<< Previous Section 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Compared to Current Estimated Program, on all NFS Lands

Appendix G - Regional Summary of Projects and Road Construction Suspensions

Compared to Current Estimated Program, by Alternative for 18-month Suspension (unroaded areas of NFS lands)

Appendix H - Benefit-Cost Analysis Executive Summary

Benefit-Cost Analysis Executive Summary

An environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared in conjunction with this final interim rule. The most tangible effects from this interim rule are reductions in timber offered for sale. The analysis estimates that, of the 5.4 billion board feet of timber planned for sale nationwide during the 18-month period of the final interim rule, the timber volume actually offered may be reduced by an estimated 170 to 260 million board feet. This is less than 5% of the planned sales during the 18-month period. The estimated potential losses in payments-to-states range from $6 million to $8 million and could affect between 270 and 420 direct timber jobs nationwide. Alternatively, indirect benefits to wildlife, aquatic habitat, threatened, endangered and sensitive species, and ecological functions are also identified but are not quantified in the EA.

The Forest Service is in the process of revising regulations regarding the management of the National Forest Transportation System. An Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on January 28, 1998, that announced the agency's intent to develop new and improved analytical techniques to help determine the size, purpose, and extent of the future forest road transportation system and any specific road building activities.

Simultaneously, the Forest Service proposed an interim rule to temporarily suspend permanent and temporary road construction and reconstruction in unroaded areas of NFS lands. The suspension would be effective from the publication date of the final interim rule and would remain in effect until adoption of a revised road management policy or 18 months, whichever occurs first.

The Forest Service proposes to revise the policy concerning management of the NFS transportation system to address changes in how the road system is developed, used, maintained, and funded. The existing road system on NFS lands was largely funded and constructed to develop areas for timber harvesting and for the development of other resources. In the last 2 decades, interest in the appropriate uses of the resources of the national forests, as well as the costs associated with resource developments including road-building, has generated much public debate. The proposed temporary suspension is intended to provide time to adopt a revised road management policy for land managers and resource specialists. The improved analysis process will assure that the ecological, social, and economic impacts of proposed construction and reconstruction of NFS roads are objectively evaluated, and that there is a full consideration of public demand on NFS roads in the context of current scientific information.

The environmental costs of road construction are difficult to quantify, especially in monetary terms, and therefore are difficult to incorporate into the decision-making process. Many of these costs are nonmarket in nature. As a result of these known environmental costs and the public concern, the Forest Service believes the public interest is best served by suspending any road construction activities in roadless areas until the improved analytical process has been completed.

Framework for the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Interim Rule

The proposed temporary suspension is intended to last for 18 months or until the adoption of a revised road management policy, whichever comes first. The economic analysis focused on analyzing the impacts of suspending road construction activities in unroaded areas during this time period. The resource impacts of timber harvest are expected to last for more than 18 months, so a longer time frame was used to analyze timber harvest effects. The analysis did not attempt to predict potential outcomes after the suspension is lifted. Such predictions would be highly speculative, given that the guidance for future management decisions is still under development.

The EA for the Interim Rule Suspending Road Construction in Unroaded Areas of NFS describes 6 alternatives that were considered for implementing the proposed interim rule. These alternatives were analyzed to consider the economic effects on social welfare, employment, and payments-to-state. This document provides additional detail on the economic effects of the alternatives.

Alternative 1 is the current management alternative, referred to in the benefit-cost analysis as the baseline. Under this alternative, decisions involving road construction would be made using existing analytical techniques and decision-making guidance. No suspensions would occur under this alternative. The estimated permanent and temporary road construction and reconstruction for the 18-month period is what is expected to occur under continuation of existing forest plans. All resource effects are compared to this alternative.

