Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Alaska, 5252-5272 [2023-01483]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[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 200