79–006

106TH CONGRESS REPT. 106–604 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1

FOREST ROADS-COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT

MAY 3, 2000.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources,

submitted the following

REPORT

together with

DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 1523]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill

(H.R. 1523) to establish mandatory procedures to be followed by

the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management in advance of the permanent closure of any forest road so as to ensure

local public participation in the decisionmaking process, having

considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment

and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

The amendment is as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof

the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Forest Roads-Community Right-To-Know Act’’.

SECTION 2. FOREST SERVICE AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES FOR PERMANENT CLOSURE OF FOREST ROADS.

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) PERMANENT CLOSURE.—The term ‘‘permanent closure’’, with respect to a

forest road, means the closure of the road to vehicular traffic for a continuous

period of more than one year. The term includes a road closure of one year or

less, or of an unspecified duration, unless the Secretary concerned certifies at

the time of the closure that the closure will not extend beyond one year.

(2) FOREST ROAD.—The term ‘‘forest road’’ means any road on Federal lands.

(3) FEDERAL LANDS.—The term ‘‘Federal lands’’ means—

(A) lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management; and

(B) lands within units of the National Forest System.

2

(4) STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.—The term ‘‘State and local government officials’’ means elected officials of States and counties within which

Federal lands are located.

(5) SECRETARY CONCERNED.—The term ‘‘Secretary concerned’’ means—

(A) with respect to the Federal lands described in paragraph (3)(A), the

Secretary of the Interior; and

(B) with respect to the Federal lands described in paragraph (3)(B), the

Secretary of Agriculture.

(b) ADVANCE NOTICE OF PERMANENT ROAD CLOSURES TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.—

(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this subsection is to ensure that the Secretary

concerned involves State and local government officials in the process by which

the Secretary concerned considers and plans for the potential permanent closure

of forest roads on Federal lands.

(2) ANNUAL MEETINGS REQUIRED.—At least once each fiscal year, the Secretary concerned shall meet with appropriate State and local government officials to describe all agency plans or proposals that, within the next two fiscal

years, will or may result in the permanent closure of forest roads on Federal

lands. Such agency plans or proposals include project proposals, land management plan amendments or revisions, resource management plan amendments or

revisions, and regional or subregional plans or proposals

(3) ELEMENTS OF NOTICE.—At a meeting under paragraph (2), the Secretary

concerned shall provide information, using maps and other means, that at a

minimum—

(A) shows forest roads selected or proposed for permanent closure;

(B) shows traffic patterns and volumes on the roads over the previous five

years; and

(C) explains how users of the roads will be adversely affected with longer

travel times or adverse travel conditions by the permanent closure of the

roads.

(4) SPECIAL RULE FOR FIRST MEETING.—At the first meeting conducted under

paragraph (2) for a State or local government, the Secretary concerned shall

also provide information on all forest roads that have been subject to permanent

closure in that State during the previous five years. The information shall include a map showing the location of the forest roads and a description of the

methods and costs of the permanent closure of the forest roads.

(c) PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) LOCAL NOTICE.—Before proceeding with the permanent closure of a forest

road, the Secretary concerned shall publish an announcement describing the

proposed closure in the local newspaper of record for the area likely to be affected by the permanent closure of the road. The announcement shall include

a description and map of the forest road selected or proposed for permanent closure and a description of any comments generated regarding the closure in

meetings with State and local government officials under subsection (b).

(2) COMMENT PERIOD.—The permanent closure of a forest road may not take

effect until after the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date that the

announcement under paragraph (1) was published regarding that road so as to

permit the public to submit comments regarding the decision to select or propose the forest road for permanent closure.

(d) PROHIBITION ON PERMANENT ROAD CLOSURES.—The permanent closure of a

forest road is prohibited unless—

(1) advance notice of the permanent closure of the road is provided to the appropriate State and local government officials in the manner provided in subsection (b); and

(2) the Secretary complies with the public notice and comment requirements

under subsection (c).

(e) APPLICATION OF REQUIREMENTS.—The requirements of this section shall take

effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, except that the prohibition contained

in subsection (d)(1) shall not apply to prohibit the permanent closure of any forest

road implemented during the fiscal year in which this section is enacted.