Alternatives 2 through 6. The alternatives vary with regard to the NFS lands included in the suspension and the number of exemptions from the suspension. The EA included an analysis of environmental consequences on the following resource areas:

Both economic efficiency and distributional effects were considered for each of the listed environmental consequence. Quantitative data for these consequences is severely limited. The broad scale of the analysis precluded the collection of site-specific data. Therefore, much of the economic analysis for this interim rule is descriptive. Despite these limitations, the consequences of the suspension were estimated to be negligible for most resources. The exception is the effect of the rule on timber harvest. The proposed temporary suspension has measurable effects on the proposed timber harvest in unroaded areas, which are quantified.

The economic effects are described by category of environmental consequence, rather than by alternative. The potential economic effects between alternatives can be compared, but the most important comparison is to the baseline (i.e. continuation of the current situation).

The analysis of economic effects assumed that planned projects involving road construction or reconstruction in unroaded areas would be suspended for the 18-month period. Some projects may proceed without road construction or the suspension could be cut short by implementation of the revised road management policy, so this assumption could overestimate effects. Once a final interim rule is proposed, each unit will be required to evaluate all potentially affected projects (under the provisions of P.L. 105-174 Section 3006 of the 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act) to determine if the project can be implemented without the road work.

Economic Effects

In all alternatives, exemptions are included to guarantee access required for protecting public safety and to assure access provided by statute, or reserved or outstanding rights. As a result, public safety and legal access would be unaffected by the suspension, resulting in no economic effects. General new access would be minimally affected by the suspension. The greatest effect occurs under alternative 4, which would result in suspension of less than 1% of the new access miles under the baseline. The effects on general new access would be negligible.

Under the baseline, 6 miles of temporary roads are estimated to be constructed specifically for fire purposes. Of course, other roads could also be used to fight fires and to treat forest health problems. No effects are expected from the suspension for several reasons:

Assuming that the substitute treatment opportunities are as beneficial in achieving forest health goals as the projects they replaced, no social benefits would be lost. There could be a distributional effect, if the replacement projects create non-Forest Service employment in a different geographic area. Overall employment would be unaffected, but job location could shift. This effect would be small, since only 3% of all treatment acres are potentially affected by the suspension.

The economic effects of the proposed temporary suspension on timber sales can be quantified. Timber sales are used to achieve vegetation management objectives. Timber sales are often used as a least-cost method to manage vegetation for improving wildlife habitats, reducing fuels, recovering values from natural disasters, combating insect and disease infestations, and improving tree growth. Timber sales include timber commodity purpose sales made primarily to supply timber in response to society's demand for wood, as well as for personal use made primarily to supply firewood, Christmas trees and other miscellaneous forest products to individuals for their own consumption. Roads are generally required for timber harvest.

Under alternative 1, a planned timber harvest volume over 18 months was estimated. Alternatives 2 through 6 would result in reduced volume in comparison to alternative 1. A range of harvest effects was estimated for alternatives 2 through 6, over 18 months. The effects of a suspended timber harvest would occur over a longer period than the 18-month suspension because timber sold is not harvested immediately. The usual delay from the time that timber is sold until all timber is harvested is between 2 and 3 years. Therefore, the potential suspended harvest was assumed to occur over 3 years in equal proportions.

The effects are assumed to be identical in each of the 3 years. For the economic analysis, the harvest effects of the proposed suspension were converted into annual effects. The 18-month planned program in alternative 1 was also converted into annual effects over 3 years. Table 1 shows timber volume effects on an annual basis by alternative.

A range of volumes is presented in alternatives 2 through 6 for potential suspended sold volume. Some timber sales encompass unroaded areas potentially subject to suspension and roaded areas. Suspending the unroaded portion may require suspending the entire project. The low estimate is the portion of potential sales within the unroaded area being considered for suspension and the high estimate includes the roaded area of the project. Once a final interim rule is published, each unit will evaluate these split projects to determine if the portion outside of the unroaded area can proceed.

