule in restoring the rule's restrictions for the 
Tongass, especially in the era of addressing climate change and the 
need to reduce and avoid greenhouse gas emissions. The stated purposes 
of the 2001 Roadless Rule included retention of the largest and most 
extensive tracts of undeveloped land for roadless values, watershed 
protection, and ecosystem health. The purposes also included 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, 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 plus 
years of experience managing the Tongass, with and without the rule in 
operation, provides an important window for assessing whether the 2001 
Roadless Rule's prohibitions should be maintained.
    A significant percentage of the Tongass 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 
ensure that the additional 188,000 forested acres made available for 
timber harvest by the 2020

[[Page 5260]]

Alaska Roadless Rule, with the majority characterized as old-growth 
timber, will remain protected from timber harvest and roadbuilding.
    Watershed protection was a prominent aspect in the decision to 
adopt the nationwide 2001 Roadless Rule. In the Tongass today, 
watershed protection goals are served both by the roadless rule and by 
complementary and reinforcing policies. Large tracts of undeveloped 
lands and watershed protections are protected by existing statutory and 
forest plan direction, including lands in designated Wilderness 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 Land Use Designations (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 2016 Forest Plan as Tongass 77 Watersheds and The Nature 
Conservancy/Audubon Conservation Areas) are currently managed for no 
old-growth timber harvest, thus minimizing adverse impacts to 
fisheries. Management direction of LUD II areas and key watersheds 
within IRAs would be afforded additional, regulatory protections by 
applying Roadless Rule protections.
    Ecosystem health was another important element of the 2001 
rulemaking. Although the FEIS reveals a modest difference between 
implementation of the 2001 Roadless Rule and the 2020 Alaska Roadless 
Rule, a key indicator of ecosystem health for the Tongass is a 
functional and interconnected old-growth ecosystem. While protection of 
productive old-growth would continue to occur under the 2016 Forest 
Plan's old-growth habitat conservation strategy and Southeast Alaska 
Sustainability Strategy (SASS) initiatives, existing connectivity 
between these old-growth reserves would be maintained and provided more 
long-term and durable protection under this final rule by prohibiting 
timber harvest on 188,000 acres that include significant blocks of old-
growth timber.
    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. While 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 road work 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. There are 
approximately 3,500 miles of deferred maintenance on the Tongass road 
system with a projected cost of $59 million estimated in 2021. The 
amount of deferred maintenance indicates that this factor remains 
relevant during this rulemaking process.
    The 2020 FEIS projected a range of 994 to 1,043 miles of new road 
construction (primarily in support of timber harvesting) over the next 
100 years across all alternatives with Alternatives 1 and 2 at the low 
end and Alternative 6 at the high end and Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 in 
between. The locations of future harvests and associated roadbuilding 
are unknown, however, the additional 49 miles of new road projected 
under the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule would be expected to adversely 
affect roadless values, watershed protection, and ecosystem health. The 
final rule is not expected to materially increase or decrease the 
amount of timber harvested in the Tongass, as that is governed by the 
2016 Forest Plan and influenced by a number of other non-roadless 
factors.

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 2001 Roadless Rule's approach to roadless area management 
is once again considered the best approach for roadless area management 
on the Tongass. 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 was temporarily enjoined or set aside. The State 
of Alaska's 2018 rulemaking petition asked 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 appear 
to be best managed through the local planning processes.
    The Department acknowledges the importance of local planning 
processes and benefits of conservation solutions developed through NFMA 
planning procedures, such as occurred during the 2016 Forest Plan 
amendment process. Throughout the development of the 2020 FEIS and in 
response to this proposed rulemaking, the Department and Forest Service 
conducted extensive public engagement, received thousands of comments, 
including from Alaskan citizens; and conducted government-to-government 
consultation sessions. It is clear that roadless areas on the Tongass 
support multiple ecologic, social, cultural, and economic values that 
are significant locally, regionally, nationally, and even 
internationally. This includes the fact that the Tongass represents, 
along with adjacent areas in Canada, the largest intact tract of 
coastal temperate rainforest on earth, and it contains nearly a third 
of all old-growth temperate rainforests left in the world. This 
ecosystem is recognized for its relatively large forest carbon stocks 
and ability to sequester carbon that can help to moderate climate 
change. The Tongass stores more carbon than any other national forest 
in the United States. Large old-growth trees in the Tongass are 
important for carbon storage and sequestration, which can play a role 
in addressing the climate crisis.
    Moreover, roadless areas on the Tongass support a wide variety of 
ecosystem services that the American people enjoy and maintain the 
productivity and health of the region's fisheries and fishing industry. 
The underlying goals and purposes of the 2001 Roadless Rule continue to 
be important, especially in the context of the values that roadless 
areas on the Tongass represent for local communities and Native 
peoples. These facts warrant the restoration of the 2001 Roadless Rule 
provisions.
    The final rule ensures that future forest planning efforts maintain 
the conservation values associated with 9.37 million acres of 
Inventoried Roadless Areas.
    In selecting the final rule among the several alternatives 
considered, the USDA has considered State of Alaska's policy 
preferences as expressed in its 2018 Petition. USDA has also reflected 
on the original decision rationale for applying the roadless rule to 
the Tongass in 2001. As described in the response to comments on the 
final rule on January 12, 2001, USDA noted that ``the agency has 
considered the

[[Page 5261]]

alternatives of exempting and not exempting the Tongass, as well as 
deferring a decision per the proposed rule. Social and economic 
considerations were key factors in analyzing those alternatives, along 
with the unique and sensitive ecological character of the Tongass, the 
abundance of roadless areas where road construction and reconstruction 
are limited, and the high degree of ecological health.'' Then, and 
again now, in making this decision, the Department considered the 
extraordinary ecological values of the Tongass and the cultural, 
social, and economic needs of the local forest dependent communities in 
Southeast Alaska. USDA believes that this management approach best 
reflects and responds to those multiple values.
    From an ecologic perspective, restoring the 2001 Roadless Rule 
protections on the Tongass would help conserve natural resources by 
restoring roadless area management on 9.34 million acres, which 
protects 188,000 acres of forest from potential harvest and 
roadbuilding and would support retention of the largest and most 
extensive tracts of undeveloped land for the roadless values, watershed 
protection, and ecosystem health those lands provide. Roadless areas on 
the Tongass represent the world's largest remaining, intact, old-growth 
temperate rainforest, which supports biodiversity and sequesters 
carbon. The final rule reflects the Administration's priority on 
protecting those values.
    Restoring the 2001 Roadless Rule protections also reflects the 
Administration's priorities to build on the region's primary private-
sector economic drivers of tourism and fishing. Roadless areas on the 
Tongass include watersheds and areas important for fishing, hunting, 
outdoor recreation, and tourism, which support revenue and jobs in 
Southeast Alaska as well as local community well-being. Restoring 2001 
Roadless Rule protections to those areas would support those values. 
This approach is consistent with the Department's Southeast Alaska 
Sustainability Strategy (more about the strategy is available at 
https://go.usa.gov/xMNzF), announced on July 15, 2021, to serve the 
broader economy of Southeast Alaska, support community resiliency, and 
conserve the social, cultural, and ecologic values supported by the 
Tongass.
    Restoring the 2001 Roadless Rule protections also responds to the 
January 26, 2021, Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening 
Nation-to-Nation Relationships issued by President Biden (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-29/pdf/2021-02075.pdf). This 
rule is directly responsive to unanimous input from Tribal Nations 
during government-to-government consultation sessions conducted in 2021 
and 2022. Roadless areas on the Tongass are of immense cultural 
significance for Alaska Native peoples. Restoring application of the 
2001 Roadless Rule to the Tongass would reflect the Administration's 
commitment to strengthening nation-to-nation relationships, and 
incorporating indigenous knowledge, stewardship, and priorities into 
land management decision-making.

Relationship of the Alaska Roadless Rule to the Forest Plan

    The 2001 Roadless Rule's scope and applicability language was 
designed to avoid conflicts between the rule and forest plans, as well 
as to avoid unnecessary or duplicative administrative processes for the 
operation of the 2001 Roadless Rule. As such, the 2001 Roadless Rule 
expressly directed that the rule did not compel the amendment or 
revision of any land and resource management plan. See 36 CFR 294.14(b) 
(2001). When the Tongass Land Management Plan was amended in 2016, the 
Forest Service elected to directly implement the 2001 Roadless Rule's 
timber harvesting prohibitions in determining suitability (see 2016 
Forest Plan, Appendix A, page A-3, Appendix I, page I-177, indicating 
all Inventoried Roadless Areas were removed from the suitable land base 
during Stage 1 of the suitability analysis due to the 2001 Roadless 
Rule).
    As part of the Department's 2020 final rulemaking decision to 
exempt the Tongass from the 2001 Roadless Rule, the Department directed 
the Forest Service to issue a ministerial notice of an administrative 
change to the 2016 Forest Plan pursuant to 36 CFR 219.13(c), to alter 
the timber suitability of lands deemed unsuitable solely due to the 
application of the 2001 Roadless Rule. 36 CFR 294.51. Further, the 2020 
rulemaking was clear that the administrative change simply provided 
conformance of the 2016 Forest Plan to the final rule in regard to 
lands suitable for timber production and would not change the level of 
timber harvest, how timber is harvested on the Tongass, or any other 
aspects of the 2016 Forest Plan. See 85 FR 68695. However, the 
ministerial administrative change was never issued, and no change has 
been made to the suitable timber lands designation in the 2016 Forest 
Plan.

