[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 201 (Thursday, October 16, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61456-61496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24285]
[[Page 61455]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
36 CFR Part 294
Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the
National Forests in Idaho; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 61456]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 294
RIN 0596-AC62
Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the
National Forests in Idaho
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule and record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA or Department) is
adopting a state-specific, final rule establishing management direction
for designated roadless areas in the State of Idaho. The final rule
designates 250 Idaho Roadless Areas (IRAs) and establishes five
management themes that provide prohibitions with exceptions or
conditioned permissions governing road construction, timber cutting,
and discretionary mineral development.
The final rule takes a balanced approach recognizing both local and
national interests for the management of these lands. The Department
and Forest Service are committed to the important challenge of
protecting roadless areas and their important characteristics. The
final rule achieves this through five land classifications that assign
various permissions and prohibitions regarding road building, timber
cutting, and discretionary mineral activities. The final rule also
allows the Forest Service to continue to be a good neighbor and reduce
the risk of wildland fires to at-risk communities and municipal water
supply systems. The rule does not authorize the building of a single
road or the cutting of a single tree; instead it establishes
permissions and prohibitions that will govern what types of activities
may occur in IRAs. Any decision to build a road, allow mineral
activities, harvest a tree, or conduct any other activity permissible
under this final rule will require appropriate site-specific analysis
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable
laws. Projects will also be consistent with the applicable land
management plan (LMP) components.
This final rule supersedes the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
(2001 roadless rule) for National Forest System (NFS) lands in the
State of Idaho.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective October 16, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Idaho Roadless Rule Team Leader Brad
Gilbert at (208) 765-7438. Individuals using telecommunication devices
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern Standard
Time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document serves as both notice of final
rule and record of decision.
Decision
For the reasons set out below, the Department hereby promulgates a
regulation establishing IRAs as described in Alternative 4 of the
``Roadless Area Conservation National Forest System Lands in Idaho
Final Environmental Impact Statement,'' USDA Forest Service, 2008, and
the supporting record. This decision is not subject to Forest Service
appeal regulations.
Outline
The following section outlines the contents of the preamble.
Introduction and Background
Roadless Area Inventories in Idaho
Purpose and Need for the Idaho Roadless Rule
Public Involvement on the Proposed Rule
How Was Public Involvement Used in the Rulemaking
Process?
How Did the RACNAC Participate in the Rulemaking
Process?
Alternatives Considered
Alternatives Considered by the Department
The Environmentally Preferred Alternative
Comments on the Proposed Rule and Changes Made in Response
General Comments Not Related to Particular Rule
Provisions
Summary of Changes and Comments Related to Particular
Rule Provisions
Regulatory Certifications
Introduction and Background
On October 5, 2006, Idaho Governor James Risch submitted a petition
to the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) to establish new management
for Idaho's inventoried roadless areas on NFS lands. Idaho's petition
divided roadless areas into five broad management themes: Wild Land
Recreation (WLR); Special Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance
(SAHTS); Primitive; Backcountry/Restoration (BCR); and General Forest,
Rangeland, and Grassland (GFRG). The petition was submitted under
section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act and Department
regulations at 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1.28. The Roadless
Area Conservation National Advisory Committee (RACNAC) (72 FR 13469)
reviewed the Idaho petition on November 29 and 30, 2006, in Washington,
DC. The committee issued a unanimous, consensus-based recommendation on
December 19, 2006, that the Secretary direct the Forest Service, with
the State of Idaho as a cooperating agency, to proceed with rulemaking.
The Committee's report provided specific advice and suggested
clarifications regarding particular issues. After considering the
advisory committee's review and report, the Secretary accepted the
petition and directed the Forest Service to initiate rulemaking on
December 22, 2006.
A notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) was published in the Federal Register April 10, 2007, (72 FR
17816). A notice of availability for the draft environmental impact
statement (DEIS) was published on December 21, 2007, (72 FR 72708). The
Forest Service published a proposed rule for conservation of NFS
inventoried roadless areas within Idaho on January 7, 2008, (73 FR
1135). The notice of availability for the final environmental impact
statement (FEIS) was published on September 5, 2008, (73 FR 51815).
Additional information, maps, and other materials concerning the FEIS,
IRAs, and roadless areas nationally, can be found at http://roadless.fs.fed.us/.
The Department is committed to conserving and managing inventoried
roadless areas. The Department considers the final rule as the most
appropriate solution to address the challenges of inventoried roadless
area management on NFS lands in the State of Idaho. Collaborating and
cooperating with states and other interested parties regarding the
long-term strategy for the conservation and management of inventoried
roadless areas allows recognition of both national values and local
situations.
The Department believes that the final Idaho Roadless Rule
collaboratively resolves an issue of great importance to the people of
Idaho and the nation. The management of large tracts of undeveloped
land has been a contentious issue since the founding of the Forest
Service in 1905. The Forest Service has engaged in numerous approaches
and periodic reviews to address how to best manage these lands. The
Idaho Roadless Rule represents a unique effort to address these
difficult questions. How can the Agency best conserve open space? How
can the Agency protect some of the most magnificent areas in Idaho and
the nation? How much active management, including reducing fuel levels
through timber harvest, should the Agency consider allowing to reduce
the risk of
[[Page 61457]]
unwanted wildland fire effects on adjacent private and other public
lands?
The State of Idaho petition included specific information and
recommendations for the management of individual inventoried roadless
areas in the State. Additionally, the State of Idaho examined roadless
areas sharing boundaries or overlapping with all neighboring states and
determined coordination with Montana and Utah was necessary to ensure
consistency of management themes assigned to these inventoried roadless
areas.
The unique perspectives and knowledge provided by the State and its
citizens was of great assistance throughout this rulemaking. Many of
these roadless areas form the backdrop for Idaho communities and have
become part of their identity. They are used for hiking, camping,
hunting, and motorized recreation on backcountry trails. Local
communities are also sensitive to the economic consequences of Federal
land management, whether for recreation or other multiple-use purposes.
Although this rule does not provide management direction for recreation
and access management, its emphasis on retaining the roadless
characteristics over the vast majority of IRA acres will address
recreation and scenery concerns from both national and local
perspectives.
Recently, there have been several attempts to resolve the roadless
issue nationally and in the State of Idaho. Since the Forest Service
Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II), the Agency has used
locally driven forest plans to manage inventoried roadless areas. While
these plans accounted for the comments of local communities by
considering the characteristics of each individual roadless area, some
felt these plans lacked a national perspective and allowed too much
modification of roadless characteristics.
The 2001 roadless rule sought to answer these questions from a
national perspective, but many felt that the rule's approach would
cause undue harm to local communities. Some states and communities felt
disenfranchised by the process.
The State of Idaho indicated that its decision to petition was
precipitated by the State's belief that it was not provided an adequate
opportunity to participate in the development of the 2001 roadless
rule. The State expressed concern that the rule could be interpreted as
not allowing adequate protection for communities and municipal water
supplies from the threat of unwanted wildland fire effects.
Additionally, the State indicated its belief that the 2001 roadless
rule could negatively affect some local communities that are dependent
on use of resources from NFS lands.
On August 12, 2008, the Federal District Court for the District of
Wyoming declared that the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001
roadless rule) was promulgated in violation of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Wilderness Act. The court held
``the roadless rule must be set aside'' and that ``[t]herefore, the
Court ORDERS that the Roadless Rule, 36 CFR 294.10 to 294.14, be
permanently enjoined, for the second time.'' Previously, another
Federal district court in California had issued an order that
reinstated the 2001 roadless rule, including the Tongass-specific
amendment, and specified that ``federal defendants are enjoined from
taking any further action contrary to the [2001] Roadless Rule * * *.''
Both these orders have been appealed and the Forest Service has sought
relief in both Federal district courts. For purposes of this
rulemaking, however, nothing in the pending litigation limits the
Secretary from conducting state-specific rulemaking regarding roadless
area management or from evaluating the 2001 roadless rule as one
alternative in the FEIS.
The Department has continued to seek a middle ground to resolve
this issue by using forest plans, the locally driven state petition
process, and integrating the national perspective provided by RACNAC.
While the proposed rule made strides in accomplishing this objective,
several respondents and RACNAC expressed concern whether some
provisions could be read to allow portions of the BCR areas to be
managed in a way that varied from the Governor's stated intent to
manage the BCR similar to the way the area would be managed under the
2001 roadless rule while providing for limited stewardship activities.
This was not the intent.
This final rule refines provisions and represents a compromise that
balances the nationally recognized need for conservation of IRAs with
being more responsive to local communities and citizens. Specifically,
the final rule conserves the undeveloped/unroaded character for the
vast majority of the IRAs; allows limited fuel treatment activities to
reduce the risk of wildland fire effects to private and public property
and municipal water supply systems; and accommodates limited exceptions
for some communities highly dependent on the natural resources found on
NFS lands.
These undeveloped lands will become increasingly important as
sources of public drinking water, plant and animal diversity, natural
appearing landscapes, and other unique resources as the nation
continues to grow in population and faces increasing demands for the
various multiple-use resources available from NFS lands.
Roadless Area Inventories in Idaho
This rulemaking relies on the most recent inventory available for
roadless areas within each national forest in the State of Idaho. Land
management plans were used, as well as other assessments and the
inventories associated with the 2000 Roadless Area Conservation Final
Environmental Impact Statement. Using these inventories, the Forest
Service has identified approximately 9.3 million acres of inventoried
roadless areas that are the subject of this rule.
The Agency has sought to be particularly sensitive to concerns over
the accuracy of the inventories. The 2001 roadless rule used the
inventories of record from late 1999 as their basis for boundaries.
This final rule uses these inventories as a starting point but also
looked at updates identified through land management plan (LMP)
revisions, most notably on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest (NF) in
1998 and the southwest Idaho forests (Boise, Payette and Sawtooth NFs)
in 2003. New inventories for northern Idaho forests (Idaho Panhandle,
Clearwater, and Nez Perce NFs) currently in LMP revision were also
used. These inventories are based on agency direction in Forest Service
Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, section 70. The oldest inventory used is from
the Salmon-Challis NF, which dates to their LMP from mid-1980.
Changes to the roadless inventory reflect improvements in mapping
and elimination of some areas that had been developed since the last
inventory of record and inclusion of some areas after review.
Inventories used for this final rule have all received review and
comment by the public during the LMP revision process prior to this
rulemaking.