Table 1 displays the potential harvest suspensions before consideration of alternative sources of timber. There are options available for replacing some of the suspended volume from other ownerships in the United States. The availability of substitute harvest opportunities varies by region. Key factors include the proportion of NFS lands in the region, the type of timber being harvested on the NFS lands versus availability on other ownerships, and current timber prices. Substitute harvest opportunities are most available in the eastern United States (Regions 8 and 9), where it was assumed that 90% of the NFS harvest could be replaced on other ownerships. Opportunities are more limited in the West, where the NFS lands occupy a higher proportion of the forest-land base. Region 2 was assumed to have opportunities to replace 40% of the suspended volume; Regions 1 and 4 were assumed to be able to replace 20% of the volume, and Regions 3, 5, and 6 were assumed to have no substitution opportunities.

The economic efficiency effects of the timber sales program include the economic value of the timber, the economic value of other associated positive resource impacts of timber harvest, the costs of harvest, and environmental costs or other negative effects of the harvest. The non-timber economic effects are an important component of the efficiency analysis, since an increasing proportion of timber sales on the NFS are undertaken to achieve forest management objectives other than commercial harvest.

Since the total planned volume in the baseline and the estimated suspended volumes of alternatives 2 through 6 are not tied to any particular sales, the estimates of the economic benefits and costs had to reflect some representative range for each region. The data used for the benefits and costs of harvest were taken from the Forest Service's Timber Sales Program Information Reporting System (TSPIRS) reports. The TSPIRS annual reports contain data on the benefits and costs of timber harvest by national forest.

Report 2 of TSPIRS is an economic analysis of the benefits and costs of the timber harvest accomplished in a fiscal year. A traditional with-without analysis is undertaken to estimate the incremental benefits and costs associated with the timber harvest in the relevant fiscal year. This analysis captures the effects of timber harvest on all resources for which monetary value estimates are available. For example, effects on recreation use, forage for domestic livestock and wildlife, and water quality are considered. Some of the effects of timber harvest are positive, while others are negative. The benefits and costs are estimated over the life of the effects and then discounted to a present net value.

Each national forest completes TSPIRS Report 2 (unless no timber was harvested). The national TSPIRS annual report includes data on the present value of the costs and benefits associated with timber

sale by national forest. The forest-level data was used to calculate a 2-year average for the present value of costs and benefits from timber sales. Data from fiscal years 1996 and 1997 were used. Harvest data from the national forests were used to calculate a present value of costs and benefits per million board feet (also averaged over 1996 and 1997), which was then used as the per unit value to apply to potential harvest effects of the proposed suspension.

Data from all forests were used to calculate the regional and national present net values of the baseline. The benefits and costs for each of the alternatives were based on data from a subset of forests in each region that are likely to be affected by the suspension. Therefore, the cost and benefit estimates for each alternative should more closely estimate the effects than a regional average across all forests.

The distributional effects of the proposed rule were measured as effects on employment and payments-to-states. Employment effects can be described as direct, indirect, and induced. Direct effects include jobs associated with the harvest of timber and processing of the raw logs. Indirect effects include jobs associated with industries that supply inputs to the harvesting and processing sector. Induced effects include jobs associated with increased spending in the economy from the salaries created from the direct and indirect effects.

Direct job effects are not reported separately from total effects in TSPIRS. Therefore, regional estimates of direct job effects per million board feet were based on the best judgment of Forest Service economists. Although the ratio is constant within a region, direct jobs per million board feet varies across regions.

Estimates of total employment impacts (the sum of direct, indirect, and induced effects) were based on TSPIRS data. Each national forest reports total employment associated with NFS harvest. As with the benefits and costs data, a 2-year average (1996 and 1997) of data was used to calculate total jobs per million board feet. Total job effects of the suspension alternatives were calculated using only the subset of forests likely to be affected by the suspension.

Effects on payments-to-states are linked to Forest Service receipts for timber sales. Average receipts per million board feet were calculated for each region, based on fiscal year 1997 TSPIRS data. Payments-to-states were estimated as 25% of the potential receipts.