Public Comment Process

    The Forest Service published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS 
for the Alaska Roadless Rule in the Federal Register (83 FR 44252) on 
August 30, 2018. The Notice of Intent 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 
Alaska: 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, over 144,000 comment 
letters or emails were received.
    On October 17, 2019, the Department published a NOPR in the Federal 
Register (84 FR 55522) and on October 18, 2019, a Notice of 
Availability for the DEIS was published (84 FR 55952). On October 25, 
2019, an amended Notice of Availability 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 meetings in 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.
    On November 23, 2021, the USDA published the NOPR for repeal of the 
2020 Alaska Roadless Rule, initiating a 60-day comment period (86 FR 
66498). Approximately 112,000 comment documents were received (about 
9,000 were unique submissions). In addition to the comments, 14 
petitions with over 130,000 names attached were received.

Cooperating Agencies

    As part of the 2020 rulemaking, the Forest Service invited 32 
federally recognized Tribes in Alaska to participate as cooperating 
agencies during the rulemaking process. Originally, the State of Alaska 
and 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.

[[Page 5262]]

    The Forest Service made several trips to potentially affected 
villages to work individually with Tribal cooperating agencies, provide 
technical expertise, and collect input. All Tribal cooperating agencies 
opposed the proposed rule (Alternative 6), while some expressed support 
for 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 Tribes' traditional use areas for the community use 
analysis boundaries in the development of the DEIS. USDA did not apply 
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 these areas to the 
Tribes.
    The USDA revisited the community use analysis boundary issue 
between the DEIS and the 2020 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. This data indicated Southeast Alaskans 
are traveling further for subsistence gathering.
    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 USDA appreciates and recognizes the contributions of all the 
Alaska Native Tribes that participated in development of the 2020 FEIS 
but later withdrew as cooperating agencies. The USDA understands that 
the previous 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 decision in this rulemaking to restore 2001 Roadless Rule 
protections to the Tongass reflects input received by USDA and the 
Forest Service during additional government-to-government consultation 
sessions in 2021 and 2022 (see Consultation with Indian Tribal 
Governments section). USDA and the Forest Service recognize and value 
Indigenous stewardship, knowledge, cultural values, ways of life and 
connection to this land since time immemorial. The Department's hope is 
that restoring the 2001 Roadless Rule will create space for more 
creative solutions that are sensitive to the diverse interests of 
Alaskan Native Tribal communities and begin to restore the trust 
between our sovereign nations.

Comments on the Proposed Rule

    About 112,000 comments were received on the 2021 NOPR, including 
several petitions with more than 100,000 signatures in total, during 
the 60-day comment period. Several Southeast Alaska municipal and 
Tribal governments and industry organizations also submitted comments 
or resolutions. A large majority of comments supported repeal of the 
2020 Alaska Roadless Rule and reinstatement of the 2001 Roadless Rule 
on the Tongass. The USDA considered all substantive comments submitted 
as part of this rulemaking, as well as comments submitted on the 2019 
DEIS and testimony given at subsistence hearings in 2019. The following 
is a summary of the comments received relating to the 2021 NOPR and the 
agency response. A complete response to comments on the NOPR is 
contained in a response to comments report available through https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=60904. Also, see Appendix H of the 
2020 FEIS.

Comments Opposed to the Repeal of the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule and 
Reinstatement of the 2001 Roadless Rule on the Tongass

    Comment: Some commenters opposed the repeal of the 2020 Alaska 
Roadless Rule, stating it does not make sense for Alaska and hinders 
economic development. They state the 2001 Roadless Rule has been a 
major barrier to developing resources and improving transportation in 
Southeast Alaska. Some comments expressed that the rationale provided 
by the USDA when it exempted the Tongass in 2003 is still valid today.
    Response: The 2001 Roadless Rule does not prohibit many of the 
activities cited in these comments. For example, the 2001 Roadless Rule 
does not prohibit tree removal for the construction or maintenance of 
utility lines. While new temporary or permanent roads are not permitted 
in IRAs, with exceptions, temporary linear construction zones can be 
authorized to facilitate the construction of utility lines. The 2001 
Roadless Rule does not prohibit the construction, operation, and 
maintenance of hydropower facilities, including otherwise lawful road 
construction associated with such facilities. The 2001 Roadless Rule 
does not prohibit statutorily authorized mineral exploration or 
development, including roads that may be needed to provide access to 
mining claims or mining facilities. The 2001 Roadless Rule also 
provides exceptions to allow the construction, reconstruction, or 
realignment of Federal aid highways in IRAs and road construction or 
reconstruction pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights, and as 
provided by statute or treaty. This includes the State of Alaska's 
rights under section 4407 of Public Law 109-59, as amended. For 
additional discussion of the activities allowed under the 2001 Roadless 
Rule, see pages 3-166, 3-167, 3-169, 3-170, 3-178, and 3-179 of the 
2020 FEIS.

Comments in Support of the Repeal of the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule and 
Reinstatement of the 2001 Roadless Rule on the Tongass

    Comment: Many commenters supported the reinstatement of the 2001 
Roadless Rule in Alaska, stating that restoring Roadless Rule 
protections in the Tongass will support many environmental, economic, 
and cultural values, and will help maintain the way of life of the 
Native peoples who live there. Many requested that the USDA fully 
restore 2001 Roadless Rule protections on the Tongass; as well as end 
large-scale old-growth timber sales on the entirety of the Tongass.
    Response: The USDA has considered the importance of roadless area 
conservation for a combination of cultural, social, ecological, and 
economic values. The USDA recognizes that the underlying goals and 
purposes of the 2001 Roadless Rule continue to be important, especially 
in the context of the values that roadless areas on the Tongass 
represent for local communities and Native peoples, and the multiple 
ecologic, social, cultural, and economic values supported by roadless 
areas on the Forest.

Comments Relating to the Alaska Roadless Rule Citizens Advisory 
Committee (CAC) Recommendations

    Comment: Commenters were concerned that the USDA disregarded the 
substantial work of the CAC, its final

[[Page 5263]]

recommendations (November 2018), its recommended exceptions for timber 
harvesting and road building, and its input on unique characteristics 
found on the Tongass.
    Response: The Forest Service considered the input and 
recommendations provided by the CAC to the State of Alaska. It is 
important to recall that the CAC's Final Report (page 11) stressed that 
it ``represents options to consider for analysis, not recommendations 
for what the Committee expects or desires to see as the final Alaska 
Roadless Rule.'' Many of the CAC options were incorporated into 
Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the 2020 FEIS and were considered during 
both the 2020 rulemaking and as part of today's final rule.