Purpose and Need for the Idaho Roadless Rule
The purpose of the Idaho Roadless Rule is to respond to the State's
petition to recommend State-specific direction for the conservation and
management of inventoried roadless areas within the State of Idaho. The
final Idaho Roadless Rule integrates local management concerns and the
need to protect these areas with the national objectives for protecting
roadless area values and characteristics.
Collaborating with the State of Idaho on the long-term strategy for
the
[[Page 61458]]
management of IRAs recognizes national values and local situations and
resolves unique resource management challenges. Collaboration with
others who have a strong interest in the conservation and management of
inventoried roadless areas also helps ensure balanced management
decisions that maintain the most important characteristics and values
of those areas.
The management direction established by the rule is based on
individual roadless characteristics for lands containing outstanding or
unique features where there is minimal or no evidence of human use;
culturally significant areas; general roadless characteristics where
human uses may or may not be apparent; as well as some areas displaying
high levels of human use. The Department also recognizes there is
compelling interest in--
Reducing the threat to communities, homes, and property
from the risk of severe wildfire or other risks associated with
adjacent Federal lands;
Reducing the threat to forests from the negative effects
of severe wildfire and insect and disease outbreaks; and
Assuring access to property, for the State, Tribes, and
citizens that own property within roadless areas.
Between 2001 and 2007, wildland fires burned about 3.1 million
acres in Idaho, of which about 1 million acres were in IRAs. Wildland
fire is a natural component of these roadless areas; however, actions
to reduce the risk of wildland fire effects to communities and
municipal water supply systems may be needed in some situations. In
2003, Congress recognized the need to improve the capacities of the
Departments of Agriculture and Interior to conduct hazardous fuel
reduction projects, by passing the Healthy Forests Restoration Act
(HFRA) (Pub. L. 108-148).
Aware of all of these concerns and the long unresolved debates over
conserving and managing inventoried roadless areas in the absence of
wilderness legislation for the State of Idaho and after considering the
State's petition, the advice and recommendations of the RACNAC, Tribes,
and public; the Secretary determined that regulatory direction for
managing Idaho's roadless areas was needed.
Public Involvement on the Proposed Rule
How Was Public Involvement Used in the Rulemaking Process?
A notice of intent to prepare an EIS on ``Roadless Area
Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho'' was published in
the Federal Register, April 10, 2007, (68 FR 17816). The public comment
period ended on May 10, 2007. The Forest Service received about 38,000
comments, of which 32,000 were form letters. The remaining letters
consisted of original comments or form letters with additional original
text.
A notice of availability for the DEIS was published in the Federal
Register on December 21, 2007, (72 FR 72708). The Forest Service
published a proposed rule for conservation of national forests
inventoried roadless areas in Idaho on January 7, 2008, (73 FR 1135). A
copy of the proposed rule and the DEIS has been available on the World
Wide Web/Internet at http://roadless.fs.fed.us/ since January 7, 2008.
A public meeting on the proposed rule was held in Washington, DC on
January 14, 2008. Sixteen public meetings were held in Idaho between
January 22 and February 28, 2008.
In addition to the suggestions from the RACNAC, the Department
received approximately 140,000 responses. Responses included advocacy
for a particular outcome or regulatory language, as well as suggestions
for analyses to conduct, issues to consider, alternatives to the
proposed action, and calls for compliance with laws and regulations.
Response to comments on the DEIS are in Appendix R of the FEIS. These
comments played a key role in the development of modifications to the
proposed rule and the decision made in this record of decision.
It is noteworthy that many of the improvements between draft and
final were made in response to requests made by Idaho Indian Tribes.
Some of the theme changes were made in direct response to Tribal
requests (see FEIS Appendix P). Chapters 3.15 (Cultural Resources) and
3.16 (Idaho and Affected Indian Tribes) were modified in the FEIS based
on Tribal input. Section 294.28(h) was added to Scope and Applicability
assuring Tribes this rule would not affect any of their rights or
Federal Government responsibilities to consult on projects in roadless
areas. The Department and Forest Service are grateful for the insights
and serious attention the Tribes have provided during this rulemaking.
How Did the RACNAC Participate in the Rulemaking Process?
The RACNAC held open meetings in various locations across the
country. The meetings helped the RACNAC develop recommendations to the
Secretary to be considered in the development of the final rule. The
RACNAC submitted their final recommendations to the Secretary in a
letter dated May 30, 2008.
Through the public meetings as well as Tribal and public comments,
the Agency and State repeatedly heard that any exception to the 2001
roadless rule's road building prohibitions must be based on an actual
on-the-ground need. Most notable among those needs was the protection
of property and municipal water supply systems for at-risk communities,
and phosphate development.
The Agency and State sought the RACNAC's advice concerning a
framework for better achieving the objectives laid out in the proposed
rule. The RACNAC recognized that a one-size-fits-all management regime
for the BCR theme was unrealistic. The committee provided advice on a
framework for protecting at-risk communities and their water systems
after several public meetings and careful deliberation. The Department
adopted most of these recommendations in the final rule. The Department
carefully considered all input before making a decision in areas where
the RACNAC could not reach consensus; for example, building new roads
for forest health activities.
The RACNAC served a critical role in advising the Department
regarding the critical need to go beyond past differences and focus on
the on-the-ground management issues for these lands. This focus led to
important adjustments including: (1) Reducing GFGR acres by 200,000;
(2) increasing BCR acres by 280,000, primarily in recognition of high
fish and wildlife values; (3) lowering the determination threshold for
temporary roads and timber cutting within the community protection zone
(CPZ), which increases opportunities for the Forest Service to address
local communities' concerns with wildfire risks; (4) defining more
clearly the permissions for hazardous fuel treatments outside CPZ to
clarify that the vast majority of these acres will be subject to
management direction that is similar to the 2001 roadless rule; and (5)
defining with greater precision where phosphate mining, a nationally
strategic mineral, may occur.
The Department recognizes the invaluable work and advice provided
by the RACNAC throughout the rulemaking process.
Alternatives Considered
Alternatives Considered by the Department
The FEIS examines four fully developed alternatives based on public
comments: No Action, Existing Plans, Proposed Idaho Roadless Rule, and
Modified Idaho Roadless Rule.
[[Page 61459]]
Additional alternatives were considered but were eliminated from
detailed analysis because they did not meet some aspect of the purpose
and need or for other reasons in response to public comments including:
Alternative allocations of management themes; additional conservation
measures for the GFRG theme; additional limitations on management
activities in the various themes; motorized access; and expansion of
the scope of the proposal. Chapter 2 of the FEIS provides a more
complete discussion of the disposition of these alternatives.
Alternative 1 (No Action) (2001 Rule)
The 2001 roadless rule was the product of a national process and
established management direction at the national level with limited
focus on state or local issues. The 2001 roadless rule (66 FR 3244,
Jan. 12, 2001) proposed to ensure that inventoried roadless areas
sustain their values for this generation and for future generations. By
sustaining these values, a continuous flow of benefits associated with
healthy watersheds and ecosystems was expected.
The Forest Service identified timber cutting and road construction
or reconstruction as having the greatest likelihood of altering and
fragmenting landscapes and the greatest likelihood of resulting in an
immediate, long-term loss of roadless area values and characteristics.
Therefore, the 2001 Rule prohibited these activities with certain
exceptions in each roadless area.
The 2001 Rule alternative identified a list of exceptions to the
prohibitions on road construction (sec. 294.12) that respond to
circumstances where the prohibitions might conflict with legal
responsibilities to provide for public health and safety or
environmental protection. The Department noted that while in some
cases, the exceptions could result in effects contrary to the purpose
of the rule; the Department determined that they were necessary to
honor existing law or address social or economic concerns (66 FR 3255).
The 2001 Rule alternative also allows for timber cutting for
activities such as improving threatened, endangered, proposed, or
sensitive species habitat; maintaining or restoring the characteristics
of ecosystem composition and structure to reduce the risk of
uncharacteristic wildfire effects; selling or removing timber
incidental to other authorized activities; cutting, selling, or
removing timber needed for personal or administrative uses; or
improving roadless characteristics that have been substantially altered
in a portion of an inventoried roadless area due to the construction of
a classified road and subsequent timber harvest.
These exceptions, with some modifications, are carried forward as
part of Alternatives 3 and 4.
Alternative 2 (Existing Plans)
Management direction in this alternative represents a roadless area
management regime based on each forest's land management plan (LMP).
Each forest's plan is unique to its planning area. Collectively the
LMPs provide a broad range of management opportunities from wilderness
to intensive management. When revising a LMP, each forest or group of
forests collaborates with the public to develop management direction
for their roadless areas. Overall, as national forests in Idaho have
revised the LMPs, the trend has been to move more roadless areas into
management prescriptions that emphasize the conservation of roadless
characteristics. Under this alternative, management of roadless areas
would be governed by the specific management allocations assigned in
each LMP. Management direction would be periodically reviewed as plans
are revised.
Alternative 3 (Proposed Idaho Roadless Rule) (Proposed Rule)
Alternative 3 considers establishment of regulatory direction based
on the State's petition, as presented to the RACNAC and set forth in
the Proposed Rule. This alternative represents a strategy for the
conservation and management of Idaho Roadless Areas (IRAs) that takes
into account State and local situations and unique resource management
challenges, while recognizing and integrating the national interest in
maintaining roadless characteristics for future generations.
Building from the petition's examination of the management
direction assigned in each forest's existing or proposed LMPs, the
Proposed Rule assigned the lands within each roadless area to one or
more of five broad management themes: Wild Land Recreation (WLR);
Special Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance (SAHTS); Primitive;
Backcountry/Restoration (BCR); and General Forest, Rangeland, and
Grassland (GFRG). These themes span a continuum that includes at one
end, a restrictive approach emphasizing passive management and natural
restoration approaches, and on the other end, active management
designed to accomplish sustainable protection of roadless
characteristics. The continuum accounts for stewardship of the
uniqueness of each roadless area's landscape and the quality of
roadless characteristics in that area.
The Proposed Rule did not apply to other special areas referred to
as forest plan special areas such as research natural areas; wild and
scenic rivers (designated, eligible, and suitable); special interest
areas; and visual corridors. Table S-1 in the FEIS shows 334,500 acres
as forest plan special areas. These areas would be managed according to
applicable current and future LMP direction. However, if the current
special status designations for an area are changed in the future,
these lands would be subject to the terms of the rule and a
modification would be undertaken.
