Roadless FEIS evaluation completed

Discussion in 'Land Use' started by mudfanatic, Dec 1, 2000.

  1. mudfanatic

    mudfanatic 1/2 ton status

    Feb 18, 2000
    Likes Received:
    Aloha, Oregon
    I have completed my evaluation of the Roadless Area Conservation FEIS. It is available on-line through the United website at

    Click on the left menu bar that says "Access2000".
    Then click on "click here for the latest news courtesy Carla Boucher" at the top of the page.
    Then click on "Roadless Conservation Rulemaking - USFS".

    I have created a Word document relating to the website information. The document differs just slightly from the website, but the
    heart of the information in there. I have attached the document for those of you who can receive and open attachments but may
    not have Internet access. The document is a Word 2000 document.

    If you do NOT have internet access but would like to see a copy of entire report instead of the abbreviated report found here,
    please contact me directly and I will send a packet to you via U.S. Mail.

    If you can not receive attachments and do not have Internet access, please contact me and I will send you the evaluation via US

    The evaluation found that there are several areas where the FEIS has improved.

    1) The Forest Service has amended the definitions for "road", "classified road", and "unclassified road" in response to our
    2) The alternatives that would have set up procedures for land managers to use in finding additional areas (called "unroaded
    areas") through project or forest planning has been eliminated. The Forest Service has moved this portion of the rule over to the
    planning rule.
    3) The Forest Service has finally put it in writing that it considers all "System" roads to be "Classified" roads.

    The evaluation found that there are still some areas of concern.

    A) The FEIS has changed the scope of the rule. Instead of prohibiting road construction in just "unroaded" portions of Roadless
    Areas, it has broadened the prohibitions to all Roadless Areas, those WITH roads as well as those without.
    B) The prohibitions in the FEIS apply to a larger reported figure of acres for Roadless Areas. There are 7 million more acres in
    the FEIS than there were in the DEIS. 2.8 million acres are the increase from the change discussed in (A) above, and 4.2 million
    acres were found when the FEIS maps were updated based on figures from each national forest
    C) The Final Rule will still only add "protections" to 1/100th of one percent of all Roadless Areas. The Forest Service has spent
    $9.4 million so far developing this policy. If the agency would NOT have developed this policy, 99.99% of all Roadless Areas
    would have been unentered by new roads anyway. And American Taxpayers could have saved $9.4 million.
    D) An additional 95,000 acres of Roadless Areas will be subject to catastrophic wildfire under the FEIS . When these areas
    catch on fire, the agency will spend an estimated $52.4 million on fire fighting. If the rule was NOT implemented these 95,000
    acres could receive timber-related fuels treatment and therefore reduce or eliminate the risk of catastrophic fire. If the rule was
    NOT implemented the Forest Service could use this $52.4 million to maintain 675 miles of Level 2, high-clearance-vehicle
    recreation roads for 839 years. That's right - if the Forest Service allowed just 675 miles of roads to be built over 5 years for
    timber-related fuels treatment of these 95,000 acres, they could then maintain those same roads for 839 years for the same cost
    it be to fight fires in these areas. This concern in particular leads me to believe that the justification for this rule is not about
    money and a backlog in road maintenance!

    If you have any questions about my evaluation please don't hesitate to contact me. Please help spread the word about the
    improvements and shortcomings of this rule with your local media.

    Thank you


    <font color=red>get involved with land issues or lose the land</font color=red>

Share This Page