Comments on Effects to Energy, Renewable Energy, and Infrastructure

    Comment: Commenters were concerned that repeal of the 2020 Alaska 
Roadless Rule would make it more expensive to site, plan, permit, 
develop, operate, and maintain energy and renewable energy projects 
such as hydropower and geothermal and associated infrastructure. Some 
commenters stated that while the effects on the energy systems of 
Southeast Alaska may not be immediate, the action will have a 
deleterious impact on consumer rates and the ability for electric 
utilities to access crucial infrastructure and constitutes a 
significant energy action as defined in Executive Order 13211 (Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use, issued May 18, 2001).
    Response: The 2001 Roadless Rule has and will continue to 
accommodate access for qualified mining, energy, and community 
infrastructure needs while also conserving the multiple ecologic, 
social, cultural, and economic values supported by roadless areas on 
the forest. The USDA has considered this 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 believes that this final rule is not likely to have 
a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has not designated this final rule as a significant 
energy action as defined in Executive Order 13211. Therefore, a 
statement of energy effects is not required.
    The Federal Power Act (FPA) grants the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (FERC) the authority to issue and administer licenses for 
hydropower projects. For projects located on NFS lands, section 4(e) of 
the FPA requires FERC to assure the project will not interfere or be 
inconsistent with the purpose for which the forest reservation was 
created or acquired. While section 4(e) of the FPA gives the Forest 
Service the authority to impose mandatory conditions in the FERC 
license to ensure the adequate protection and use of forest land and 
resources, these 4(e) conditions cannot usurp FERC's role in deciding 
whether to license a hydropower facility. In short, if FERC decides 
that a road is necessary for facility development, the Forest Service 
cannot veto the project or road, but rather is limited to imposing 
reasonable terms and conditions necessary for the adequate protection 
and utilization of the forest. The 2001 Roadless Rule (at 36 CFR 
294.12(b)(3) (2001)) provides that a road may be constructed or 
reconstructed in an IRA if ``[a] road is needed pursuant to reserved or 
outstanding rights, or as provided for by statute or treaty.'' The FPA 
is one such statute.
    The 2001 Roadless Rule also does not prohibit the construction or 
maintenance of transmission lines. While new temporary or permanent 
roads are not permitted in IRAs, temporary linear construction zones 
can be authorized to facilitate the construction of transmission lines, 
along with other applicable exceptions set forth in the 2001 Roadless 
Rule. The courts have sustained that interpretation on more than one 
occasion. The USDA has acknowledged that the restriction on road 
construction, including the construction of access roads, may pose a 
challenge for transmission routes that cross IRAs, potentially 
increasing construction and maintenance costs. However, based on 
analysis for previous transmission projects on the Tongass, roaded 
alternatives are not necessarily less expensive to construct and 
maintain than those relying on other means of access. Construction and 
maintenance costs depend on terrain, distance to communities, and other 
factors. Helicopter access, temporary construction zones, and/or trails 
can also be used to provide access and may even be less expensive than 
the road construction and maintenance costs associated with permanent 
roads in remote areas. In addition, the rights-of-way granted in 
section 4407 of Public Law 109-59, as amended, also allows for 
specified roaded access in the forest for transmission lines and other 
utility systems.
    The 2001 Roadless Rule does prohibit road construction in IRAs for 
new leasable mineral projects, including geothermal projects. Although 
road construction is prohibited, leasable mineral projects are not 
prohibited in IRAs, including the incidental cutting, sale, and/or 
removal of trees associated with such projects. Mineral leasing laws 
are clear that mineral leasing is a wholly discretionary activity. In 
making a decision to make minerals available for leasing on the 
Tongass, the determination as to what restrictions should be placed on 
surface occupancy, as well as how access will be provided, are within 
the discretion of the Forest Service. As discussed in the 2020 FEIS, no 
leasable minerals are currently being produced on the Tongass and 
demand is expected to remain low (p. 3-58). In addition, no geothermal 
development activity is anticipated in the near future. Therefore, the 
repeal of the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule and the reinstatement of the 
2001 Roadless Rule will have limited impact on mineral leasing economic 
activity.

Comments About Alaska Mental Health Trust Lands

    Comment: Commenters were concerned that repealing the 2020 Alaska 
Roadless Rule would adversely impact the value of Alaska Mental Health 
Trust (AMHT) lands, build uncertainty around access to AMHT lands, and 
impede the State's ability to generate revenue and to abide by the AMHT 
Enabling Act.
    Response: Access to non-Federal lands, including AMHT lands, is 
guaranteed by ANILCA and the 2001 Roadless Rule recognizes statutory 
rights to access. The Forest Service has already issued the easements 
requested by the AMHT to access their conveyed lands. None of the 
easements issued as part of the AMHT Act of 2017 crossed IRAs.

Comments About Compliance With ANILCA

    Comment: Commenters assert that implementing the 2001 Roadless Rule 
violates ANILCA because it withdraws more than 5,000 acres (sec. 
1326(a)) and it violates all three of ANILCA's ``no more'' clause 
directives (sec. 1326 (a) and (b) and sec. 708).
    Response: Reinstating the 2001 Roadless Rule does not constitute a 
withdrawal. Under section 1326(a) of ANILCA, the operative issue is 
whether the action taken exempts portions of the public land within the 
Tongass from the operation of the public land laws. Applying an agency 
regulation that protects and conserves the inventoried

[[Page 5264]]

roadless areas of the Tongass does not exempt these lands from 
operation of the public land laws; rather, it's an example of the 
Forest Service's statutory responsibility to provide for the multiple 
use and sustained yield of the products and services from units of the 
National Forest System (NFS), Southeast Conference v. Vilsack, 684 
F.Supp.2d 135, 144 (D.D.C. 2010). This protective designation is 
consistent with the agency's responsibility to plan for multiple uses 
of NFS lands, Wyoming v. USDA, 661 F.3d 1209, 1234-35 (10th Cir. 2011) 
(holding the Roadless Rule consistent with USDA's multiple use 
authorities).

Comments Related to Subsistence

    Comment: In its 2021 comments, the Southeast Alaska Subsistence 
Regional Advisory Council (SEARAC) reiterated its subsistence-related 
concerns shared with the Forest Service in 2019 and 2020, including the 
SEARAC's conclusion that an exemption from the 2001 Roadless Rule would 
result in a decrease in the availability of subsistence resources and 
subsistence opportunities throughout the Tongass. Some commenters 
stated that access to subsistence resources would be better under the 
2020 Alaska Roadless Rule, while others stated that subsistence 
resources would be better protected under the 2001 Roadless Rule.
    Response: This final rule repeals the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule and 
reinstates the 2001 Roadless Rule on the Tongass. This is consistent 
with the management direction described in the 2016 Forest Plan and 
upon which the environmental analysis for the 2016 Forest Plan was 
based. Reinstatement of the 2001 Roadless Rule will prevent any 
additional effects on subsistence that could indirectly result from the 
2020 Alaska Roadless Rule due to increased access and competition.
    Although rulemaking related to the management of roadless areas on 
the Tongass is a programmatic policy decision and does not make a 
specific decision on whether to ``withdraw, reserve, lease, or 
otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or disposition'' of NFS lands that 
is subject to a determination under section 810 of ANILCA, subsistence 
hearings were conducted in 19 communities across the Tongass between 
the Draft and Final EISs for the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule. Testimony 
regarding subsistence activities that was submitted at those hearings 
has been further considered in the current rulemaking effort, as have 
the comments received from SEARAC and other comments and input.
    The USDA concluded that the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule may 
eventually indirectly result in a significant restriction of the 
subsistence use of deer by increasing overall competition for the 
subsistence resource by urban and rural residents, especially on 
Chichagof, Baranof, and Prince of Wales Islands where competition for 
deer and some other land mammals is already high and habitat capability 
has been significantly reduced due to prior timber harvest and road 
construction (85 FR 68692). As stated above, this final rule prevents 
any additional effects on subsistence that could result from the 2020 
Alaska Roadless Rule due to increased access and competition.
    In compliance with NEPA and section 810 of ANILCA, future projects 
that include timber harvest, road construction, and/or road 
reconstruction that may significantly impact the human environment or 
significantly restrict subsistence uses would undergo site-specific 
analysis when they are proposed, and the potential impacts to 
subsistence resources and users would be assessed as part of these 
project-level analyses. Project-level analyses require a subsistence 
evaluation and finding in accordance with ANILCA section 810, which 
specifically address potential impacts in terms of: (1) resource 
distribution and abundance; (2) access to resources; and (3) 
competition for the use of resources.

Comments About Mining and Access to Minerals

    Comment: Commenters expressed concern that reinstating the 2001 
Roadless Rule would limit roaded access to mineral exploration and 
development and that the USDA should work with other agencies to update 
mineral studies conducted in the past. Some stated that even the 
perception of regulatory uncertainty brought by the 2001 Roadless Rule 
will limit investments in mineral projects.
    Response: The 1872 Mining Law gives a statutory right of reasonable 
and necessary access related to the exploration and development of 
mineral resources, and the 2001 Roadless Rule recognizes this right. 
This statutory right is subject to reasonable regulation for the 
protection of surface resources. For any area in an IRA that is open to 
mineral entry, locatable mineral mining, including certain activities 
ancillary to mining (e.g., access roads for exploration and 
development), may be approved. Whether or not roaded access is needed 
to provide reasonable access is determined on a case-by-case basis 
based on conditions specific to each request. This process is no 
different than how requests outside of IRAs are handled, as regardless 
of where the proposed mining activity is located, the Mining Law 
provides for reasonable access.

Comments on Fishing, Hunting, Outdoor Recreation, and Tourism

    Comment: Commenters stated that reinstating the 2001 Roadless Rule 
would benefit fishing, hunting, recreation, and tourism users and 
industry by providing remote and adventurous recreation opportunities 
and healthy, intact watersheds and habitat. They state that the 2001 
Roadless Rule is crucial to protecting these opportunities and 
resources for Southeast Alaska residents and visitors from across 
Alaska and around the globe.
    Response: Roadless areas on the Tongass include watersheds and 
areas important for fishing, hunting, outdoor recreation, and tourism, 
which provide revenue and jobs in Southeast Alaska as well as local 
community well-being. Subsistence, commercial, and sport fisheries in 
both marine and freshwater systems, for example, are all important to 
the way of life for Southeast Alaskan residents. In comparison to the 
current rule, this final rule reduces the potential for road and 
harvest effects on fisheries in areas that will again be protected by 
the 2001 Roadless Rule and provides more durable protections to these 
resources than those provided under the forest plan.