The Proposed Rule presented a continuum of prohibitions and
permissions for each roadless area through the allocation of themes.
Allocation to a specific theme does not mandate or direct the Forest
Service to propose or implement any action; rather, the themes provide
an array of permitted and prohibited activities related to cutting,
selling or removing timber; road construction or reconstruction; and
discretionary mineral activities.
The Proposed Rule would have established prohibitions and
permissions for discretionary mineral activities that vary according to
an area's classification theme. However, like the 2001 Rule
alternative, the Proposed Rule allowed for road construction or
reconstruction in the case of reserved or outstanding rights or as
provided for by statute or treaty, including roads associated with
locatable mineral activities pursuant to the General Mining Law of
1872. The Proposed Rule provided additional direction regarding common
variety minerals.
Alternative 4 (Modified Idaho Roadless Rule) (Final Rule)
Alternative 4 considers establishment of regulatory direction based
on modifications to the Proposed Rule (Alternative 3). Public comment
identified the need for modifications to the Proposed Rule and DEIS.
The Department and Forest Service officials, in consultation with the
State, reviewed and considered the public comment, Tribal
recommendations, and the advice of the RACNAC and concluded the rule
could be improved. Many of the suggested modifications contributed to
the development of the final rule and FEIS.
Alternative 4 (Final Rule) uses the thematic approach of
Alternative 3 but adds refinements to address five principle concerns:
[[Page 61460]]
(1) The amount and type of roadless areas placed in the various
themes;
(2) The permissions and restrictions for road construction and
reconstruction, and timber cutting, sale, and removal in the BCR theme;
(3) Management of lands containing phosphate deposits in BCR areas;
(4) Tribal interests regarding activities in roadless areas and
future consultations; and
(5) Public comment requirements for corrections and modifications.
The Final Rule alternative reflects consideration of other
adjustments beyond these principal issues as well.
Overall, Alternative 4 provides more protections from development
than the 2001 Rule alternative on 3.25 million acres of IRAs. These
lands are in the WLR, Primitive, and SAHTS themes. All road
construction and reconstruction is prohibited, except when provided by
statute or treaty, or pursuant to valid existing rights or other legal
duty of the United States. In addition, Alternative 4 prohibits surface
use and occupancy and road construction or reconstruction to access new
mineral leases. Similarly, Alternative 4 provides the same or more
restrictions than the 2001 Rule alternative for cutting, selling, or
removing timber for lands in the Primitive and SAHTS themes. By
reassigning acres to the WLR, Primitive, or SAHTS themes, Alternative 4
provides greater protection from development for 76,400 acres more than
the Existing Plans alternative and 199,500 acres more than the Proposed
Rule alternative.
As to lands managed under the BCR theme, Alternative 4 provides
similar management direction as the 2001 Rule alternative for 5.26
million acres, although an estimated 442,000 acres would be subject to
special consideration of specific situations involving reducing the
risk of wildland fire to at-risk communities within the CPZ. Outside
the CPZ, temporary roads could be constructed only where, in the
regional forester's judgment, such roads are the only reasonable way to
meet the objectives of reducing the significant risk of wildland fire
effects to an at-risk community or municipal water supply system, and
the activity is developed in a way that maintains or improves one or
more roadless characteristics over the long-term. Infrequent use of
this provision, with its conditions, is anticipated due to resource
conditions, agency budgets, and regional forester approval and
oversight. CPZ status will be confirmed at the project level, based on
the definition of CPZ provided in section 294.21.
Alternative 4 reduces the lands managed under the GFRG theme to
405,900 acres. These areas are mainly managed according to forest plan
direction except that roads may not be constructed to access new
mineral or energy leases other than to access specific areas of
phosphate deposits. Design of projects in these areas will consider
roadless characteristics and will meet all environmental laws, and the
area will remain on the roadless inventory.
In sum, Alternative 4 assures retention of the roadless
characteristics of approximately 8.5 million acres of roadless lands.
On the remaining 0.8 million acres (community protection zones in the
BCR theme and GFRG acres), the Agency's best estimates indicate only
about 0.1 percent of IRAs would likely see any changes in roadless
characteristics over the next 15 years.
The Environmentally Preferred Alternative
Under NEPA, the Department is required to identify the
environmentally preferred alternative (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). This is
interpreted to mean the alternative that will promote the national
environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's section 101 and that would
cause the least damage to the biological and physical components of the
environment. This alternative best protects, preserves, and enhances
historic, cultural, and natural resources (Council on Environmental
Quality, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations (46 FR 18026).
The Department believes the alternative that best meets these
criteria is Alternative 1 (No Action, 2001 Rule). Alternative 1
generally protects all inventoried roadless areas from adverse
environmental impacts associated with limited exceptions for road
construction, reconstruction, and tree cutting for commodity purposes
and discretionary mineral activities and is projected to result in the
least road construction (15 miles) and fewest harvested acres (9,000
acres) over the next 15 years.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 allow for an array of vegetation
management activities potentially needed to maintain or improve
roadless characteristics or restore ecological structure, function,
composition, or processes; including reducing the risks of
uncharacteristic or unwanted wildland fire effects. In addition, these
alternatives provide additional protections to certain lands with
outstanding roadless characteristics. However, these alternatives
provide varying levels of road construction and reconstruction to
facilitate timber cutting and also provide differing levels of limited
tree cutting for commodity purposes and mineral resource development.
The total projected road construction or reconstruction over the next
15 years is 15 miles (Alternative 1, 2001 Rule), 180 miles (Alternative
2, Existing Plans), 61 miles (Alternative 3, Proposed Rule), and 50
miles (Alternative 4, Modified Rule). Alternative 1 projects the fewest
ground disturbing activities and is deemed the environmentally
preferred alternative.
Comments on the Proposed Rule and Changes Made in Response
The Department received approximately 140,000 comments in response
to the proposed rule and DEIS. A detailed analysis and response to
public comment is set out in Appendix R of the FEIS. The Forest Service
considered all comments as part of the rulemaking. The discussion of
public comment below is divided between general comments and those that
involve particular regulatory provisions, as well as providing a
summary of changes made in the final rule.
General Comments Not Related to Particular Rule Provisions
Comment: State role in rulemaking. Some respondents expressed
concerns over the legality of the State of Idaho's efforts to submit a
petition to change current Federal land management or that the State
would have undue influence on the outcome of the rule.
Response: This is a Federal rule and the Department has, in no way,
abdicated or delegated its authority or responsibility for management
of these NFS lands. The Governor of Idaho, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(e)
and 7 CFR 1.28 filed a petition to conduct rulemaking for these
immensely valuable lands. The Forest Service has worked cooperatively
with the State of Idaho during consideration of the petition and during
the development of this final rule as is expected under numerous
statutes, regulations, and Executive orders.
Pursuant to NEPA's implementing regulations, State, local, and
Tribal governments are frequently granted cooperating agency status.
State governments are especially important partners in management of
the nation's land and natural resources. States, particularly in the
West, own and manage large tracts of land with tremendous social and
biological value. State governments frequently pioneer innovative land
management programs
[[Page 61461]]
and policies. State governments exert considerable influence over
statewide economic development and private land use, both of which
significantly affect natural resource management. In addition, State
conservation agencies' relationships with others offer additional
partnership opportunities. Strong State and Federal cooperation
regarding management of inventoried roadless areas can facilitate long-
term, community-oriented solutions.
Collaborating with the State of Idaho on the long-term strategy for
the management of IRAs recognizes national values and local situations
and resolves unique resource management challenges. Collaboration with
the State, Tribes and others who have a strong interest in conserving
and managing inventoried roadless areas also helps to ensure balanced
management decisions that maintain the most important characteristics
and values of those areas.
Comment: Idaho's Roadless Rule Implementation Commission. Some
respondents questioned the role and authority of the Governor's
Roadless Rule Implementation Commission (Idaho Executive Order No.
2006-43 of December 21, 2006). Other respondents thought the structure
of the commission should be better defined, that there should be a time
frame for the commission to respond to a proposed project, and that
county commissioners and rural communities should be involved in
designing and implementing projects. Some respondents raised concern
over the legality of the commission. The RACNAC recommended additional
procedural requirements in the rule, which includes collaborative
review of projects, especially in the BCR theme, by a State
Implementation Commission with a regional advisory committee-like
structure.
Response: Although it is the Department's position that it cannot
mandate the creation of or the scope of the commission's
responsibilities to the State, the Department supports this
collaborative concept and feels it would be an essential part of the
overall collaborative process with the public, Tribes, and local and
state governments. The Forest Service shared public comments and the
RACNAC recommendations on the composition and function of the
implementation commission received during this rulemaking with the
State of Idaho. The State of Idaho has already committed to having the
implementation commission as its way of providing a collaborative
approach pursuant to State of Idaho Executive Order 2006-34 and may
continue to determine its own course for providing input and
cooperation during the NEPA process for a proposal affecting an IRA. It
is the Department intent that the State of Idaho can request
cooperating agency status for proposals affecting IRAs like it has done
for this rulemaking. It is important to note that although the
recommendations provided by the commission will be non-binding on the
Agency, the Department encourages the responsible Forest Service
officials to give priority to those projects recommended by the
commission.
Comment: Compliance with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Some Tribal officials
requested more government-to-government consultation on the proposed
rule. One Tribe expressed concern that the change clause builds in
categorical exclusions that will exclude public input and Tribal
government-to-government consultation on individual projects. One Tribe
questioned the use of the theme approach suggesting that maintaining
all roadless areas should provide the same or similar values and
opportunities. Another Tribe stated the themes do not incorporate the
holistic nature of Tribal rights and interests that include areas
outside those identified as SAHTS, and clarification was needed so
areas of Tribal interest would still have project-by-project
consultation with affected Tribes.
Response: On September 20, 2007, the State of Idaho and the Forest
Service met with the Idaho Council on Indian Affairs and presented a
joint overview of the history of the Idaho Roadless Petition and the
DEIS associated with development of the proposed rule. The Forest
Service and the State of Idaho committed to meeting with each Tribe to
discuss in more detail the Idaho Roadless Rule prior to the release of
the DEIS. These meetings took place between October 2007 and January
2008 and were tailored to meet each Tribe's preference. After the
release of the DEIS and the proposed rule, several staff-to-staff and
government-to-government meetings were held between January and August
2008 with each Tribe. Many of the Tribes' ideas and suggestions
resulted in improvements to the final rule.