(f) EFFECT ON VALID AND EXISTING RIGHTS.—Nothing in this section shall invalidate rights-of-way designated under section 2477 of the Revised Statutes of 1878 (43

U.S.C. 932) or other valid and existing rights, including rights of ingress and egress.

(g) COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAWS.—In carrying out this section with respect to

a forest road, the Secretary concerned shall comply with the applicable laws of the

State in which the forest road is located.

3

SEC. 3. EMERGENCIES.

(a) EMERGENCY ROAD CLOSURES.—Subject to subsection (b), the requirements of

section 2 shall not apply to emergency road closures where life or property would

be endangered or threatened in the absence of the road closure.

(b) LENGTH OF CLOSURE.—If an emergency road closure will extend beyond one

year, the Secretary concerned shall comply with the requirements of section 2 within three months after the date on which the emergency road closure commenced.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 1523 is to establish mandatory procedures

to be followed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management in advance of the permanent closure of any forest road so

as to ensure local public participation in the decisionmaking process.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

In the last few years, three times more roads have been obliterated in national forests than have been constructed. These actions

profoundly influence the ability of the public to access national forests and of the government to manage them. Sometimes these decisions are made through modifications of a national forest’s travel

plan, but often, decisions to close and obliterate roads are done administratively without public input. This has a tremendous effect

on the lives of rural people who depend on existing forest roads for

work and leisure.

The Administration’s fiscal year 2000 budget request provides for

decommissioning of 3,300 miles of forest roads. The Chief of the

U.S. Forest Service’s decision indicates that the agency intends to

proceed with road closures at a greatly increased rate, without the

opportunities for public involvement that are required by law and

that the Chief himself has promised to provide.

H.R. 1523 provides that permanent road closures, including road

decommissioning, will no longer be done by the Forest Service or

Bureau of Land Management without adequate public notice and

local government and public involvement. It specifically allows

short term closures that the agencies may deem necessary. Finally,

the bill does not affect valid and existing rights.

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 1523 was introduced on April 22, 1999, by Mrs. ChenowethHage. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Resources and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture. Within

the Committee on Resources it was referred to the Subcommittee

on Forests and Forest Health and to the Subcommittee on National

Parks and Public Lands. On April 22, 1999, the Subcommittee on

Forests and Forest Health held a hearing on public participation

in road closures and on a draft version of H.R. 1523. On April 27,

1999, the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health met to mark

up the bill. No amendments were offered and the bill was ordered

reported to the Full Committee by a roll call vote of 8 to 5, as follows:

4

5

On May 5, 1999, the Full Committee on Resources met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public

Lands was discharged from further consideration of the bill by

unanimous consent. Chairman Young offered an amendment to

allow immediate emergency closures of roads in cases where safety

or property was threatened, with public disclosure to follow in

cases where the closure was expected to last more than 1 year. The

amendment was adopted by voice vote. The bill, as amended, was

ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a

roll call vote of 22 to 16, as follows:

6

7

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of Rule XIII

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in

the body of this report.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution

of the United States grant Congress the authority to enact this bill.

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that Rule provides

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) of

Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section

308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this bill does not

contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures.

3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause 3(c)(4)

of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee has received no report of oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform on this

bill.

4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause

3(c)(3) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives

and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the

Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, May 26, 1999.

Hon. DON YOUNG, Chairman, Committee on Resources,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1523, the Forest RoadsCommunity Right To-Know Act.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Victoria Heid Hall.

Sincerely,

BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

8

H.R. 1523—Forest Roads-Community Right-To-Know Act

H.R. 1523 would require the Secretaries of Agriculture and the

Interior to notify the public in advance about proposals to permanently close forest roads on federal land. The bill would apply to

any road on federal land within the National Forest System or administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The bill

would prohibit closing a road for more than a year (except for

emergency road closures) unless the agencies provide advance notice according to the process specified in the bill. Such notice would

have to include information on traffic patterns and volumes for the

previous five years on the roads proposed for closure. According to

the Forest Service (FS) and BLM, information on road usage is collected only for major roads on federal land. Therefore, enacting

H.F. 1523 would effectively prohibit most permanent road closures

for five years while the agencies collect such data.