Comments Concerned About Declining Community Stability

    Comment: Commenters question why reinstating the 2001 Roadless Rule 
is needed when the 2016 Forest Plan adequately provides for the 
ecological sustainability of the Tongass. They state that every 
community in Southeast Alaska is in decline, population is declining, 
and jobs are being eliminated, and they ask that the USDA reconsider 
its conclusion that the social and economic hardships to Southeast 
Alaska are outweighed by the ecological benefits of reinstating the 
2001 Roadless Rule. They stated that if sustainability were the 
priority, policy should prioritize well-conceived road building and 
expanding job opportunities and commerce to encourage additional 
infrastructure to reduce the cost of living.
    Response: The 2016 Forest Plan was developed while the 2001 
Roadless Rule was in effect on the Tongass. While the 2016 Forest Plan 
Final EIS did include alternatives that would be reliant on a roadless 
rulemaking (Alternatives 2 and 3), the ROD for the 2016 Forest Plan

[[Page 5265]]

concluded that, ``the best way to bring stability to the management of 
roadless areas on the Tongass is to not recommend any modifications to 
the Roadless Rule'' (Tongass Forest Plan ROD, p. 19).
    The 2001 Roadless Rule provides flexibility for the development of 
roads, hydropower, transmission lines, and minerals, which are 
acknowledged as important to the socioeconomic well-being of Southeast 
Alaska residents along with the subsistence, cultural, and recreational 
values that also contribute to socioeconomic well-being. Restoring the 
2001 Roadless Rule protections reflects this Administration's 
priorities to build on the region's primary private-sector economic 
drivers of tourism and fishing. Roadless areas on the Tongass include 
watersheds and areas important for fishing, hunting, outdoor 
recreation, and tourism, which generate the majority of employment 
opportunities and private sector revenue across Southeast Alaska that, 
in turn, supports local community well-being. This approach is 
consistent with the USDA's broader SASS initiative to serve the broader 
economy of Southeast Alaska, support community resiliency, and conserve 
the social, cultural, and ecologic values supported by the Tongass.

Comments Regarding Stability in Forest Management

    Comment: Commenters note that the Forest Supervisor concluded in 
the 2016 Forest Plan ROD that ``the best way to bring stability to the 
management of roadless areas on the Tongass is to not recommend any 
modifications to the Roadless Rule,'' thereby benefiting local 
communities by reducing local conflicts over forest decisions and 
community tensions. Others, however, stated that the 2020 Alaska 
Roadless Rule is more effective in providing stability in forest 
management.
    Response: This final rule is in alignment with the conclusions 
reached in the 2016 Forest Plan ROD to retain the regulatory 
protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule, thereby benefiting local 
communities by reducing conflicts over forest management decisions and 
community tensions. The 2001 Roadless Rule provides flexibility for the 
development of roads, hydropower, transmission lines, and mineral 
resources.

Comments Concerned About Natural Resource-Based Employment That Relies 
on a Healthy Forest

    Comment: Commentors state that the healthy forests and ecosystems 
on the Tongass are crucial to the economic well-being of many 
communities in Southeast Alaska. Pointing out food security concerns 
and the high cost of importing food to Southeast Alaska communities, 
they state that their economic well-being depends on adequate 
subsistence resources. Commentors also state that the economies of many 
Southeast Alaska communities depend on commercial fishing, guiding and 
tourism, trapping, work in fisheries, wildlife and forest management, 
and small-scale harvest of forest products. They stated that all of 
these components of their economies depend on maintaining the 
ecological integrity of the forest and intact salmon-producing 
watersheds. Conversely, commentors also are concerned about impacts to 
industries like timber, energy, and mining.
    Response: This final rule repeals the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule and 
reinstates the 2001 Roadless Rule management regime expected by the 
2016 Forest Plan and is expected to avoid any additional effects on 
subsistence due to the increased access and competition for resources 
under the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule. This final rule also offers more 
long-term, regulatory protection for watersheds and other areas 
important for fishing, hunting, outdoor recreation, and tourism, which 
support revenue and jobs in Southeast Alaska as well as local community 
well-being. As discussed above in the rationale for the final rule, 
this policy change for the Tongass can be made without major adverse 
impacts to the timber, energy, and mining industries, while recognizing 
the importance of the primary economic drivers in Southeast Alaska, 
fishing and tourism, and contributing to the continued assurances that 
the carbon storage and sequestration associated with the Tongass are 
realized.

Comments on the Balance of Competing Interests of All Small Businesses

    Comment: Commenters state that the Forest Service should work to 
balance competing interests to allow all industries a fair and equal 
opportunity for success while still meeting the conservation goals of 
the agency.
    Response: Reinstating the 2001 Roadless Rule reflects this 
Administration's priorities to build on the region's primary private-
sector economic drivers of tourism and fishing. Roadless areas on the 
Tongass include watersheds and areas important for fishing, hunting, 
outdoor recreation, and tourism, which support employment opportunities 
and private-sector revenue and jobs in and across Southeast Alaska. 
This contribution to employment and revenue generation in turn supports 
local community well-being.
    With regard to natural resource-based businesses, the 2020 FEIS 
indicates that direct employment in natural resource-based industries 
(visitor, seafood, mining, and timber) accounted for 28 percent of 
total employment in Southeast Alaska. Of the total natural resource-
based employment, the visitor and seafood industries accounted for 90 
percent of employment, while mining and timber accounted for 10 percent 
(2020 FEIS, pp. 3-32 to 3-33). The Final EIS also indicates that the 
Warehousing, Utilities, and Transportation sector of Southeast Alaska 
employment accounts for two percent of total employment in Southeast 
Alaska.
    The economic priorities reflected in this final rule are consistent 
with the USDA's SASS announced in July 2021. These competing interests 
have been weighed and documented in the 2022 Alaska Roadless Rule 
Regulatory Impact Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis. This 
Administration and USDA believe that a policy change for the Tongass 
can be made without significant adverse impacts to the timber and 
mining industries, while recognizing the importance of the tourism, and 
fishing industries.
    For the timber industry, this final rule limits some harvest 
opportunities that would have been potentially available following the 
2020 Alaska Roadless Rule's removal of the regulatory roadless 
prohibitions and adjusting the suitable timber base. However, this 
final rule is not expected to alter projections for timber jobs and 
income compared to those under the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule. Actual 
timber employment and income in Southeast Alaska would depend on 
factors and choices made by purchasers that exist outside the context 
of roadless restrictions; those choices may change as markets and 
prices shift, as well as other factors (2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Final 
EIS, page 3-56).
    This final rule is not expected to affect existing or future 
locatable mineral exploration or mining activities on the Forest 
because the right of reasonable access is guaranteed by the General 
Mining Law of 1872. Exploration, mining, and mineral processing 
activities, including road construction and reconstruction, are 
presently allowed to the extent provided by statute in IRAs and will 
continue to be allowed under this final rule.

Comments Supporting Commercial and Non-Commercial Fishing

    Comment: Commenters stated that roadless areas provide essential 
and

[[Page 5266]]

intact spawning, rearing, and migratory habitat for salmon and that 
protecting roadless areas benefits commercial, sport, and subsistence 
fishing. They further state that intact habitats such as those in 
roadless areas are more resilient to changing environmental conditions 
caused by climate change.
    Response: The 2020 FEIS acknowledges that subsistence, commercial, 
and sport fisheries in both marine and freshwater systems are all 
important to the way of life for Southeast Alaskan residents. The 
abundant aquatic systems of the Tongass provide spawning and rearing 
habitats for most fish produced in Southeast Alaska. Maintenance of 
this habitat and associated high-quality water is a focal point of 
public, State, and Federal natural resource agencies, as well as user 
groups, Native organizations, and individuals. In comparison with the 
current rule, this final rule reduces the potential for road and 
harvest effects on fisheries in areas that will again be better 
protected by the 2001 Roadless Rule. As the FEIS explains, Alternative 
1 ``would have the lowest potential harvestable acres, the lowest 
number of new and rebuilt roads constructed, and likely the lowest 
number of new and reconstructed stream crossings of any alternative.'' 
Although ``these numbers are not substantially different than the other 
alternatives,'' ``[a]ll stream crossings increase risks to fish 
passage, and new crossings have a greater risk of sediment effects. 
(FEIS 3-138). Alternative 1 is therefore consistent with protection of 
intact spawning, rearing, and migratory habitat for salmon and the 
fishers who depend on that habitat.
    Reinstating the 2001 Roadless Rule will help to ensure that the 
Tongass will continue to provide for ecosystem resiliency in changing 
climatic conditions.