Nothing in the final rule should be construed as eliminating public
input or Tribal consultation requirements for future projects conducted
in accordance with this rule. The final rule clarifies that it does not
modify the unique relationship between the United States and Indian
Tribes. The final rule requires the Federal government to work with
federally recognized Indian Tribes, government-to-government, as
provided for in treaties, laws, or Executive orders. Nor does the final
rule limit or modify prior existing Tribal rights, including those
involving hunting, fishing, gathering, and protecting cultural and
spiritual sites. Finally, the Department listened carefully and
understood Tribal concerns that the Tribe's holistic interests are in
no way limited to one particular theme or management classification.
The SAHTS designation highlights and protects certain areas that
possess historically and culturally important attributes, but is not
the exclusive indicator of areas that possess such values. The final
rule allows continued recognition of Tribal rights and interests in
IRAs outside of the SAHTS theme.
Comment: NEPA requirements for projects. Some respondents felt an
EIS should be required for all projects proposed in IRAs and the use of
an environmental assessment (EA) should be disallowed.
Response: The Idaho Roadless Rule focuses on general land
classifications rather than project-level analysis and documentation
requirements. However, since 1992, the Forest Service has routinely
required the use of EISs for proposals that ``would substantially alter
the undeveloped character of an inventoried roadless area or a
potential wilderness area.'' This requirement, originally in its
implementing procedures in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 at section
20.6, is now in the Agency's regulations at 36 CFR 220.5(a) (73 FR
43095). The Department has determined that a general prohibition on the
use of EAs is not warranted as some proposed actions will not have
significant environmental effects and will not harm roadless
characteristics. Public response to scoping for a proposed action in an
IRA will help the responsible Forest Service official determine the
appropriate level of documentation for compliance with NEPA.
Comment: Endangered species consultation. Several respondents
expressed concern regarding the proposed rules effects to threatened
and endangered species and sought clarifications regarding consultation
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Response: Idaho Roadless Areas have been identified as an important
habitat for a variety of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and plants,
including some threatened and endangered species. The large, relatively
undisturbed areas provide biological strongholds and play a key role in
proving for diversity of plant and animal communities.
[[Page 61462]]
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Fisheries and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), have oversight
responsibilities for implementation of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Informal consultation and conferencing on the proposed rule
began with frequent discussions among Forest Service, FWS, and NOAA
Fisheries biologists. The Agency has prepared a biological assessment
on the final rule and formally consulted with the FWS and NOAA. The
biological opinions can be found at http://roadless.fs.fed.us/idaho.shtml and effects are discussed in the FEIS at sections 3.7
Botanical Resources, 3.8 Aquatic Species, and 3.9 Terrestrial Animal
Habitat and Species.
Summary of Changes and Comments Related to Particular Rule Provisions
Proposed Section 294.20 Purpose
Summary of Changes in Proposed Section 294.20 (Final Rule Section
294.20). Text about the relationship between this rule and other
roadless rulemakings was removed from paragraph (a) and is now
addressed in section 294.28(a). Paragraph (b) was removed as
unnecessary because the multiple-use mission of the Forest Service is
well understood and is provided for elsewhere in statute and
regulation.
Comment: Purpose and need. A respondent suggested the same
statement of purpose and need as described in the DEIS should be
included in the rule.
Response: The regulatory purpose set out in the final rule has been
slightly revised and is now a more accurate statement of purpose of the
Idaho Roadless Rule as providing State-specific direction for
management of roadless areas. The purpose and need statement included
with the DEIS served a related but distinct function under NEPA.
Proposed Section 294.21 Definitions
Summary of Changes in Proposed Section 294.21 (Final Rule Section
294.21). Definitions of the following terms have been included in
response to public comment: community protection zone, fire hazard and
risk, fire occurrence, Forest Plan Special Area, forest type, hazardous
fuels, road decommissioning, and uncharacteristic wildland fire
effects. Most of these definitions were added to improve clarity on the
use of the exemptions allowed for road construction and reconstruction,
timber cutting, and mineral activities. Rational for their inclusion is
discussed in the appropriate sections below. Definitions for
significant risk and the individual management classification themes
have been removed. Significant risk is now addressed at section
294.24(c)(1)(ii). The Department believes the themes are best
understood in terms of the specific permissions and restrictions
established by the rule for each land classification rather than a
generalized description of desired conditions.
Comment: Definition of road. A respondent stated it was unclear if
user-created roads or unclassified roads under the 2001 roadless rule
are roads for purposes of this rule and whether deciding officers can
designate an unclassified road as a forest road.
Response: First, the definition of forest road used in the proposed
and final rule is drawn from the Agency's definition of that term in
the travel management regulations found at 36 CFR part 212. Travel
management decisions are not affected by this rule as noted in section
294.26(a). Adjustments to NFS road inventories are made pursuant to the
Travel Management rule (70 FR 68264).
Comment: Management theme definitions. Several respondents
requested clarification of the management themes. Some suggested that
specific references to recreation in the theme definitions should be
dropped.
Response: Definitions for individual themes are removed in the
final rule. The Department believes the prohibitions and permissions
established for each individual theme best defines the management
intended and the redundant definitions in the proposed rule were
unnecessary and led to confusion.
Proposed Section 294.22 Idaho Roadless Areas
Summary of Changes in Proposed Section 294.22 (Final Rule Section
294.22). Paragraphs (b) and (c) have been reordered to improve
continuity. Similarly, the narrative description of the management
continuum that was set out in proposed paragraph (c) has been removed
as unnecessary.
The final rule remains structured around five themes: (1) Wild Land
Recreation (WLR); (2) Special Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance
(SAHTS); (3) Primitive; (4) Backcountry/Restoration (BCR); and (5)
General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland (GFRG). These five themes were
proposed following review of the allocations set out in the existing
and proposed revisions to land management plans. The five themes and
allocations for particular areas were refined in response to public
comment on the proposed rule. The themes span a continuum from more
restrictive to more permissive (see Figure 1). This continuum accounts
for stewardship of each roadless area's unique landscape and the
quality of roadless characteristics in that area.
[[Page 61463]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16OC08.000
Allocation to a specific theme does not mandate or direct the
Forest Service to propose or implement any action; rather, the themes
provide an array of permitted and prohibited activities regarding road
construction, timber cutting, and discretionary mineral activities.
Although the ability of the Forest Service to conduct certain
activities (road building, activities associated with mineral
development, and timber cutting) typically varies from theme-to-theme,
other activities (motorized travel, current grazing activities, or use
of motorized equipment and mechanical transport) is not changed by this
final rule. Although these other activities are not regulated by this
rule, these activities and others not addressed by this rule are still
subject to the allowances and restrictions of their current LMP and
would be subject to future planning and decisionmaking processes of the
Forest Service. For example, when allowed under the LMP, the use of
prescribed fire as a management tool would be available across all
themes as this rule does not require, limit or prohibit the use of
prescribed fire. Similarly, some activities (e.g., locatable mineral
access and operations) are governed under entirely separate
regulations. Additionally, like the 2001 roadless rule, timber cutting,
sale, or removal in inventoried roadless areas is permitted when
incidental to implementation of a management activity not otherwise
prohibited by the final rule. Examples of these activities include, but
are not limited to, trail construction or maintenance; removal of
hazard trees adjacent to forest roads for public health and safety
reasons; fire line construction for wildland fire suppression or
control of prescribed fire; survey and maintenance of property
boundaries; other authorized activities such as ski runs and utility
corridors; or for road construction and reconstruction where allowed by
this rule.
Comment: Eliminate the use of multiple themes. A respondent
suggested the removal of the multiple theme approach from the rule and
return to the single theme approach used for the 2001 roadless rule.
Response: The Governor's petition sought refinement of the 2001
roadless rule's one-size-fits-all approach maintaining that some areas
deserved higher protections, others similar, and others less protection
then those granted in the 2001 roadless rule. Comments received by the
various Idaho County commissioners and other members of the public were
in accord. The wide-variety of management regimes given these areas by
individual Forest Service LMPs further demonstrates the value of a more
measured approach. Therefore, the Department has elected to maintain
the flexibility the multiple theme approach allows and has retained it
in the final rule.
Comment: Theme assignment. Some respondents requested changes in
theme assignments for specific IRAs.
Response: In response to these requests, some theme assignments
were adjusted for the final rule. In general, public requests for
changes in theme assignments for IRAs in section 294.29 in this final
rule were adopted when the Forest Service review, demonstrated that the
theme change would better reflect the uniqueness of the roadless area
and the appropriate level of conservation needed for the protection and
management of the particular area. The FEIS, Appendix P describes each
of the specific requests and the disposition of those requests.
The following changes were made to theme assignments as a result of
public and Tribal comments.
(1) Approximately 279,800 acres were changed from GFRG to BCR. This
includes important big game habitat and known phosphate lease areas on
the Caribou portion of the Caribou-Targhee NF where development would
be precluded because of aquatic concerns (portions of Deer Creek).
(2) Approximately 75,900 acres were changed from BCR to GFRG. This
includes lands that were already roaded on the Salmon and Targhee NFs
and lands adjacent to Jesse Creek Watershed that are outside the CPZ
but where the community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs) anticipate
treatment is needed to protect the municipal water supply system.
(3) Approximately 149,200 acres were changed from BCR to Primitive.
[[Page 61464]]
(4) Approximately 68,400 acres of the Rapid River Roadless Area on
the Payette and Nez Perce NFs were changed from Primitive to WLR.
(5) Approximately 10,700 acres of the Selkirk Roadless Area on the
Idaho Panhandle NF were changed from Primitive to WLR.
(6) Approximately 21,000 acres of the Pioneer Area in the Mallard
Larkins Roadless Area on the Idaho Panhandle NF was changed from SAHTS
to WLR.
Comment: Management under existing LMPs for certain areas. A
respondent suggested areas not recommended for wilderness in the 2001
roadless rule should be removed from this process and be managed under
their existing plans.
Response: The 2001 roadless rule made no wilderness
recommendations. The Forest Service makes preliminary wilderness
recommendations through the land management planning process.
Recommendations to Congress concerning wilderness recommendations are
an authority reserved to the Secretary. However, the suggested approach
of directing that preliminarily recommended areas be managed in
accordance with existing LMP direction would essentially be achieved
through the approach described in FEIS Alternative 2. The Department
believes that in the absence of Congressional action, it is appropriate
to include such lands in the IRA system.