The delay of most permanent road closures would save decommissioning costs during the period when roads would remain in use

or be closed only temporarily. At the same time, the FS and BLM

would incur additional costs for maintaining roads that otherwise

would be closed under current law and for collecting data on use

of the roads that are proposed for permanent closure. Based on information from the two agencies, CBO estimates that implementing

H.R. 1523 would have no significant net impact on outlays over the

next five years because funds intended for road decommissioning

could be used to cover maintenance and data collection. That is, we

expect that the likely savings and costs of the bill would be approximately equal over the next five years. However, over the long

term, collecting data on road usage entail additional costs relative

to current law.

Because H.R. 1523 would not affect direct spending or receipts,

pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 1523 contains no

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would no significant impact on

the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.

The CBO contact for this estimate is Victoria Heid Hall. This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law.

(9)

DISSENTING VIEWS

H.R. 1523 mandates additional procedures the Forest Service

and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) must follow when

closing roads on national forests and public lands for more than

one year. This bill defies logic by defining ‘‘permanent closure’’ to

mean more than one year. Even road closures planned for less than

one year qualify as ‘‘permanent,’’ unless the Secretary certifies the

closures will not extend beyond 12 months. The newly mandated

procedural hoops include giving advance notice to public officials of

‘‘all’’ agency plans over the next two fiscal years that ‘‘will or may’’

result in the ‘‘permanent’’ closure of roads on public lands. Even

road closures pursuant to an emergency must go through these

hurdles after a three-month stay.

A hearing was held on April 22, 1999 before the bill was even introduced; the Department of the Interior—an affected agency—

never testified on the bill for that reason. Ironically, on a bill that

purports to increase public involvement, there was little notice, involvement, or input. While public involvement and consultation in

government decision-making is both desirable and critical, H.R.

1523 mandates procedures for road closings that do not apply to

road-building or timber sales, thus selectively choosing when public

involvement is important. Opposed by the Forest Service and the

Bureau of Land Management, this legislation is onerous, costly,

and unnecessary for several reasons.

First, the bill inappropriately addresses a local issue through national legislation. The impetus for the legislation came from road

closures on the Targhee National Forest in Idaho as part of a 1998

travel management plan draft Environmental Impact Statement.

According to the Forest Service, the plan addressed several concerns: (1) reducing road maintenance needs; (2) restoring soils and

water quality; (3) enhancing grizzly bear habitat and recovery in

accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife recommendations; (4) restoring cutthroat trout habitat to prevent its Endangered Species

Act listing; (5) allowing access in certain areas where compatible

with timber harvesting; and (6) reducing hunting pressure on elk

populations to meet State of Idaho Department of Fish and Game

population goals. The real issue troubling the Majority is the decisions—not the process surrounding the decision—to close forest

roads on the Targhee National Forest in Idaho.

Second, as the Forest Service testified, ample opportunity for

public comment exists as mandated by NEPA and other legislation

as well as agency policy. The sponsor herself admits that county

commissioners received notice—‘‘a whole stack’’ of letters, in her

words—about the Targhee road closures, but takes umbrage on the

commissioners’ behalf at the salutation of ‘‘Concerned Citizen.’’

Moreover, the Forest Service has reiterated its policies of encourVerDate 27-APR-2000 00:25 May 05, 2000 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR604P1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR604P1
10

aging public notice and outreach on road management, further undercutting any need for legislation. (Letter attached).

Third, there are several drafting problems. ‘‘Permanent’’ is defined so broadly that anything that may be closed longer than a

year is deemed a closure, which is precluded without advance notice to local governments and 90-day public comment. The amendment addressing emergency closures merely imposes a three-month

stay on the procedural requirements the agency must meet, thereby restricting agency discretion to keep roads closed in case of

floods or landslides, or lack of funding. ‘‘Closure’’ is not defined, so

that roads designed to be temporary may be required to stay open.

‘‘Road’’ is defined overly broadly so that the agency could be precluded from closing illegal and unauthorized roads created by offroad vehicle use.