Comments on the Adverse Effects of Roads on Fish and Fish Habitat, 
Including Salmon

    Comment: Commenters noted that roads can have adverse impacts 
including increased sediment loads, modified stream flows, habitat 
fragmentation, degraded water quality, increased stream temperatures, 
fish passage barriers, loss of genetic fitness, loss of spawning and 
rearing habitat, and increased vulnerability to catastrophic events. 
They were concerned about the backlog of bridges and culverts that 
currently fail to meet fish passage standards. They stated that instead 
of building costly new roads, the Forest Service should invest in 
restoration, including the existing backlog of culverts that impede 
fish passage (known as ``RED crossings'').
    Response: This final rule repeals the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule and 
reinstates the 2001 Roadless Rule, thus restricting roadbuilding in 
IRAs on the Tongass, with limited exceptions. As noted in the 202 FEIS, 
Alternative 1 ``would have the lowest potential harvestable acres, the 
lowest number of new and rebuilt roads constructed, and likely the 
lowest number of new and reconstructed stream crossings of any 
alternative.''
    As of 2020, the Tongass has documented a total of 1,136 crossings 
(32 percent) that do not meet current fish passage standards, otherwise 
known as RED crossings, as established by the Alaska Department of Fish 
and Game and the Forest Service. Fragmented habitat upstream of RED 
crossings is estimated to equal about 0.4 percent (64 miles) and 2 
percent (182 miles) of all mapped anadromous and resident fish stream 
miles on the Forest, respectively. The restrictions on roadbuilding in 
the 2001 Roadless Rule will protect the watersheds within IRAs on the 
Tongass, and the USDA will seek opportunities to leverage funding 
through the USDA's SASS, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, and other sources to target 
priority restoration needs on the Tongass.

Comments Related to Wildlife

    Comment: Commenters noted the high-value habitat that roadless 
areas provide for old-growth dependent species. Many species were 
mentioned, including birds, bears, wolves, and deer, among others. The 
commenters noted that the best method to ensure protection of old-
growth dependent species and endemic species habitat is the 
reinstatement of 2001 Roadless Rule protections for the Tongass.
    Response: Conserving terrestrial habitat, aquatic habitat, and 
biological diversity was a key issue in the development of the 2020 
FEIS, recognizing that the Tongass includes large, undeveloped, and 
natural land areas that represent expansive, unfragmented blocks of 
wildlife habitat that is not available elsewhere in the NFS outside of 
Alaska. As stated above, the final rule restores roadless area 
management on 9.37 million acres, which protects 188,000 acres of 
forest from potential timber harvest and roadbuilding and retains the 
largest and most extensive tracts of undeveloped land for the habitat, 
biodiversity, and ecosystem health those lands provide.

Comments Related to Suitability of Lands for Timber Harvest

    Comment: Commenters noted that the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule 
directed the Tongass Forest Supervisor to issue a notice of 
administrative change to formally make 188,000 acres suitable for 
timber harvest, but that administrative change was not made. Some 
commenters stated that because the administrative change was never 
made, repeal of the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule will not reduce the areas 
available for harvest or enhance ecological, wildlife, hunting, 
fishing, recreation, tourism, subsistence, cultural, and spiritual 
values. Other commenters stated that without the protection of the 2001 
Roadless Rule, there is no reason to expect that the suitable timber 
base would not be expanded in the future.
    Response: The 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule directed the Tongass Forest 
Supervisor to issue an administrative change to the 2016 Forest Plan 
(36 CFR 219.13(c)) that would make 188,000 acres of additional forest 
land suitable for timber harvest. While the Forest Service was 
determining the changes to the plan necessary under this direction, 
President Biden issued Executive Order 13990 (published on January 20, 
2021) and the USDA began work to review the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule 
in light of that order. If the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule was not 
repealed, this administrative change to increase forest land available 
for timber harvest would proceed. Therefore, it is appropriate to 
consider the additional areas available for harvest under the 2020 
Alaska Roadless Rule, as well as the ecological values of those areas.
    The 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule removed the prohibitions on harvest 
in the 2001 Roadless Rule and could potentially result in a higher 
degree of habitat fragmentation and corresponding adverse effects on 
wildlife. The 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule could also potentially lead to 
more road construction and reconstruction, which could result in 
slightly higher adverse impacts to fish and aquatic resources and less 
protection for high-value watersheds. Additional roads in remote areas 
could provide more opportunities for roaded recreation and subsistence 
users who prefer roaded settings under the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule. 
However, users who prefer non-motorized remote recreation, outfitter/
guide use, and subsistence use of remote settings could be more 
adversely affected.

[[Page 5267]]

Comments on Compliance With the Tongass Timber Reform Act ``Seek To 
Meet Market Demand'' Provision

    Comment: Commenters assert the Forest Service has historically 
failed to meet (or even approach) performance goals identified in its 
2016 Tongass Forest Plan and has therefore not complied with its 
obligation to ``seek to meet market demand.'' They state that volumes 
offered for sale have consistently fallen short of volumes listed in 5-
year schedules of timber sales and that many sales fail to sell due to 
poor design.
    Response: The Tongass, in compliance with the TTRA, seeks to 
provide a supply of timber to meet market demand subject to 
appropriations and to the extent consistent with providing for the 
multiple use and sustained use of all renewable forest resources and 
other applicable laws. These other laws that apply to management of the 
National Forest System, such as the Organic Act, the Multiple Use and 
Sustained Yield Act, and the NFMA, provide broad authority and 
discretion to the Secretary of Agriculture to preserve, protect, and 
administer NFS lands and resources.
    Timber is one of many resources managed by the Tongass in 
accordance with the Organic Act and the Multiple Use and Sustained 
Yield Act. While section 101 of the TTRA directs the Forest to ``seek 
to meet market demand,'' it specifically states that this direction is 
subject to appropriations, other applicable law, and NFMA. It is also 
noteworthy that section 101 was written to eliminate the timber supply 
mandate in the section of the ANILCA that it amended. Therefore, TTRA 
envisions not an inflexible or specific harvest level, but a balancing 
of the current market, law, and other uses, including preservation 
(Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association v. Morrison, et 
al., 67 F.3d 723 (9th Cir. 1995)). As specifically noted in the 2020 
FEIS, pages 3-38 to 3-39, the actual volume of timber offered each year 
on the Tongass can fluctuate substantially due to a variety of factors, 
including but not limited to appropriations, competing agency and 
Forest obligations, NEPA resource evaluations and analysis, litigation, 
and market conditions.
    The 2016 Forest Plan projections as applied in the 2020 FEIS remain 
the most reasonable estimates of long-term harvest levels to inform the 
decision among alternatives in this rulemaking. Recalculations of 
market demand projections and what timber harvest levels the Forest 
Plan should consider to seek to meet that demand are better addressed 
through the forest planning processes.

Comments Concerning Consideration of the 2005 Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 
(SAFETY-LU)

    Comment: Commenters assert that repeal of the 2020 Alaska Roadless 
Rule fails to consider or analyze Congress's decision in SAFETY-LU 
transportation legislation to implement the 2004 Southeast Alaska 
Transportation Plan by authorizing 19 easements allowing for road 
construction in the Tongass irrespective of IRA status.
    Response: Section 4407 of Public Law 109-59, as amended, grants the 
State of Alaska a statutory right to the specific easements authorized 
in that Act, and the 2001 Roadless Rule recognizes such statutory 
rights (36 CFR 294.12(b)(3)). Therefore, should the State of Alaska 
choose to proceed with road construction on these easements, the 2001 
Roadless Rule would not prohibit that development. Section 4407's 
provisions affect about 25 transportation and utility corridors located 
across the Tongass to connect communities and provide reciprocal access 
to NFS lands over State-managed lands.

Comments About Projects That May Have Roads in Early Stages of 
Development

    Comment: Commenters requested that the Forest Service consider 
effects to projects in the early stages of road development that relied 
on the 2020 final rule and may now be prohibited by this rulemaking.
    Response: The USDA is not aware of any early-stage road development 
projects on the Tongass which rely on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule. 
The only roads requested by any entity within IRAs on the Tongass since 
the decision on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule are those associated with 
a locatable mining project; these roads fall under the exceptions in 
the 2001 Roadless Rule that recognize the statutory rights provided by 
mining law.

Comments About Effects on Transportation Systems Within the Tongass

    Comment: Commenters stated that the limitations on roadbuilding 
under the 2001 Roadless Rule have been a major barrier to accessing 
resources and improving transportation within the Tongass.
    Response: The 2001 Roadless Rule provides exceptions to allow the 
construction, reconstruction, or realignment of Federal aid highways in 
IRAs and road construction or reconstruction pursuant to reserved or 
outstanding rights, or as provided by statute or treaty. This includes 
the State of Alaska's rights under section 4407 of Public Law 109-59, 
as amended.