Under the baseline alternative, the annual net benefit of planned timber sales would be about $376 million (table 2). Assuming the same level of total harvest in each year, the discounted present net value over the 3-year period would be $1.1 billion. The annual present net values for alternatives 2 through 6 describe the change to the annual net present value of the baseline.

The effect of the suspension of timber harvest is a loss of the net benefits associated with the harvest volume. In most cases, the proposed suspension would reduce the present net value of the baseline (the negative values). The only exception occurs in Region 10, in which case the suspension would actually increase the net present value of the planned program because the costs of harvest exceed the benefits (indicated by a positive value for the Region 10 harvest alternatives). At the national level, alternatives 2, 3, and 6 result in a loss to society from suspending harvest. The total values for alternatives 4 and 5 indicate that the suspension would be beneficial. However, this result is dominated by Region 10. All other regions under those alternatives would lose benefits as a result of the proposed suspension. Overall, the loss of benefits is relatively minor in comparison to total net benefits of the planned program. The greatest loss occurs in alternative 6, with a loss of only 1% of the total benefit of the baseline.

Although the national effects are minor, Regions 1 and 4 have a higher than average proportion of the effects. Net benefit losses in Region 1 range from 4% to 7% of total baseline benefits, while Region 4 losses range from 4% to 6%. Regions 6 and 8 have higher net losses under some alternatives than Regions 1 and 4, but the relative impact is greater in the latter regions.

Total United States wood consumption would be unaffected by the proposed temporary suspension. Harvest from NFS lands was only 4% of total United States production in 1997. The maximum potential suspended volume is less than .2% of total United States production. Therefore, the total supply effect is marginal, and no price impacts are expected as a result.

The effects described in table 2 do not include the possible offset from harvest on other lands. As described earlier, the possibilities for substitute domestic harvest of timber varies by region.

Timber harvest that cannot be substituted domestically could be replaced through imports, primarily from Canada. After subtracting domestic substitution, a maximum of 348 million board feet would need to be replaced by imports (under alternative 4). In 1997, 17.2 billion board feet of softwood lumber were imported from Canada. If the board feet were converted to equivalent softwood lumber measure, then the total import volume needed to replace suspended harvest would equal 2% of the 1997 import level.

Since no price effect is likely to occur as a result of the proposed temporary suspension, there should be no net welfare loss from the perspective of consumers of wood products. The alternative sources of timber harvest will have associated benefits and costs that would not be reflected in the prices of wood products. The benefits and costs associated with NFS harvest may be quite different from harvest on other ownerships and in Canada. Therefore, no attempt was made to estimate the benefits and costs of the alternative harvest, although those effects would likely offset some of the lost benefits from reduced NFS harvest.

The traditional Forest Service approach to evaluating the employment effects of timber harvest is to use the IMPLAN model to estimate total job effects of timber harvest including direct, indirect, and induced effects. For this analysis, direct jobs and total jobs were estimated separately. Two scenarios were considered for both direct jobs and total jobs: effects with no domestic harvest substitution and effects with domestic harvest substitution.

Direct job impacts without harvest substitution (table 3) are the lowest in alternative 2 (347-501 jobs) and the greatest in alternative 4 (723 to 1322 jobs). These impacts are between 1% and 5% of the total direct jobs associated with the baseline. Under the preferred alternative (alternative 6), job impacts are about 2% of the total. Although the national effect is a small percentage of the total jobs under the baseline, the impacts are concentrated in primarily Regions 1 and 10. However, Region 10 would be exempt from suspension in the preferred alternative.

When the effects of harvest substitution are considered, the distribution of direct job impacts changes slightly (table 4). Region 1 has the highest impacts across all alternatives, while the impacts in Regions 8 and 9 are minimal because of the high degree of substitution in those regions. Since the harvest

substitution occurs within the same region, the jobs created by the substitute harvest would be a direct offset to the jobs lost from suspended NFS harvest. The same individuals may not have employment, but the same number of people would be employed in the region. Therefore, the real job impacts are those caused by harvest reductions that are not replaced domestically as described in table 4.