Comment: Wild Land Recreation (WLR) theme. A respondent suggested
the WLR theme should be eliminated as it unlawfully creates de facto
wilderness. Another respondent felt the rule should maintain current
wilderness recommendations, maintain the current type of recreation
activities allowed in each individual WLR area, and recommend
additional areas for wilderness designation.
Response: It is important to note that IRAs are not de facto
wilderness areas and the final rule does not make any recommendations
for potential wilderness. The Department is mindful that only Congress
can establish additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System
and that Congress has not called for the creation of protective
perimeters or buffer zones around wilderness areas. The Department
maintains that the WLR theme provides appropriate protections for
selected areas.
It is correct that most lands in the WLR theme were identified and
recommended for wilderness designation during the land management
planning process. In the context of land management planning, the
Forest Service Manual 1923.03 states, ``Any inventoried roadless area
recommended for wilderness or designated wilderness study is not
available for any use or activity that may reduce the wilderness
potential of an area. Activities currently permitted may continue,
pending designation, if the activities do not compromise wilderness
values of the area.'' Similarly, the final rule does not change current
recreational opportunities in WLR areas, including motorized travel
(see sections 294.27(a) and 294.28). A wide-array of motorized and
mechanical recreation and other multiple-use activities that are not
allowed in designated wilderness areas will continue to be available
and are unaffected by this rule.
Comment: Primitive theme. A respondent suggested the Primitive
theme should be avoided because areas designated as Primitive would
fall short of the wilderness suitability criteria because of the
proposed rule's permitted activities.
Response: This rule is not designed to address potential wilderness
designations. However, agency wilderness evaluation criteria associated
with LMPs provide that although a forest road or other permanently
authorized road is one criteria for not considering an area for
potential wilderness, Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, section
71.11, paragraph 9, provides for including areas where prior timber
harvest and road construction is not evident. Road construction and
reconstruction is prohibited in the Primitive theme except to access
reserved or outstanding rights, or other legal duty of the United
States. Any roads constructed for these purposes could affect
consideration for wilderness. Timber cutting, sale, or removal is also
prohibited except under limited conditions and only when done from an
existing road or using aerial systems and is subject to numerous
restrictions. The FEIS, section 3.14 Roadless Characteristics,
discloses that the existing character may be modified on the edges of a
roadless area with the interior kept intact. Future activities in the
Primitive theme could have potential effects on the undeveloped and
natural qualities of a roadless area but these activities are expected
to be limited, infrequent, and would not affect natural ecosystems
processes or opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation.
Comment: Backcountry/Restoration theme (BCR). Several respondents
felt the use of the BCR theme should be avoided because it would allow
road construction, logging, and other development.
Response: The BCR theme represents the largest amount of acreage
across all of the theme designations in this rule, and it received the
majority of the comments. During his original presentation to the
RACNAC, Governor Risch expressed a desire to have the areas designated
under this theme managed similar to the 2001 roadless rule while also
providing for certain stewardship activities. The proposed rule sought
to provide this balance by only allowing new road construction or
reconstruction facilitating timber cutting where necessary to address
significant risks and to facilitate permitted forest health activities.
Many respondents felt that the criteria by which new roads could be
constructed were left undefined and potentially could vary from the
purpose of the 2001 roadless rule. Specifically, several respondents
felt that new road construction to facilitate timber cutting should
only be done in cases of imminent threat to people and property,
although others felt significant risk was too restrictive and did not
have enough flexibility to address forest health issues in IRAs. Based
on public comments and advice from the RACNAC, the Department saw a
need to refine the scope and conditions by which temporary roads could
be constructed in the BCR theme.
The RACNAC spent a considerable amount of time discussing this
theme and recognized that the theme did not lend itself to a one-size-
fits-all management approach, particularly with regard to fuel
treatments for protecting at-risk communities and municipal water
supply systems, but also felt that the proposed rule was too expansive
and needed further clarification and refinement.
The Department agrees that the principles articulated by the RACNAC
represented a good starting point. The final rule adopts the RACNAC's
advice of borrowing the CPZ concept from HFRA to focus timber cutting
and temporary road construction where needed to protect at-risk
communities. The definition of at-risk communities used in the proposed
and final rule reflects the definition of that term as used in the
HFRA. Within the CPZ, the Department believes the balance should tip in
favor of community protection while ensuring that temporary road
construction is not undertaken where in the responsible official's
judgment the project cannot reasonably achieve the community protection
objectives without a temporary road. Additionally, the RACNAC
recognized that the geographic definition from HFRA may not provide
enough flexibility for some
[[Page 61465]]
IRAs. Therefore, the Department is limiting the scope of temporary road
building for fuels treatments outside the CPZ to projects that can
demonstrate significant risk of wildland fire effects to an at-risk
community or a municipal water supply system while positively
determining that one or more roadless characteristics will be
maintained or improved over the long-term. The long-term perspective is
especially important because a temporary road may have the potential
for immediate short-term effects to an area's roadless characteristics,
but stand thinning, strategic fuel breaks, and other activities
accomplished by building a temporary road could have long-term
beneficial effects. The final rule also emphasizes the importance of
maximizing the retention of large trees, as appropriate for the forest
type, to the extent the trees promote fire resilient stands and
exercises restraint by permitting projects that cannot reasonably be
accomplished without a temporary road. Notably, the final rule does not
permit new road construction for the purpose of conducting limited
forest health activities. Under the final rule, the vast majority of
the BCR acres will be managed comparable to the 2001 roadless rule with
a small amount of additional timber cutting and temporary road
construction to allow fuel treatments to better protect vital community
interests.
Comment: General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland (GFRG) theme. A
respondent suggested elimination of the GFRG theme. Another suggested
any small strips of GFRG lands should go into adjacent BCR and felt
that the GFRG theme should be eliminated to avoid the conflict of the
rule allowing for activities not permissible in LMPs. A respondent
thought the Agency should reconsider the roadless character for some of
the GFRG designations based on the Idaho Conservation League maps.
Response: The FEIS considered the request to eliminate the GFRG
theme in, section 2.3, Consideration of Comments and determined that
this request was effectively accomplished through examination of the
2001 Rule alternative (Alternative 1). Based on public comment,
including Idaho Conservation League's maps, some areas were changed
from GFRG to BCR to better retain the roadless character in these areas
to respond to Tribal interests and to provide important big game
habitat. For example, several small strips adjacent to the outer
boundaries of roadless areas were changed to BCR, including lands
associated with the East Cathedral, Magee, Mallard Larkins, and Upper
Priest Roadless Areas on the Idaho Panhandle NF and the Scotchmans Peak
Roadless Area on the Idaho Panhandle and Kootenai NFs. Some developed
lands, which are areas that have been previously roaded and harvested,
were changed from the BCR theme to the GFRG theme. In total, the land
area encompassing the GFRG theme was reduced by approximately 203,700
acres. See Appendices E and P of the FEIS.
Comment: Forest Plan Special Areas. Several respondents asked for
clarification about whether wild and scenic river management areas and
other LMP special areas have precedence over the rule.
Response: Under section 294.28(f), Forest Plan Special Areas
(FPSA), like wild and scenic river management areas, are managed in
accordance with local LMP components. For clarification, a definition
of FPSA has been added to the final rule. These lands include areas
such as research natural areas, designated and eligible wild and scenic
river corridors, developed recreation sites, or lands identified for
other specified management purposes. A listing of all the FPSAs is set
out in the FEIS, Appendix Q. The State's petition identified that some
roadless areas are already part of other land classification systems
that are governed by specific agency directives and existing LMP
direction. The petition did not request the Forest Service to impose
additional or superseding management direction or restrictions for
these FPSAs. Instead, the petition identified a preference that these
lands be administered under the laws, regulations, and other management
direction unique to the special purpose of the applicable land
classification. The Department agrees, and although these lands are
included in section 294.29 for the sake of completeness, the final rule
does not establish any management direction for, or that applies to,
any of these identified FPSAs.
Proposed Section 294.23 Road Construction and Reconstruction in Idaho
Roadless Areas
Summary of Changes in Proposed Section 294.23 (Final Rule Section
294.23). No substantive changes were made to paragraph (a). In response
to advice from the RACNAC and public comment, the Department refined
the road construction provisions concerning the BCR theme. The proposed
rule allowed roads for classes of timber cutting activities per the
2001 roadless rule with the addition of a significant risk threshold
determination and allowed for forest health activities consistent with
the timber cutting provision. The final rule follows the list of
excepted activities from the 2001 roadless rule and adds two refined
categories of actions.
First, the final rule accepts advice from the RACNAC and public
comment to retain the 2001 roadless rule's general exceptions. All
exceptions are retained except the minerals roads provision which is
separately addressed in section 294.25. Second, there was confusion
regarding the expected level of treatment to address significant risk
situations in BCR theme areas. RACNAC and many respondents wanted
clarification for the situations in which road building would be
permitted. Some respondents expressed concern that all 5.3 million
acres would be treated under these provisions. This was never the
Department's or the State's intention. The State had noted, at the
January 2008 RACNAC meeting, that it desired such projects to focus
mainly on protecting the wildland urban interface (WUI) and municipal
water supply systems. The RACNAC agreed that such refinements were
appropriate but were unable to reach consensus regarding road
construction for forest health treatments outside CPZ. See the
discussion under Summary of Changes in Proposed Section 294.25 (Final
Rule Section 294.24).
In light of these considerations, the Department refined the final
rule and will allow temporary roads in CPZ recognizing that in
balancing public interests of community protection and roadless
characteristics--the balance tips sharply in favor of communities
within the CPZ. Further, the Department has found there is broad
support for addressing instances where wildland fire can affect vital
community interests and infrastructure even beyond CPZs. Local
communities, the RACNAC, and various officials strongly supported
providing limited opportunities for hazardous fuel reduction projects
in a way that continues to recognize the importance of conserving
roadless area characteristics. In contrast to treatments within the
CPZ, the Department believes the balance tips in favor of maintaining
or improving roadless characteristics over the long-term for projects
conducted outside the CPZ. However, the Department will allow temporary
roads outside CPZ to protect at-risk communities and municipal water
supply systems under limited circumstances. To meet these goals, Forest
Service officials will make a positive determination that the community
or water supply system is facing a significant risk from a wildland
fire disturbance event, and the project
[[Page 61466]]
will maintain or improve one or more roadless characteristics over the
long-term. A significant risk exists where the history of fire
occurrence and fire hazard and risk indicated a serious likelihood that
a wildland fire disturbance event would present a high risk of threat
to an at-risk community or municipal water supply system. Officials
must also determine that the project cannot be reasonably accomplished
without a temporary road. Clearly, temporary roads will not need to be
constructed to address every significant risk situation inside or
outside a CPZ.