Comments Supporting a Process for Improved Local, Tribal, and Community 
Input

    Comment: Commenters urged the Forest Service to ensure a process is 
in place for improved local input and review of local community 
priorities, possibly through community economic development plans or 
other community planning processes.
    Response: The USDA has continued meaningful consultation throughout 
this rulemaking process. The Forest Service welcomes local, Tribal, and 
community input. Receiving such input is essential to the agency for 
determining how best to develop plans and accomplish projects. When 
there are projects with outcomes that may have substantial influence on 
a community or region's economic, cultural, and ecological well-being, 
the Forest Service often convenes open houses to garner input or 
formally establishes working groups to develop recommendations and 
provide input from a cross-section of those directly affected, 
including local, Tribal, and community leaders. For example, a Federal 
advisory committee (Tongass Advisory Committee) was formed to provide 
recommendations on developing an ecologically, socially, and 
economically sustainable forest management strategy for the Tongass 
during the drafting of the 2016 Forest Plan Amendment (2016 Forest 
Plan, Appendix B).
    As previously noted, on January 26, 2021, President Biden directed 
all federal agencies to review Tribal consultation policies and 
practices and recommit to more robust nation-to-nation relationships 
and respect for federal trust responsibilities (Executive Order 13175). 
The Forest Service invites Tribal input through formal government-to-
government consultation, and Alaska Native corporation input through 
formal government-to-corporation consultation (Forest Service Handbook 
(FSH) 1509.13, Chapter 10). The USDA consulted with Tribes and Alaska 
Native corporations at the beginning of this rulemaking effort as well 
as during the public comment period. There have been ongoing 
government-to-government consultations involving Tribes pertaining to 
repealing the 2020 Roadless Rule. The first was conducted July 7-8, 
2021, and involved nine Tribes: the Central Council of Tlingit

[[Page 5268]]

and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska; the Organized Village of Kake; the 
Ketchikan Indian Community; the Klawock Cooperative Association; the 
Organized Village of Saxman; the Skagway Traditional Council; the 
Organized Village of Kasaan; the Douglas Indian Association, and the 
Hoonah Indian Association. A virtual consultation meeting was held with 
five tribes in August 2021. Another consultation was held February 18, 
2022, at the request of one Tribe: the Organized Village of Kasaan. 
USDA has continued its coordination and consultation with Tribal 
Nations throughout development of the final rule, including another 
consultation with seven tribes on September 19, 2022. Tribes have also 
reaffirmed that their comments submitted during the 2020 EIS process 
are still valid (refer to appendix H of the 2020 FEIS).
    In addition, the Forest Service has been working closely with local 
communities, Tribes, the State, and a broad range of partners through 
the OneUSDA Southeast Alaska Sustainability Strategy (SASS). The SASS 
process, projects and investments reflect USDA's commitment to a 
community-driven investment strategy that reflects input from local 
communities; acknowledges, respects and honors Indigenous stewardship, 
knowledge, and priorities; and values the many collaborative 
relationships that have developed to support social, cultural, 
ecologic, and economic sustainability and opportunity in the region.
    Community economic development plans (or similar plans) may also be 
shared with the Forest Service at any time to inform and help ensure 
that the management of NFS lands is considerate of local, Tribal, and 
community needs. For example, the Southeast Conference 2025 Economic 
Plan, a comprehensive economic development strategy for 2021-2025, was 
one of the screening tools used for selecting SASS investment proposals 
for funding.

Comments on the Rulemaking Process for the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule

    Comment: Some commenters stated that the process leading to the 
2020 Alaska Roadless Rule was inappropriately ``top down'' and that the 
process led to a decision (full exemption, the 2020 Alaska Roadless 
Rule) that did not resemble a durable solution.
    Response: The long regulatory and litigation history concerning 
roadless area management on the Tongass is evidence that durable 
solutions for managing inventoried roadless areas on the Tongass are 
challenging. The concerns expressed during this rulemaking reflected a 
sentiment that the 2020 decision was a ``top down'' decision, and it is 
true that the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule was not representative of the 
vast majority of commenters who expressed support for maintaining 
roadless rule protections. In making this decision, the USDA has 
considered all of the comments throughout both rulemaking efforts, and 
the comments expressed during Tribal consultation. The USDA recognizes 
that the underlying goals and purposes of the 2001 Roadless Rule 
continue to be important, especially in the context of the values that 
roadless areas on the Tongass represent for local communities and 
Native peoples, and the multiple ecologic, social, cultural, and 
economic values supported by roadless areas on the Forest.

Comments on the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule Damaging Trusts and 
Relationships Between the Forest Service and Regional Stakeholders

    Comment: Some commenters stated that the 2020 Alaska Roadless 
decision damaged trusts and relationships.
    Response: This final rule is directly responsive to unanimous input 
from Tribal nations provided during government-to-government 
consultation sessions conducted in 2021 and reaffirmed in additional 
consultations in 2022. Roadless areas on the Tongass have immense 
cultural significance for Alaska Native peoples. Restoring application 
of the 2001 Roadless Rule to the Tongass reflects this Administration's 
commitment to strengthening nation-to-nation relationships with Tribes 
and incorporating traditional ecological knowledge, shared stewardship, 
and priorities into land management decision-making.
    The final rule also is more responsive to the vast majority of 
comments received as part of the 2020 rulemaking as well as the 2021 
repeal effort. This final rule reflects the consideration of the 
extraordinary ecological values of the Tongass National Forest and the 
cultural, social, and economic needs of the local forest dependent 
communities in Southeast Alaska. USDA believes that this management 
approach best reflects those multiple values.

Comments About Preordained Outcome

    Comment: Some commenters argued that the Administration and USDA's 
decision to repeal the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule was preordained in 
violation of NEPA. Some commentors pointed to the Southeast Alaska 
Sustainability Strategy's statement that the agency would pursue a 
repeal of the 2020 Tongass Exemption rule as proof of such 
predetermination.
    Response: No NEPA violation occurs simply because an Administration 
or agency expresses its initial policy preferences before or at the 
beginning of a rulemaking. Here, the agency has carefully reviewed the 
potential environmental consequences before arriving at its decision.

Comments About Changed Circumstances and New Information

    Comment: Some commenters noted that there may be changed 
circumstances or new information that render the 2020 EIS's analysis 
inadequate to support this rulemaking and urge a new or supplemental 
EIS be prepared.
    Response: The proposed rule made a preliminary determination that 
the 2020 FEIS remained an effective analysis of the environmental 
effects of returning the Tongass to operation under the 2001 Roadless 
Rule. Commenters on the proposed rule have suggested that new 
information or changed circumstances related to (1) the USDA Southeast 
Alaska Sustainability Strategy, and (2) Sealaska Corporation's 
announced plan to transition away from logging its lands, may compel 
additional NEPA analysis for this rulemaking. The agency has carefully 
considered this information and concluded that it does not 
significantly alter the 2020 FEIS's analysis of the alternatives' 
effects on the quality of the human environment. More detailed 
discussion related to the agency's consideration of new information or 
changed circumstances is set out in the agency's Determination of NEPA 
Adequacy (DNA).

Comments on Consideration of Public Input

    Comment: Commenters were concerned that the USDA based this final 
rule on the fact the large majority of comments received during the 
comment period for the 2020 Alaska Roadless rulemaking effort supported 
retaining the 2001 Roadless Rule and will again follow the majority and 
ignore local, informed input.
    Response: The NOPR pointed out the large majority of comments 
received during the comment period for the 2020 Alaska Roadless 
rulemaking effort supported retaining the 2001 Roadless Rule. It did 
not draw the conclusion that the 2001 Roadless Rule should be 
reinstated simply because the majority of comments received during that 
rulemaking process were opposed to the Tongass exemption from the 2001

[[Page 5269]]

Roadless Rule (i.e., opposed the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule).
    The USDA values the comments received and the concerns expressed by 
the public during the rulemaking process. The USDA considered all 
public comments received, input from Tribal governments, communities, 
cooperating agencies, and elected officials. The NEPA and rulemaking 
public comment processes 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. 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. USDA reconsidered 
all alternatives and has opted to repeal the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule 
for all the reasons discussed herein.

Comments Concerning the Tongass Old-Growth Conservation Strategy and 
Protecting Roadless Area Quality and Values

    Comment: Commenters supported repeal of the 2020 Alaska Roadless 
Rule stating that it would have an adverse effect on the Tongass old-
growth conservation strategy by directing an administrative change 
regarding timber suitability within IRAs and further stated that a 
supplemental EIS should be prepared with an alternative that would 
modify the 2016 Forest Plan to remove development land use designations 
from IRAs. They requested that the Forest Plan be amended to provide a 
comprehensive set of plan components that are compatible with Roadless 
Area qualities and values.
    Response: The USDA has extensive authority governing forest 
management. The Secretary also has broad discretion concerning the 
development, amendment, or revision of land management plans, but new 
laws and regulations can supersede land management plan direction. The 
2012 Planning Rule recognizes this authority and provides for 
administrative changes to forest plans to conform to new statutory or 
regulatory requirements (36 CFR 219.13(c)). The administrative change 
directed by the 2020 rulemaking regarding timber suitability only 
applied to lands that were deemed unsuitable solely due to IRA 
designation in the 2016 Forest Plan. While timber suitability is a 
Forest Plan component that would normally be changed through an 
amendment process (36 CFR 219.13(b)), the Planning Rule directs that 
Forest Plan components may be changed through a different mechanism 
under certain circumstances.
    In any event, that particular administrative change was never 
executed. While the Forest Service was determining the changes to the 
2016 Forest Plan necessary, President Biden issued the Executive orders 
discussed above and the USDA began work to review the 2020 Alaska 
Roadless Rule. This final rule repeals the direction to issue that 
administrative change. Instead, the 2001 Rule will apply as a direct 
result of the repeal of the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule. In turn, the 
2001 rule itself expressly provided that it does not compel the 
amendment or revision of any land and resource management plan. That 
fits well with the recognition in the 2016 Forest Plan (p. 1-5) that 
Federal law and regulation receive the highest level of priority in 
setting direction for Forest activities. Thus, changes to land use 
designation assignments are not necessary to apply the regulatory 
protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule or any roadless rule for that 
matter.