Direct job effects are the most obvious effect of suspended timber harvest. Indirect and induced effects are distributed over a wide range of economic sectors. The impact of reduced harvest on these jobs varies widely by community. Communities with diverse economies that have strong overall job growth may be able to provide substitute opportunities for the indirect and induced effects. Local communities with a strong timber-related sector and less economic diversity will be most impacted through indirect and induced effects.

Substitution opportunities for induced and indirect job effect seem likely in today's economic environment of tight job markets, but those effects can vary greatly by location and type of employment. Substitution effects may not occur immediately, so that a lag effect may occur. Even if communities are able to replace indirect and induced effects, the overall impact of the suspension is to reduce one segment of employment opportunities. Therefore, the total employment effects of the suspended harvest were estimated as the potential maximum effects of the suspension.

Total jobs per million board feet were based on total timber-harvest related employment in the national TSPIRS report. The forest-level data was used so that each alternative could be evaluated based on the forests likely to be affected in each alternative. Tables 5 and 6 display total job effects for each alternative. Under the baseline, about 59,000 total jobs would be associated with planned timber harvest. Without considering harvest substitution effects, the impacts range from 983 jobs to 3112 jobs (2% to 5% of total jobs). The effects for total jobs are distributed the same as direct jobs. Region 1 effects are accentuated because of the high multiplier effect in that region compared to other regions. Including harvest substitution reduces the job impacts (table 6). Maximum impacts under substitution range from 1% to 3%. As explained, the harvest substitution would allow for a direct offset of job impacts within the region but may affect different individuals.

The final economic effect to be considered by the suspension of timber harvests is the reduction in payments-to-states. The size of the effect depends on harvest level and the value of harvest. Region 6 has the highest average receipts per thousand board feet ($198), while the lowest average was in Region 10 ($23). Total receipts and associated payments-to-states were estimated for the baseline (table 7). Losses in payments-to-states because of the suspension range from $4 million to $13 million, which is 3% to 12% of total estimated payments. Under the preferred alternative, the loss of payments-to-states would range from 5% to 6%. The greatest effects would be on Region 1, with impacts ranging from 14% to 22%. Region 8 also has a relatively large effect. Even though most of the suspended harvest in Region 8 can be substituted on other lands, that harvest does not replace payments-to-states. However, harvest on non-NFS lands would generate other forms of revenues for states.

Although all alternatives result in some loss of revenue from payments-to-states, these losses will be mitigated by requirements of the 1998 Supplemental Appropriation and Rescissions Act. It is impossible to estimate the extent of the mitigation until implementation guidelines are established. When the final interim rule is published, specific implementation direction will be established to evaluate projects and determine the extent of the compensation needed for lost revenue.

Non-recreational special use authorization on NFS lands include communication sites, public and private roads, and transmission rights-of-way (e.g., pipelines). More than 47,000 active special use authorizations currently exist; approximately 8,000 applications for new or renewed authorizations are expected in fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

All private interest access projects needed to satisfy the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act or other statutory rights-of-access are exempt from the proposed temporary suspension. Access provided pursuant to statutory rights-of-access and reserved or outstanding rights are also exempt. Cost-share road agreements would also be exempt under all alternatives.

The only potential effects of the proposed suspension would be on applications for authorizations that are not required by law. Included would be private access permits (to access private property within NFS boundaries) and linear rights-of-way (e.g., electric transmission lines, oil pipelines, and railroads). Under the baseline, an estimated 417 private access permit applications would request 174 miles of road construction and reconstruction on all NFS lands. A total of 4 miles of roads are affected in each of the alternatives. For linear rights-of-way, a total of 123 miles of roads would be constructed or reconstructed under the baseline alternative. Less than 2 miles of roads would be affected by the suspension. Given the small percentage of total roads affected by the proposed suspension, economic effects are assumed to be negligible.