In paragraph (c), new wording has been added that specifically
directs the minimizing of effects and clarifies the intent to conform
to applicable LMP components. Existing LMPs for these areas set out
forestwide and area specific direction and make general suitability
determinations but do not generally authorize any particular projects.
Under this framework the Forest Service examines site-specific
environmental effects when projects or activities are actually
proposed. See Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club, 118 S. Ct. 1665,
1668, 1671 (1998). The RACNAC and some members of the public suggested
that the requirements for roads under the proposed minerals section be
carried forward and applied to all road construction. In response, the
final rule at section 294.23(d) provides additional direction
concerning temporary roads comparable to that provided for mineral
activities. Additionally, a provision has been added that existing
roads and those permitted under this final rule may be maintained.
Comment: Significant risk. Several respondents requested the
establishment of more guidelines to determine what constitutes a
significant risk situation. Others suggested that the significant risk
criteria should be confined to WUI areas and only apply the imminent
threat criteria for the remaining areas. Some respondents felt
vegetation activities outside CPZs should have more restrictions than
those inside the zone. A respondent suggested inclusion of threats to
irrigation and water rights as part of the significant risk exception.
Response: The Department, based on public comment and advice from
the RACNAC, concluded that the significant risk threshold should not be
required for projects, including temporary road construction, in the
CPZ as defined in this rule. See also the discussion below under
Summary of Changes in Proposed Section 294.25 (Final Rule Section
294.24.) However, the Department, based on the RACNAC's advice, does
not believe that all BCR theme areas outside the CPZ should have to
demonstrate the imminent threat standard of the 2001 roadless rule.
Instead, this rule provides the flexibility needed to implement
Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) where consistent with this
rule and allows for limited treatment of hazardous fuels that threaten
at-risk communities and municipal water supply systems. Thus, the
Department has determined an allowance will be made for individual
projects that can demonstrate a significant risk that a wildland fire
disturbance event could adversely affect an at-risk community or
municipal water supply system and maintain or improve one or more
roadless characteristics in the long-term. Notably, the responsible
Forest Service official must determine that the activity cannot be
reasonably accomplished without a temporary road. For further clarity,
a definition taken from the 2006 Interagency Protecting People and
Natural Resources: A Cohesive Fuels Treatment Strategy (2006 Cohesive
Strategy) for hazardous fuels has been added to the Final Rule.
Furthermore, on advice from the RACNAC, the Department has limited
the application of the term significant risk in geographic terms as
well. First, a proposed project must demonstrate that its purpose is to
treat hazardous fuels connected to an at-risk community or municipal
water supply system. This greatly reduces the potential geographic
scope of road building and treatments in the BCR theme from those in
the proposed rule. Second, the Department refined the term significant
risk to situations where the history of fire occurrence, and fire
hazard and risk, indicated a serious likelihood that a wildland fire
disturbance event would present a high risk of threat to an at-risk
community or municipal water supply system. The final rule defines fire
hazard and risk to mean the fuel conditions on the landscape. Fire
occurrence is defined as the probability of wildfire ignition based on
historic fire occurrence records and other information. Under these
definitions, this significant risk determination focuses largely on
landscape conditions, probability of ignition (serious likelihood),
departure from historical fire frequencies, and the severity of the
risk of adverse affects (significant) to an at-risk community or
municipal water supply system. The Department's experience indicates
that much of this pertinent information may be in individual Idaho
county CWPPs and encourages responsible officials to use these plans
where appropriate in determining whether or not a project qualifies
under this exception. The Department expects that responsible officials
will give due consideration during the public comment process to input
from the State's Collaborative Implementation Commission. The
Commission's recommendations would be considered along with other
public and Tribal comments.
The Department believes it has appropriately considered roadless
area characteristics and the interests in protecting at-risk
communities or municipal water supply systems in defining the scope of
the significant risk exception. Expansion of the significant risk
determination to include irrigation and water rights is beyond the
scope of the HFRA provision used as a model for this provision and
therefore was not adopted.
Comment: Temporary roads standards, reclamation, and alternatives.
Several respondents suggested the rule should include plans and
standards for temporary road design criteria, identification of the
responsible party to close it, and timeframes for rehabilitation. They
felt definitions for decommissioning, rehabilitation, and closure of
roads should be included in the rule. One respondent suggested that the
Agency should require monitoring and funding to occur for temporary
roads prior to their construction thus ensuring the temporary road is
reclaimed and re-vegetated to meet roadless characteristics. The RACNAC
recommended further clarifications when temporary roads could be built,
who could use them, and how they would be decommissioned.
Response: The final rule now contains a definition of temporary
road. Use of such roads is restricted, although use of these roads for
Forest Service administrative purposes is permissible, as defined at 36
CFR 212.51(a)(5) (involving fire, military, emergency, or law
enforcement vehicles for emergency purposes). In the final rule, the
use of a discretionary temporary road outside the CPZ will be limited
in scope and only occur if no other reasonable alternative for treating
the fuels is available. If a temporary road is determined to be
necessary to support allowed activities such as fuel treatments to
reduce a significant risk situation, the Forest Service can ensure
closure and rehabilitation through contract provisions for any
associated timber sale or stewardship contract. Temporary roads are
sometimes necessary to allow purchasers to access and transport timber.
Specific timber
[[Page 61467]]
and stewardship contract provisions govern the authorization,
construction, operation, and restoration of these temporary roads. In
the past, the Agency has sometimes waived the contract's
decommissioning requirement because the Agency intended to continue to
use the road for other multiple-use purposes, such as post-sale
reforestation projects, monitoring, or fire protection. However,
closure of these roads then became dependent upon the Agency receiving
funding. This led to many temporary roads remaining open without
decommissioning. The final rule reinforces that new temporary fuel
treatment roads must be decommissioned when the project is completed
and will not be open for public use while the project is underway.
Additional funding for road closures would not be necessary. A
definition for road decommissioning is provided in the final rule.
Definitions for rehabilitation and closure are not provided as these
terms are not used in the final rule. Agency road definitions are found
at 36 CFR 212.1, and the regulations found in 36 CFR part 212 are
applied for all road construction and do not need to be repeated in
this rule. See FEIS Appendix O for more details regarding road
construction and decommissioning.
Comment: Roads in the BCR theme. Several respondents felt that the
proposed rule allowed too many opportunities to build roads in the BCR
theme. They suggested that the 2001 roadless rule language should be
used to protect these areas. One respondent suggested no roads be built
in the BCR theme. Another respondent suggested limiting all roads in
BCR to temporary roads and using them only for fire protection needs,
not habitat improvement projects. If a permanent road is needed, the
respondent wanted more justification requirements. Others suggested
more roads should be allowed in the BCR theme without restrictions.
Response: The Department agrees with respondents that the scope and
conditions for building temporary roads in the BCR theme needed
refinement. The Department has concluded that building new roads for
fuels treatments should be limited to two circumstances: (1) To conduct
fuel treatment activities within the CPZ; and (2) to conduct fuel
treatment activities outside the CPZ only where a significant risk of
wildfire effects to an at-risk community or municipal water supply
system can be demonstrated and only when roadless values can be
improved or maintained over the long-term. Other exceptions are made in
the BCR theme for public health and safety reasons or for reserved or
outstanding rights. The 2001 roadless rule lists the same exemptions.
Like the 2001 roadless rule, roads for habitat improvement projects are
not allowed. It is anticipated that most roads will be temporary.
However, the Department recognizes that a permanent road may need to be
constructed in some situations, such as access for a private land
inholding. Justification for a permanent road will need to be
established for any proposed project.
Comment: Roads for forest health activities. Several respondents
recommended that no roads be allowed in the BCR and the GFRG themes for
the purpose of forest health. Other respondents suggested that
temporary roads should be permitted only for vegetation management for
wildlife and forest health reasons. Another respondent suggested
allowing temporary roads for only forest health activities but not
habitat improvement projects in the BCR theme.
Response: The RACNAC could not come to a consensus on whether new
roads to facilitate forest health activities should be permitted
outside the CPZ. After careful deliberation, the Department decided
that no new roads (temporary or permanent) for forest health purposes
should be built in the BCR theme, but such activities could be
conducted from existing permanent roads, temporary roads allowed by
this rule, or by aerial harvest systems. The final rule does permit
road construction for forest health activities in the GFGR theme as
long as the activity is consistent with applicable LMP components.
Comment: Responsible official for authorizing construction of
permanent roads. One respondent thought that decisions regarding
whether or not a permanent road is needed should be made at a higher
level than that of the local line officer.
Response: The final rule identifies roles for responsible officials
in connection with various activities across the different themes.
Regional foresters will be responsible for certain determinations, for
example road construction activities in BCR theme outside the CPZ.
Standard delegation of decisionmaking authority found at Forest Service
Manual (FSM) 1230 will operate unless specified otherwise in the final
rule.
Comment: Roads in GFRG. One respondent felt that no permanent roads
should be built GFRG. Another respondent felt that the 2001 roadless
rule approach should be the minimum protection for the GFRG theme.
Response: Based on public comment, input from Tribal
representatives, and RACNAC advice, the Department made a net reduction
in the amount of the GFRG theme by approximately 203,700 acres. In
addition, roads may not be constructed or reconstructed to access new
mineral leases except in association with specific phosphate deposits.
The Agency has carefully reviewed existing management direction and
potential uses of these lands to ensure that the appropriate management
theme is being applied for each IRA. This specific review goes beyond
what was undertaken during the 2001 rulemaking and these refinements
reflect the best judgment and expertise of the Forest Service.
Proposed Section 294.24 Mineral Activities in Idaho Roadless Areas
Summary of Changes to Proposed Section 294.24 (Final Rule Section
294.25). Mineral and energy potential within IRAs was given serious
consideration. The minerals portion of the rule has been reorganized
and now provides management direction for each theme. Paragraphs (a)
and (b) separately identify that the rule provisions apply
prospectively and only where the Department exercises discretionary
authority.