Comments Related to Climate Change, Carbon Storage, and Carbon 
Sequestration

    Comment: Commenters supported repeal of the 2020 Alaska Roadless 
Rule in consideration of the urgent climate crisis and the need to 
retain or increase carbon storage and sequestration. Others disagreed 
and stated that the USDA is overstating the importance of Tongass old-
growth for carbon sequestration.
    Response: Roadless areas on the Tongass represent the world's 
largest remaining, intact, old-growth temperate rainforest, which 
supports biodiversity and stores carbon. These areas are considered 
critical for carbon sequestration and carbon storage to help mitigate 
climate change: the Tongass holds more biomass per acre than any other 
rainforest in the world and stores more carbon than any other national 
forest in the United States. Both old-growth and young-growth forests 
are important for carbon storage and sequestration.
    Reinstating the 2001 Roadless Rule will provide regulatory 
certainty that the Tongass IRAs will continue to sequester and store 
carbon into the future, while providing numerous other ecological, 
economic, cultural, and social values to the American people and 
providing for ecosystem resiliency in changing climatic conditions.

Comments on Greenhouse Gasses as a Result of Increased Fuel Consumption

    Comment: Some commenters stated that reinstating the 2001 Roadless 
Rule could reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused by fuel consumption 
related to timber harvest while others stated that it would impede the 
development of renewable resources and thereby delay the transition to 
clean energy in diesel-reliant communities.
    Response: Regarding increased fuel consumptions related to timber 
harvests, this final rule does not set or change the volume of timber 
offered for sale. Those decisions will continue to be made in 
accordance with USDA policy, the 2016 Tongass Forest Plan, and the 
Tongass National Forest's fiscal capabilities and organizational 
capacity.
    Hydroelectric projects, and the roads necessary to support these 
projects, that may help transition communities from fossil fuel energy 
are not prohibited in IRAs on the Tongass. The 2001 Roadless Rule also 
does not prohibit the construction or maintenance of transmission 
lines. While new temporary or permanent roads are not permitted in 
IRAs, outside of the exceptions in the 2001 Roadless Rule, temporary 
linear construction zones can be authorized to facilitate the 
construction of transmission lines. In addition, Alaska's 
transportation system guaranteed in section 4407 of Public Law 109-59, 
as amended, also allows for roaded access in the Forest for 
transmission lines and other utility systems. Therefore, the USDA 
believes that this final rule adequately provides for renewable energy 
projects and the transition to clean energy in communities across 
Southeast Alaska.

Comments on Opportunities To Conserve Cedar Forests in a Changing 
Climate

    Comment: Commenters note that conservation areas, such as roadless 
areas protected by reinstatement of the 2001 Roadless Rule, offer 
opportunities to conserve cedar forests in a changing climate. 
Commenters request protection for yellow-cedar, red cedar and large, or 
old-growth trees, under the 2001 Alaska Roadless Rule.
    Response: The 2020 FEIS acknowledged that yellow cedar is one 
species that is already experiencing effects of climate change on its 
distribution on the Tongass; however, management actions that benefit 
specific individual tree species are better addressed through other 
management efforts, such as forest planning or specific project design 
features.

[[Page 5270]]

Comments on the Difference in Environmental Consequences Between 
Continued Implementation of the 2001 Roadless Rule and Exemption From 
the 2001 Roadless Rule

    Comment: Some commenters disagreed with the USDA's determination in 
2020 that there was only a modest difference in environmental 
consequences between continued implementation of the 2001 Roadless Rule 
and exemption from the 2001 Roadless Rule. The commenters stated that 
roading and logging of these undeveloped lands resulting from the full 
exemption would have profound and significant environmental 
consequences for the 188,000 affected acres and beyond, including the 
roadless areas in which they are located.
    Response: The USDA considered and disclosed the effects to roadless 
areas in terms of acres designated as roadless and the degree of 
protection provided by each alternative. The Final EIS is clear that 
Alternative 6 (full exemption of the Tongass from the 2001 Roadless 
Rule) would likely result in more degradation of roadless area 
characteristics than any of the other alternatives. Effects to each 
roadless area were presented in the Final EIS using estimated old-
growth harvest acres by alternative to compare the alternatives.
    The 2020 FEIS concluded that there is only a modest difference 
between the alternatives considered in the EIS as far as environment 
effects resulting from timber harvest, because the estimated acreage of 
land subject to harvest is not proportional to the acres of suitable 
timber lands, but rather is based on the projected timber sale quantity 
established in the 2016 Forest Plan. Although 9.4 million acres were no 
longer subject to the 2001 Roadless Rule with the exemption, only 
188,000 more acres would become available for timber production. Road 
construction was estimated to increase Tongass-wide from 994 miles in 
the no-action alternative (Alternative 1) to 1,043 miles under the full 
exemption alternative (Alternative 6) over the next 100 years.
    The assumptions and findings in the 2020 FEIS are still true as 
those findings were attributable to the fact that all of the 
alternatives were expected to have harvest levels similar to the levels 
authorized in the Forest Plan. The modest differences reflect the 
additional flexibility the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule was expected to 
provide in making 188,000 more acres suitable for harvest, and the 
projection that there might be more high-volume and large-tree old-
growth harvested under Alternative 6 (the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule 
Alternative) because of that flexibility (See Alaska Roadless FEIS 
Environmental Consequences Forest Products Page 2-23).
    Similarly, the 2001 Roadless Rule has not been an impediment to 
vital infrastructure and energy projects, given that some 
infrastructure and energy development is allowed under various statutes 
and projects have been approved consistent with the exemptions in the 
2001 Roadless Rule.
    While the conclusion in the 2020 FEIS that the overall adverse 
effect of the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule on roadless area 
characteristics was modest is still valid, this final rule reflects the 
USDA's belief that even a modest adverse effect of this type is 
undesirable, in light of the USDA's current policy objectives. As 
explained above in the section titled ``Decision Rationale and 
Important Considerations,'' these objectives include prioritizing the 
values that roadless areas on the Tongass hold for local communities 
and Native peoples, as reflected, among other places, in the 
consultation with Tribal Nations, and the multiple ecologic, social, 
cultural, and economic values supported by roadless areas on the 
Forest.

Comments in Support of a Traditional Homelands Conservation Rule or Co-
Management With Tribal Governments

    Comment: Commenters stated Support for a Traditional Homelands 
Conservation Rule and increased co-management and consultations with 
Tribal governments.
    Response: Shared stewardship of land management is a priority for 
USDA, and an important part of our responsibility to Native Nations. 
Ecological challenges do not recognize borders or boundary lines. 
Through shared stewardship, USDA is coming together with Tribal 
governments, States, and other partners to address these challenges and 
explore opportunities to improve forest health and resiliency. In July 
2021, the USDA and the Forest Service held a consultation with nine 
Tribes in Juneau, Alaska. Topics included the Tribes' petition to 
create a Traditional Homelands Conservation Rule, the 2020 Alaska 
Roadless Rule, and the SASS. The Tribes represented at this 
consultation expressed their desire to return to the 2001 Roadless Rule 
on the Tongass as quickly and expeditiously as administratively 
possible, while also urging the USDA to take other steps. The USDA and 
the Forest Service have continued to consult with Tribal governments 
and Alaska Native corporations regarding this rule.
    As part of the SASS, the USDA has committed up to $25 million in 
investments in Southeast Alaska, over 50 percent of which is expected 
to support Tribal and indigenous interests and Tribal and community 
youth engagement. Additionally, the USDA is exploring new ways 
utilizing existing authorities to advance co-stewardship between Tribal 
Nations and the USDA on NFS lands across Southeast Alaska. See the USDA 
SASS Initial Investments and Recommendations, March 2022 at https://www.fs.usda.gov/internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd1008319.pdf.