The baseline includes an estimated 58 miles of roads in unroaded areas during the 18-month suspension, involving an estimated 685 new mineral exploration or development proposals. The expected economic effects of the suspension are assumed to be negligible, largely because reasonable access to privately owned minerals, mineral claims, leases, permits, and contract are exempt from suspension. Access to new leases, licenses, permits, and contracts issued in unroaded areas would be subject to the final interim rule. However, the suspension does not affect leasing decisions, which can go forward. About 334,000 acres of unroaded areas are scheduled for auction, but many of these leases are not expected to receive bids because of low oil prices that do not encourage exploration. Therefore, no or very few proposals to explore newly issued leases would be affected by the temporary suspension. As a result, no economic effects are expected from the temporary suspension.

Approximately 6 to 7 million acres of NFS lands are infested with noxious weeds and nonnative invasive plants. Their estimated rate of spread is between 8% and 12% per year. Suspending road construction reduces the opportunity for vehicles to serve as a conduit for further infestation. Any type of ground-disturbing activity increases the potential for aiding the spread of these species. However, the number of miles suspended in any of the alternatives is minor compared to the overall road system in the NFS. Therefore, the suspension will not appreciably alter the overall spread.

Roads allow easy access to treat weed infestations. However, given the size of the problem and the number of acres that can be treated per year, the benefits of suspension far outweigh the advantages of easy treatment. No planned treatment projects are affected by the suspension. Therefore, the overall the net benefits of the suspension are probably positive but not large. The greatest benefits would accrue from the alternative with the greatest miles suspended (alternative 4).

The impacts of the proposed temporary suspension vary by type of recreation. Developed recreation facilities depend on roaded access. In the baseline, 195 miles of permanent and temporary road construction and reconstruction would be undertaken for the primary purpose of access to developed recreation facilities. Less than one mile of that total would occur on unroaded areas in all alternatives. Therefore, recreation use at developed sites would be virtually unchanged. The effect is limited to a few developed sites in Region 8.

Scenic quality adds value to recreation experiences. Generally, road construction poses a threat to scenic quality, depending on the road design and the purpose of road construction. To the extent that road development leads to activities, such as mining or timber harvest, scenic quality may decline. Therefore, the proposed temporary suspension would be expected to a protect existing areas of high scenic quality in comparison with the baseline. Those alternatives that suspend the most miles (alternatives 4 and 5) will provide the most protection.

However, roads can also bring people into contact with scenery that was previously unavailable and provide new benefits. Roads also provide access for management actions that may directly or indirectly improve areas of low scenic quality. It is impossible to evaluate the trade-offs between the positive and negative impacts with the existing data. Since the suspension is temporary, the options for future improvements remain, while areas of high scenic quality are protected.

Resort development includes ski areas and other recreation facilities on NFS lands that are primarily owned and operated by the private sector. These resorts are authorized by special use permits. Road development is important to provide access to resort areas. Under all alternatives, roads authorized under special use permits within a Master Development Plan would be exempt.

Under the baseline, 18 miles of roads associated with private resort development are estimated to occur in unroaded areas. Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 potentially affect 2 new ski areas and one ski expansion. The expansion could proceed without the temporary road construction. Road construction for the 2 new areas could not proceed during the suspension. Alternatives 4 and 5 also potentially affects 2 new ski areas and one ski expansion. Although the economic impacts of suspending a ski development could be large, such developments take place over a number of years. It is most likely that the temporary suspension will have a negligible impact on these ski developments.

Dispersed recreation includes a wide variety of recreation activities that occur in a many different recreation settings. Unroaded areas are most important for providing primitive and semi-primitive non-roaded recreation opportunities such as backpacking and hiking. Solitude is a key characteristic of these types of recreation settings. Roads are important in providing access to the entry in unroaded areas. Although the number of miles of roads primarily for the purpose of recreation is small, all roads are used to provide opportunities to access the forest for dispersed activities.