The final rule does not include the proposed rule's (section
294.24(a)) language ``including any subsequent renewal, reissuance,
continuation, extension, or modification, or new legal instruments, for
mineral and associated activities on these or adjacent land.'' This
provision, in particular, the adjacent land phrase allows new access
and road building, mainly for phosphate mining, to occur where a post-
rule modification to a pre-existing lease resulted in an enlargement of
the original lease boundary regardless of theme. The RACNAC could not
reach consensus on the issue of phosphate mining. However, there were
discussions during committee deliberations expressing support for a
recommendation that the final rule eliminate the exception for
phosphate mining in the BCR theme lands and move appropriate acres of
known phosphate lease areas (KPLAs) and a buffer zone into GFRG theme
lands.
Based on these comments, the Department is eliminating the adjacent
lands provision. New access will only be permitted where the expansion
falls within the GFRG theme. This change is not to be construed as
limiting access or other related activities associated with mineral
leasing, including lease renewals, reissuances, continuations,
extensions, or modifications issued prior to the effective date of this
rule regardless of the theme. The Forest
[[Page 61468]]
Service in cooperation with the State, Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
the RACNAC, and other interested parties identified the locations of
phosphate mining activities most likely to occur in the future and
adjusted the land classifications to focus on a smaller number of acres
that could be available for mineral development and conserving the
roadless character of the remaining areas. These adjustments allow the
Agency to preserve the unroaded character of the vast majority of these
lands, especially certain high quality fish and game habitat (e.g.,
portions of Deer Creek and Bear Creek), while recognizing long-standing
interest in limited development of nationally critical phosphate
mineral resources by industry and local communities. By adjusting the
classifications for specific lands the Agency will provide better
resource protection while making essentially the same number of acres
available for phosphate development.
Because of these adjustments, the proposed rule's exceptions for
new phosphate activities in the BCR theme were no longer necessary and
have been removed. Thus, for leases obtained after the effective date
of this rule, road construction and other associated activities can
only occur in areas designated as GFRG theme to access specific
phosphate deposits identified in Figure 3-20 in the FEIS. As a result,
under the final rule road construction or reconstruction will only be
permissible in specific areas (5,770 acres of KPLAs) where there is
very high potential for development in the future. This refinement
addresses concerns regarding unbounded geographic scope of these
possible activities within IRAs. Road construction is not permitted
after the effective date of the final rule for mineral leasing in BCR
theme areas, but the final rule does not bar surface occupancy unless
prohibited by the applicable LMP.
The Forest Service will no longer recommend, authorize, or consent
to road construction or reconstruction associated with post-rule
mineral leases in GFRG theme areas, except for phosphates. Currently,
the known oil and gas potential is low and some LMPs restrict or
prohibit new exploration. Geothermal development is currently
speculative in IRAs and a major part of the areas with potential for
its development is outside IRAs. Therefore, an exception for oil and
gas or geothermal leasing is not warranted. The final rule also
clarifies that surface occupancy is permissible within GFRG theme areas
unless prohibited by the applicable LMP. This is consistent with the
approach taken by the 2001 roadless rule. The Agency will also require
that permissible road construction or reconstruction associated with
mining activities in the GFRG theme will only be approved after
evaluating other access options. The use or sale of common variety
mineral materials in the GFRG theme will only be permitted where it is
incidental to an otherwise lawful activity.
Comment: Mineral activities. One respondent asked for clarifying
language concerning surface use and roading for mineral activities with
respect to each of the themes. Others felt that the proposed
regulations did not provide adequate environmental protection for
mineral extraction operations. Some respondents felt there should not
be any new roads allowed for mineral development. Others felt there
should be no mineral development of any kind on national forests and
suggested pursuing a formal statutory withdrawal of lands under the
mining laws.
Response: After consideration of these comments, the Department
determined that surface use and occupancy for leasable minerals will
only be permitted in the BCR and GFRG theme areas, and that any such
operations may be further restricted or prohibited by the applicable
LMP components. Comparatively, these limitations are more restrictive
than the 2001 roadless rule, which permitted surface use and occupancy
on any inventoried roadless area. However, the Department declines the
request submitted by some respondents that USDA request the Secretary
of Interior to initiate the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA) withdrawal process for all roadless areas or all NFS lands.
Instead, the final rule establishes limitations on the future exercise
of discretion available to Forest Service responsible officials. These
limitations include: (1) No road construction or reconstruction or
surface occupancy in the WLR, SAHTS, and Primitive theme areas; (2) no
road construction or reconstruction for mineral leases in BCR theme
areas; (3) no road construction or reconstruction for mineral leases in
GFRG theme areas except for activities associated with phosphate
deposits; and (4) in the BCR and GFRG theme areas, the use and sale of
common variety mineral materials, and associated road construction
access these mineral materials may occur only when the use of these
mineral materials is incidental to an activity otherwise permissible by
this rule.
Comment: Saleable minerals. One respondent suggested that sale of
common variety minerals should be restricted within BCR theme areas.
Another respondent asked for clarification for why some saleable
mineral activities are allowed when associated with other allowable
activities, what these other allowable activities would be, how
frequent, and what is the pubic benefit. Another suggestion was to
provide an exception for the Forest Service to use of common variety
minerals in support of its activities, like road or trail maintenance.
Response: Commercial permitting of salable minerals in the BCR and
GFRG themes is prohibited in the final rule. This addresses public
concerns over this type of mineral development. Practically speaking,
there is no independent commercial interest in development of these
saleable minerals in IRAs. The total average production of mineral
materials from NFS lands represents only about 1 percent of the total
mineral materials production for all of Idaho (FEIS, section 3.5
Minerals and Energy).
Saleable minerals will only be made available as incidental to an
otherwise permissible activity. The majority of saleable mineral use
has been gravel for road construction, reconstruction, and maintenance
or for Agency facilities development including trails. For example,
gravel may be necessary to reduce the sediment from a road permitted in
the BCR theme by this rule and could be authorized where an appropriate
gravel source is in proximity of the road. This exception is expected
to be rarely used, but is important because it allows use of saleable
minerals for protection of other resources in IRAs without the
increased costs of hauling these materials long distances. It also
allows the Agency to use these sources in support of permissible road,
trail, or facilities construction or maintenance.
Comment: Phosphate and leasable minerals. Several respondents
expressed concern over allowing any expansion of phosphate mining in
IRAs, especially Primitive and WLR themes, although phosphate is only
known to occur on about 14,460 acres in IRAs. Many comments pertained
to public concern for the phosphate mining-related effects of selenium
on water quality. Some Tribes shared this concern and also expressed
concern over the potential loss of trust resources. Respondents
requested clarification about how far road construction and development
would extend outside of existing leases into roadless areas. The BLM
suggested the rule allow for a one-half mile expansion buffer around
existing leases as there are some leases outside the known phosphate
lease areas (KPLAs) and the rule should not restrict access
[[Page 61469]]
to these deposits. The BLM sought other clarifications and urged the
Department to provide flexibility to administer existing leases to
ensure maximum recovery of the resource by allowing the building of
roads, water wells, power lines, and other supporting facilities on
off-lease sites. Other respondents stated that the rule should clarify
whether modifications of existing leases in an IRA, which are part of
the KPLA, are allowed and how existing lease rights are dealt with in
the Primitive designation. One respondent felt that all KPLA and
existing leases should be moved to the GFRG theme. Other respondents
felt phosphate leases should be confined to KPLAs and not to the entire
BCR theme. Another respondent suggested known and high potential KPLA
areas should be moved to the GFRG theme, and all other KPLAs moved to
BCR where their development should not be allowed. Another respondent
felt the rule should include requirements for mine clean up and the
prevention of any future selenium pollution before any expansion of
phosphate mining areas. One respondent felt there should be no
expansion of phosphate mines under any circumstances.
Response: Mineral activities were one of the areas where the
Department made a specific request for public comment in the preamble
to the proposed rule (73 FR 1139). The RACNAC could not come to
consensus on the issue of phosphate mining within IRAs. However, during
RACNAC's deliberations, several committee members recommended that if
the Agency were to allow road construction and reconstruction for
leases obtained after the effective date of this final rule, that those
activities be limited to areas managed pursuant to the GFRG theme.
The Department agrees, and believes that with fine tuning of the
allocations, all new road construction or reconstruction associated
with post-rule phosphate leases can be limited to the GFRG theme. After
careful review of KPLAs and the specific classifications in the
proposed rule, the Agency changed the proposed designation of some BCR
theme areas in the proposed rule to the GFRG theme in the final. Not
all KPLAs with phosphate potential proposed as BCR theme were changed
to the GFRG theme. Several areas including the Bear Creek IRA, retain
their BCR theme designation because those areas exhibit other high
resource values. Approximately 1,280 acres of unleased phosphate are
retained in the Primitive theme and 6,500 acres in the BCR theme. In
addition, about 910 acres are in the GFRG theme in the Bear Creek
Roadless Area but are not specified on figure 3-20. Therefore, roads
may not be constructed to access any of these areas.
The Agency also agreed with the BLM's recommendation that,
consistent with local land management plan components, the KPLAs should
have a one-half mile buffer to allow for any uncertainties about where
the ore body is located. For leases obtained after the effective date
of this rule, road construction and other associated activities can
only occur in areas designated as GFRG theme to access phosphate
deposits identified in Figure 3-20 in the FEIS. This rule does not
grant automatic access across the GFRG theme to ore bodies depicted in
the map. However, it does allow consideration and review of the merits
of individual applications which will undergo site-specific
environmental analysis, including consideration of access options.
The Department believes maintaining future options within the
select GFRG theme areas are important to communities in Southeast Idaho
and to the nation because of the increasing demand for phosphate. The
Department believes these permissions and restrictions provide a
balance between providing access to a limited portion of a significant
national resource and protecting roadless area values. Of course, any
future development proposals would themselves require site-specific
environmental analysis.
Additionally, the final rule directs the responsible official to
review other access options and assure consistency with applicable LMP
components before authorizing any new road construction associated with
mineral activities in IRAs. Similar to the proposed rule, the final
rule also directs that temporary road construction must be conducted in
a way that minimizes effects on surface resources, is consistent with
LMP components, and may only be used for specified purposes. Like the
2001 roadless rule, this final rule honors valid existing leases. In
this situation, the Forest Service will permit necessary road
construction, road reconstruction, and surface occupancy for existing
leases regardless of the theme.