Regulatory Certifications

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department's determination is that the FEIS issued in 
association with promulgation of subpart E (85 FR 68688) adequately 
analyzes the environmental effects of this final rule and reasonable 
alternatives. Therefore, the USDA has prepared a Determination of NEPA 
Adequacy (DNA) for this rulemaking. Under the Forest Service's National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures (36 CFR 220.4(j)), a DNA is 
a NEPA compliance method that allows an existing environmental analysis 
to be used in its entirety for a new proposed action if the Responsible 
Official determines that the existing NEPA analysis adequately assesses 
the environmental effects of the proposed action and reasonable 
alternatives. The DNA and 2020 FEIS are available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=60904. The environmental effects 
associated with adoption of the final rule were analyzed and disclosed 
in detail in Alternative 1 of the FEIS for the 2020 Alaska Roadless 
Rule (the no action alternative).
    The FEIS for the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule was prepared less than 
two years ago and included an effects analysis for six alternatives 
covering a broad range of roadless management options, including both 
operation under, and exemption from, the 2001 Roadless Rule's 
prohibitions. The NOPR included a preliminary determination that the 
2020 FEIS remained an effective analysis of the environmental effects 
of returning the Tongass to operation under the 2001 Roadless Rule. 
Commenters on the proposed rule have suggested that new information or 
changed circumstances related to (1) the USDA Southeast Alaska 
Sustainability Strategy, and (2) Sealaska Corporation's announced plan 
to transition away from logging its lands, may compel additional NEPA 
analysis for this rulemaking. The agency has carefully considered this 
information and concludes that it does

[[Page 5271]]

not significantly alter the 2020 FEIS's analysis of the alternatives' 
effects on the quality of the human environment. Additional discussion 
related to the DNA can be found at the link above.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    OMB has designated this rulemaking as a significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866. The Forest Service has prepared an 
analysis of potential impacts and discussion of benefits and costs of 
the final rule in its Regulatory Impact Analysis. By removing subpart 
E, consisting of Sec. Sec.  294.50 and 294.51, the final rule would 
return the Tongass to management under the provisions of the 2001 
Roadless Rule, which prohibits timber harvest and road construction or 
reconstruction within designated Inventoried Roadless Areas with 
limited exceptions. Exceptions in the 2001 Roadless Rule do allow for 
some activity, including to protect public health and safety, provide 
access for statutory rights and existing leases, and in specified 
circumstances prevent or repair natural resource damage, maintain or 
restore ecosystem characteristics, or improve habitat for certain 
species.
    Protection of roadless characteristics through reinstatement of the 
2001 Roadless Rule that would occur as a result of this final rule 
would provide benefits associated with old-growth conservation and 
would avoid displacement-related losses to recreationists and the 
outfitter and guide industry, estimated to be $68,000 to $224,000 
annually. Estimated loss of access to suitable old-growth would not 
materially decrease timber related jobs, income, or output, since the 
final rule does not change the timber sale quantity or timber demand 
projections from the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan.
    The TTRA directs the Forest Service, subject to other applicable 
laws, to ``seek to meet market demand'' for timber from the Tongass. 
See 66 FR 3255. However, as USDA (and the courts) have repeatedly 
explained, the TTRA ``does not envision an inflexible harvest level, 
but a balancing of the market, the law, and other uses, including 
preservation.'' Id. The TTRA expressly declares that subject to 
appropriations, other applicable law, the requirements of the National 
Forest Management Act; and to the extent consistent with providing for 
the multiple use and sustained yield of all renewable forest resources, 
the Forest Service is to ``seek to provide a supply of timber from the 
Tongass, which: (1) Meets the annual market demand for timber from such 
forest and (2) meets the market demand from such forest for each 
planning cycle'' (16 U.S.C. 539d).
    While the TTRA provides a qualified instruction that USDA ``seek to 
provide a supply of timber'' from the Tongass that meets market demand, 
the 2001 Roadless Rule does not prevent USDA from seeking to meet 
market demand through timber sales on lands outside of inventoried 
roadless areas or consistent with Roadless Rule exceptions. The TTRA 
does not require USDA to meet market demand, but only to ``seek to . . 
. meet [ ]'' such demand. Even that qualified directive is ``subject 
to'' applicable law and must be ``consistent with'' USDA's authority to 
provide for the multiple use and sustained yield of renewable forest 
resources, including recreation, watershed, and wildlife and fish, in 
addition to timber. The final rule is fully consistent with TTRA.
    Stumpage value changes are quantified in the regulatory impact 
analysis, alongside agency road maintenance costs, conservation value, 
avoided lost revenue to outfitters and guides, and value of access by 
recreationists not using outfitters and guides. Discounted upper bound 
estimates of net present value are positive for the final rule and 
regulatory alternatives.
    The rule does not maximize net present value relative to the other 
regulatory alternatives as measured in quantitative terms (Alternative 
2 is higher). However, such analysis does not fully capture the rule's 
qualitative effects (i.e., biological diversity, habitat, physical 
values, scenic quality, recreation opportunities, traditional cultural 
properties, and sacred sites). Both quantitative and qualitative 
considerations were weighed in the agency's decision rationale for this 
rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Consideration of Small Entities

    This final rule has been considered in light of E.O. 13272 that 
addresses the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as 
amended, requires agencies to prepare and make available to the public 
a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the economic effect of 
a proposed or final rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) when the 
agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking 
for a rule. Furthermore, section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to 
certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the final 
rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Despite this rulemaking not being 
subject to the requirements of sec. 553 of the Administrative Procedure 
Act, the Department nevertheless prepared a regulatory flexibility 
analysis which can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FS-2021-0007. The Forest Service is directly affected by this rulemaking 
and by definition is not a small entity; the final rule imposes no 
costs or recordkeeping requirements for small entities; nor does the 
final rule seek to impose any direct regulatory restrictions upon any 
small entities. A number of small and large entities may experience 
regulatory assurance provided by the proposed rule, or otherwise 
benefit from roadless protection under the proposed rule. In 
consideration of the facts and analysis set forth in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis prepared by the Forest Service, the undersigned 
has determined and certified by signature on this document that this 
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

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.

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 
would not have substantial direct effects on States, on the 
relationship between the National Government and the State

[[Page 5272]]

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.

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

    The USDA has consulted and coordinated with Tribal Nations 
throughout the process of developing the proposed regulation. As part 
of this rulemaking, the USDA's Office of Tribal Relations determined 
that this final rule has Tribal implications that require continued 
outreach efforts under Executive Order 13175. The USDA Office of Tribal 
Relations has determined that this rulemaking review and analysis has 
been conducted in accordance with Departmental Regulation (DR) 1350-
002, ``Tribal Consultation'' and Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation 
and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.''
    In support of the January 26, 2021, Executive Order 13175 and the 
President's Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-
to-Nation Relationships, in July 2021, USDA and the Forest Service held 
a consultation with ten Tribes in Juneau, Alaska: Central Council 
Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Douglas Indian Association, 
Hoonah Indian Association, Organized Village of Kake, Organized Village 
of Kasaan, Ketchikan Indian Community, Klawock Cooperative Association, 
Organized Village of Saxman, Sitka Tribe of Alaska and Skagway Village 
(Skagway Traditional Council). A virtual consultation was also held 
with 6 Tribes in August 2021: Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian 
Tribes of Alaska, Craig Tribal Association, Klawock Cooperative 
Association, Organized Village of Kake, Organized Village of Kasaan and 
Ketchikan Indian Community. A virtual consultation was conducted at the 
request of one Tribe in February 2022 (Organized Village of Kasaan). 
Another virtual consultation was conducted with seven Tribes in 
September 2022: Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of 
Alaska, Hoonah Indian Association, Organized Village of Kake, Organized 
Village of Kasaan, Ketchikan Indian Community, Skagway Village (Skagway 
Traditional Council) and the Wrangell Cooperative Association. The 
Tribes represented at these consultations expressed their desire to 
return to the 2001 Roadless Rule as quickly and expeditiously as 
administratively possible. USDA committed to continuing meaningful 
consultation throughout the rulemaking.
    This final rule reflects the input from Tribal nations provided 
during those government-government consultation sessions. Roadless 
areas on the Tongass have immense cultural significance for Alaska 
Native peoples. Restoring application of the 2001 Roadless Rule to the 
Tongass reflects this Administration's commitment to strengthening 
nation-to-nation relationships with Tribes and incorporating Indigenous 
Knowledge, stewardship, and priorities into land management decision-
making.

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. Nevertheless, if such conflicts were to be 
identified, 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 
believes that the final rule is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and the 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
not designated this final rule as 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.

Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (5 
U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
designated this rule as not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 294

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

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, USDA is amending part 
294 of title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 294--SPECIAL AREAS

0
1. Add an authority citation for part 294 to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 472, 529, 551, 1131, 1608, and 1613 and 23 
U.S.C. 201 and 205.

Subpart E--[Removed]

0
2. Subpart E, consisting of Sec. Sec.  294.50 and 294.51, is removed.

    Dated: January 19, 2023.
Meryl Harrell,
Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources, USDA.
[FR Doc. 2023-01483 Filed 1-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411-15-P