Some economic effects of the suspension on dispersed recreation will be positive, while others will be negative. Suspending road development limits the potential for new recreation access, which would have a negative impact on potential recreation benefits. Alternatives with the highest road suspension (alternatives 4 and 5) will have the greatest negative impacts on roaded recreation use. With increased recreation demand, limiting road access may lead to increased congestion in available roaded areas. However, new roads do not necessarily result in additional recreation visits in the affected areas. The new roads may only serve to redistribute existing users. Over an 18-month period, the effects are likely to be minimal.

Some types of recreation users would be positively impacted by the suspension of road development. All alternatives would maintain recreation opportunities for low-density recreation opportunities in the primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized recreation environment. The temporary suspension would guarantee protection of these recreation environments for the 18 months. Alternatives with the greatest miles of suspended roads (alternatives 4 and 5) would offer the most protection to these benefits.

Wildlife-associated recreation is a subset of dispersed recreation. Road building tends to have negative effects on water quality, fish habitat, and biological diversity. Therefore, the interim policy would tend to protect environmental quality that is a key factor in the quality of the wildlife recreation experience. However, these recreationists also require access to pursue these activities, and managers require access for management action to maintain or improve habitat quality.

No spatial data exists to demonstrate current patterns of use on the NFS lands. Therefore, it is difficult to estimate the effects of proposed temporary suspension on different types of recreation use. Without such information, it is not possible to determine which mix of recreation opportunities is the most beneficial to society. However, over the 18-month period it is unlikely that any of the potential effects will be large in comparison to total recreation use on the NFS.

Road construction and the associated activities that may occur because of roads generally have negative effects on air and water quality. The effects of road construction on watersheds include loss of ground cover, soil compaction, reduced transpiration, increased water runoff, increased soil erosion, loss of productive soils, and increased levels of dust. Employment of best management practices minimizes these effects but cannot eliminate them.

Therefore, the proposed temporary suspension has positive effects for protecting air and water quality. Alternatives 4 and 5 would likely result in the most benefits, since they suspend the most road miles. Protecting air and watershed quality provides benefits to other National Forests users, particularly recreationists who engage in water-related activities and benefit from increased visibility for scenic viewing.

These benefits would not necessarily be large in comparison to the baseline, but the temporary suspension would protect those benefits until new direction is available for evaluating road construction projects.

The important impacts on wildlife, fish, and TES species are the beneficial effects from suspension of road-related environmental degradation and the detrimental effects from suspension of projects with a primary wildlife, fish, or TES species purpose.

The beneficial effects of road suspension will dominate the effects in this area. Although benefits are most affected by site characteristics, it is likely that benefits would increase as the number of road miles suspended increases; the greater the suspension the greater the averted risk to wildlife, fish, and TES species. Alternatives 4 and 5 will provide the most benefits, but all alternatives provide greater benefits than the baseline. The overall effects of suspending wildlife, fish, and TES species projects is minimal since a large majority of the total projects are estimated to be outside NFS unroaded areas.

Passive use values were not addressed under any of the individual resource effects because they are applicable to several different types of resource effects. Passive use or non-use values are derived from personal motivations to protect environmental values either for personal satisfaction or for future generations. These values are not traded in markets nor subject to fees. Passive use values are likely to be positively affected by all alternatives that limit road development because these values are most often linked to protection of ecological values such as old growth, protection of endangered and threatened species, and protection of biological diversity. The only possible negative aspect of road suspension for passive use values is the limitation on management actions that are designed to protect ecological integrity. Passive use values would be higher under all alternatives in comparison to alternative 1. These values would likely be highest under alternatives 4 and 5 and lowest under alternatives 2 and 3.