Finally, the bill reverses existing statutory and policy direction

regarding road management. Section 8 of the National Forest Management Act requires the Forest Service to close and obliterate

roads unless they are designated permanent in the agency’s transportation management plans (16 U.S.C. 1608 (b)). H.R. 1523, on

the other hand, would require that all the roads remain open unless the agency complies with these burdensome procedures. With

an authorized road system of over 380,000 miles, an estimated

60,000 miles of unauthorized roads, and a $8.5 billion backlog in

repair and maintenance in the National Forest System, and an additional 78,000 miles of road under BLM’s jurisdiction, the last

thing Congress should be doing is making it more difficult and

cumbersome for agencies to close roads for safety or environmental

reasons. The Forest Service is looking to minimize new road construction and reduce the resource damage from its current road

network. Yet H.R. 1523’s data collection requirements of traffic patterns over five-year periods are so onerous as to effectively impose

at least a five-year moratorium on road closures. While less than

20 percent of the current Forest Service road system for passenger

vehicles is being maintained to the design safety standards, Congress only appropriates a fraction of what it would take to address

the backlog of repairs. This legislation offers nothing in the way of

addressing these serious problems and instead would serve to obstruct closure of unnecessary and environmentally destructive portions of the vast system of roads on public lands and national forests.

GEORGE MILLER.

(11)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

FOREST SERVICE,

Washington, DC, May 4, 1999.

File Code: 7700/1950.

Route To:

Subject: Involving Local Public Officials in Planning of Road Decommissioning.

To: Regional Foresters and Washington Office Staff Directors.

Management of the forest road system is one of the four key

focus areas of the Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda. There

are few issues that have been more controversial for the Forest

Service than forest roads. While roads are vital for public, commercial and administrative access to the national forests and grasslands, we also find that roads can be great contributors to environmental damage to our lands. In order to address this difficult issue,

we are in the midst of developing a new national roads policy and

rewriting the national forest planning regulations.

It is important that you recognize the public interest and potential controversy that surrounds projects and ensure that adequate

information specifically addressing the planning of road decommissioning is given in your quarterly schedule of proposed actions, to

more accurately describe the issues involved. For instance, when

road decommissioning is planned as part of a timber sale, decommissioning should be identified as part of that sale in the quarterly

notices, during scoping, and during the public comment period.

It has long been Forest Service policy that local elected officials

are valuable partners whom we advise and consult regarding management decisions in the national forests. Building and maintaining positive relationships with these officials is good business. More

often than not, they are key to identification of win-win approaches

to our land management problems. Their help means going forth

with synergy instead of confrontation.

I expect Forest Service line officers periodically to meet with

State and local officials and other concerned citizens on potentially

controversial issues and projects. Road decommissioning projects

and transportation planning in general, are examples where I expect you to involve and coordinate with your State and local officials. There is nothing the Forest Service does on the ground that

should be done without involvement with interested officials. Decommissioning roads and transportation planning is no exception.

Maintaining an open and collaborative process with our local

communities and other communities of interest will move us all forward in a positive way and one that we can all feel good about.

Thank you for your attention to this concern.

GLORIA MANNING,

Acting Deputy Chief, National Forest System.

(13)

A P P E N D I X

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

Washington, DC, June 1, 1999.

Hon. DON YOUNG, Chairman, Committee on Resources,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On May 5, 1999 the Committee on Resources ordered to be reported H.R. 1523, the ‘‘Forest Roads-Community-Right-To-Know Act.’’ As you are aware, the Committee on

Agriculture was granted an additional referral of this legislation on

those provisions of H.R. 1523 that fall within the jurisdiction of

this Committee.

Knowing of your interest in expediting this legislation and in

maintaining the continued consultation between our Committees

on these matters, I agree to discharge H.R. 1523 from consideration

by the Committee on Agriculture. I do so with the understanding

that by discharging the bill the Committee on Agriculture does not

waive any future jurisdictional claim over this or similar measures.

In addition, in the event a conference with the Senate is requested

on this matter, the Committee on Agriculture reserves the right to

seek appointment of conferees from this Committee to be represented in such conference.

Thank you very much for your courtesy in this matter and I look

forward to continued cooperation between our Committees as we

deal with these issues in the future.

Sincerely,

LARRY COMBEST, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC, May 28, 1999.

Hon. LARRY COMBEST,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.

1523, the Forest Roads Community Right-to-Know Act. I appreciate

your cooperation in not insisting on your additional referral of the

bill.

I will of course support your request to have the Committee on

Agriculture named to any conference on H.R. 1523 if one should become necessary, and copies of our correspondence will be made part

of the committee bill report.

14

Thank you again for your cooperation and that of Lance

Kotschwar, Greg Zerzan and Dave Tenny of your staff. I look forward to seeing H.R. 1523 debated on the House Floor soon.

Sincerely,

DON YOUNG, Chairman.

Æ