The estimated economic consequences of the Interim Rule Suspending Road Construction in Unroaded Areas of NFS are minor in comparison to the baseline. Exemptions will prevent any adverse effects on public safety and access. The effect on most resources were estimated to be negligible. In most cases, very few road miles were planned into unroaded areas and the suspension of those roads had limited effect. In several cases, activities could be moved to other NFS areas. The suspension would likely have positive impacts on wildlife, fish, and TES species, on some recreation uses, and on passive use values.

The only measurable economic effects were the efficiency and distributional effects of potential timber harvest suspensions. The scenario with the most severe economic effects (Alternative 4 with no domestic harvest substitution) would result in a 2% to 5% decline in total jobs and a 1% decline in the annual net present value of total timber harvest. With harvest substitution, total jobs decline from 1% to 3%. Payments-to-states could drop 3% to 12% nationally, with a decline of 5% to 6% estimated for the preferred alternative.

Although all alternatives result in some loss of revenue from payments-to-states, these losses will be mitigated by requirements of the 1998 Supplemental Appropriation and Rescissions Act. It is impossible to estimate the extent of the mitigation until implementation guidelines are established. When the final interim rule is published, specific implementation direction will be established to evaluate projects and determine the extent of the compensation needed for lost revenue.

Table H-1. Comparison of Estimated Annual Timber Harvest Volume Effects by Alternative

(rounded to nearest million board feet)

Table H-2.Comparison of Baseline Annual Net Present Value to Annual Net Present Value of Potential Suspended Harvest Volume in each Alternative (thousand 1997 dollars)

Table H-3. Estimated Annual Direct Job Effects of Potential Harvest Suspension without Non-NFS Harvest Substitution

(Number of direct jobs)

Table H-4. Estimated Annual Direct Job Effects of Potential Harvest Suspension with Non-NFS Harvest Substitution

(Number of direct jobs)

Table H-5. Estimated Annual Total Employment Effects of Potential Harvest Suspension without Non-NFS Harvest Substitution

(Number of total jobs)

Table H-6. Estimated Annual Total Job Effects of Potential Harvest Suspension with Non-NFS Harvest Substitution (Number of total jobs)

Table H-7. Estimated Annual Payments to States Effects of Potential Suspended Harvest (million 1997 dollars).

Appendix I - Alphabetical List of Preparers

Mary O'Brien - Washington Office, Ecosystem Management Coordination

Marsha Butterfield - Washington Office, Lands
Alice Carlton - Washington Office, Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Resources
Val Chambers - Washington Office, Office of Communication
Anne P. Hoover - Washington Office, Ecosystem Management Coordination
Ralph Giffen - Washington Office, Range Management
Russ LaFayette - Washington Office, Watershed and Air Management
Bruce Ramsey - Washington Office, Minerals and Geology Management
Cindy Swanson - Washington Office, Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants
Bill Timko - Washington Office, Forest Management
Barbara Timberlake - Washington Office, Ecosystem Management Coordination

Max Copenhagen - Region 10, Wildlife, Fisheries, Ecology, and Watershed
Sue Cummings - Washington Office, Ecosystem Management Coordination
Deborah Childs Hayes - Washington Office, Range Management
Jerry Ingersoll - Region 2, Renewable Resources
Linda Langner - Washington Office, Resources Program and Assessment
Robert Ragos - Washington Office, Civil Rights
Julia Riber - Washington Office, Ecosystem Management Coordination
Jonathan Stephens - Washington Office, Ecosystem Management Coordination
Richard Sowa - Washington Office, Engineering
Gary Yeck - Region 8, Holly Springs Ranger District
Larry Warren - Region 4, Information Systems
Eric Johnston - Washington Office, Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants
Bob Sutton- Region 10, Operations

Acknowledgments

Appreciation is extended to Madelyn Dillon, technical publications editor, for editorial review and printing coordination, and to the Rocky Mountain Research Station for their support. In addition, the contributions of Michael Cummings, data-base manager, and Brian Lesser, graphics compiler, have been invaluable.

<< Previous Section 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5