The issue of phosphate mining and selenium pollution is discussed
in the FEIS at pp. 186, 187, 205, 208, 210, 211, 216, 259, 262, 264,
267, 277, 291, and 294. The Department has determined that requirements
for mine clean up and the prevention of any future selenium pollution
is best handled at the site-specific project level.
Comment: Locatable minerals. One respondent suggested language
allowing access similar to the language proposed under leasable
minerals should be included for locatable minerals.
Response: The final rule is clear that it does not intend to
regulate mining activities conducted pursuant to the General Mining Law
of 1872. The Agency has separate requirements relating to road
construction and maintenance for locatable minerals at 36 CFR 228.8(f)
that adequately provide for these protections. Recently, the Agency
proposed a revision of its locatable mineral regulations; questions
concerning access to locatable minerals will be governed by that final
rule. Therefore, it was determined that no further adjustment of this
regulation is necessary.
Comment: Energy resources. Several respondents suggested that the
rule should not include an exemption for oil and gas or geothermal
development as there is currently no known potential for their
development. These respondents further asserted that future energy
exploration should be dealt with under the proposed change clause, and
that there are sufficient places outside roadless areas where
alternative energy sources like wind, biomass, and geothermal can be
developed.
Response: As identified in the FEIS, there is low potential for oil
and gas development in Idaho but there is some potential for geothermal
energy. Wind energy is more developed in southern Idaho and there
appears to be ample opportunities for expansion outside roadless areas.
The Western Energy Corridor study was also considered during
development of this rule and no corridors have been identified in IRAs.
There is currently one geothermal facility in Idaho generating
electricity. Because the development of this resource is in its infancy
and would be widely available on private and the roaded portion of NFS
lands, the Department has determined there is not a need to allow roads
for developing geothermal energy in IRAs at this time. If the State or
other parties believe new information or circumstances warrant an
adjustment, a change of the rule's restrictions can be sought and
considered though the rule's modification process. For now, the final
rule prohibits new road construction or reconstruction within any theme
for post-rule oil and gas, and geothermal leasing. Surface use and
occupancy would still be permitted in the BCR and GFRG themes so long
as the LMP components do not expressly prohibit such activities.
Comment: Consultation with mining and energy interests. A
respondent suggested the Agency should consult with State of Idaho
agencies and
[[Page 61470]]
mining, energy, and geothermal industry representatives to assure the
rule does not restrict or confuse development.
Response: The Department highlighted its desire for public comment
concerning mineral and energy issues in the proposed rule. With regard
to phosphates, as noted above, the Agency and State have coordinated
with BLM, representatives of the affected industry, Tribal
representatives, environmental groups, and other interested parties to
identify the IRAs that possess resource values other than phosphate
development and placed those areas in themes that would preclude future
development. The Forest Service also worked with the BLM to ensure that
both agencies understood the extent of phosphate development that would
be permissible in IRAs.
Comment: Project-by project approach. One respondent recommended
that decisions regarding mineral exploration and development should be
made project-by-project rather than rule classifications for BCR and
GFRG themes.
Response: A project-level approach would effectively be the same as
the system examined in Alternative 2--Existing Plans, which is analyzed
in detail in the draft and final EISs. The Department believes that the
final rule (Alternative 4) presents a better approach blending local
understanding of these regional interests along with national interest
in roadless area management, minerals management, and energy security.
Additionally, the modification provision set out in section 294.27 is
available for adjustments as needed for individual projects.
Proposed Section 294.25 Timber Cutting, Sale, or Removal in Idaho
Roadless Areas
Summary of Changes in Proposed Section 294.25 (Final Rule Section
294.24). Paragraph (a) has been reworded for clarity but retains the
same limitations on timber cutting in WLR presented in the proposed
rule. The proposed rule's use of significant risk in paragraph
(b)(1)(ii) in the Primitive and SAHTS themes has been eliminated and
has been revised with language that better describes a narrower
exception focusing on protection for at-risk communities and municipal
water supply systems from uncharacteristic wildland fire effects. As
explained in the FEIS at section 3.3, Fuels Management, these fuel
treatments are necessary to reduce potential direct and indirect
effects of wildland fires to these communities. This aligns more
closely to the Department's, Forest Service's, and State's desire to
provide protections similar or beyond those provided by the 2001
roadless rule without sacrificing necessary flexibility for the
protection of critical community interests. Instead of splitting
limitations on these activities across multiple paragraphs as in the
proposed rule, section 294.24(b)(2) lists all limitations. The final
rule also clarifies that when assessing whether actions maintain or
improve roadless characteristics, responsible official's evaluations
examine long term effects rather than only immediate consequences.
Several refinements have been made to the provisions concerning
timber cutting in the BCR theme. The final rule includes new provisions
in section 294.24(c)(1)(i-ii) to refine instances where timber cutting
can be conducted to reduce hazardous fuel conditions. The rule now
distinguishes between cutting for fuel reduction purposes inside and
outside CPZs and requires additional protections and findings for
actions taken outside a CPZ. The final rule clarifies that significant
risk will be addressed in terms of landscape condition and fire event
probability. Consistent with the concepts of the 2006 Cohesive
Strategy, the regulation now identifies and defines the factors that go
into that determination--history of fire occurrence along with fire
hazard and risk. These adjustments parallel changes made in the road
construction provision in the final rule discussed above.
The RACNAC and some respondents expressed concern regarding whether
temporary roads should be constructed for facilitating forest health or
other permissible timber cutting, sale, or removal activities in BCR
theme areas. The Department agrees that new roads, even temporary
roads, should not be developed to undertake these types of timber
cutting activities because of their potential to diminish roadless
characteristics. However, the final rule recognizes that with
appropriate limitations, such as maximizing the retention of large
trees, these activities could make use of roads that already exist and
roads authorized under the various provisions of this rule (including
temporary roads until decommissioned). By allowing the use of existing
and permissible roads to support limited timber cutting activities, the
ability to accomplish limited forest health objectives can be met
without diminishing roadless characteristics over the long-term. Such
roads would not be available to support further timber cutting
operations once they are decommissioned. General instructions regarding
temporary roads have been added in a new paragraph (d) based on input
from RACNAC and the public.
Comment: Limits on timber cutting. One respondent suggested
limiting timber cutting, sale, or removal in the Primitive theme to
only those timber activities that will improve one or more of the
roadless characteristics. Several respondents suggested timber cutting
should be limited in the Primitive theme to instances where it would
improve one or more roadless characteristics and maintain the quality
of game and fish habitat and recreation experience. Other respondents
suggested that an exception be included for the Primitive theme
allowing treatment for human health and safety near trails or other
recreation sites. For the BCR theme, it was suggested the cutting,
selling, or removing of timber be limited to where it will maintain all
roadless characteristics or improve one or more of the roadless
characteristics. Another respondent felt the rule should disclose the
controversy over the use of logging as a fuels reduction method.
Another felt that the proposed rule exceptions were ambiguous and that
the DEIS underestimated potential effects. Other respondents wanted to
know why language in the 2001 roadless rule concerning generally small
diameter and the range of variability were are not carried forward into
the proposed rule. Similarly, other respondents asked for clarification
about whether large diameter trees can be logged and consideration of a
limitation to small diameter trees and/or an old-growth, large tree
retention requirements.
Response: Based on these comments, the Department has elected to
follow the approach used in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA)
with modifications recommended by the RACNAC. In the Primitive theme,
timber cutting under the final rule would be prohibited unless existing
roads or aerial systems are used and the cutting, selling, or removing
of timber would: (1) Improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or
sensitive species habitat; (2) maintain or restore ecosystem
composition, structure, and processes; or (3) reduce the risk of
uncharacteristic wildfire to at-risk communities and municipal water
supply systems. Such cutting, selling, or removing of timber would also
have to maintain or improve one or more of the roadless characteristics
over the long-term. Some additional requirements for timber cutting
were added, including: (1) Timber cutting, selling, or removing must be
approved by the regional forester; (2) retention of large trees as
appropriate for the forest type to the extent the trees promote fire-
resilient
[[Page 61471]]
stands must be maximized; and (3) projects must be consistent with
applicable plan components. With these limitations, timber cutting
activities on these lands is expected to be limited and infrequent. The
cutting of hazard trees near trails and recreation sites for human
health and safety is allowed under section 294.24(b)(v) as it is
incidental to a management activity not otherwise prohibited by this
final rule.
For the BCR theme, the final rule modifies the proposed rule's
timber cutting provisions (section 294.25(c)(1)(ii)) to be more
specific about where and under what conditions timber cutting is
permissible. The final rule identifies that timber cutting would only
be allowed as follows: (1) To reduce hazardous fuel conditions within
the CPZ; (2) to reduce the significant risk of wildland fire effects to
an at-risk community or municipal water supply system outside the CPZ;
(3) to improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species
habitat; (4) to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem
composition, structure, and process; (5) to reduce the risk of
uncharacteristic wildland fire effects; (6) for personal or
administrative use; (7) where incidental to implementation of a
management activity not otherwise prohibited by this rule; or (8) in a
substantially altered portion of an IRA.
Additional conditions were added for actions undertaken to reduce
significant risk of wildland fire effects outside of a CPZ; to maintain
or restore characteristics of ecosystem composition, structure, and
process; and to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildland fire.
These actions must also maintain or improve one or more of the roadless
characteristics over the long-term; maximize the retention of large
trees as appropriate for the forest type, to the extent the trees
promote fire-resilient stands; are consistent with LMP components; and
are approved by the regional forester.
The 2001 roadless rule used the phrase generally small diameter.
The requirement to retain large trees as appropriate for the forest
type replaces that terminology. This language was recommended by the
RACNAC and has been part of the Agency's implementation of HFRA and the
Agency believes the language will be better understood by field
personnel. The new language reflects the site-specific flexibility
needed to treat certain forest types in Idaho (e.g., lodgepole pine). A
definition of forest type has been added in the final rule that is
drawn from the definition of that term in the Dictionary of Ecology.
The Agency will continue to emphasize the use of stand thinning,
strategic fuel breaks, and prescribed fire where possible to reduce the
forest fuel loading. Similarly, the language ``within the range of
variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance
regimes of the current climatic period'' found in the 2001 roadless
rule is not used in this rule because it does not easily account for
species like lodgepole pine that routinely experiences stand
replacement fires, and although it may not be outside of its natural
disturbance regimes, it could pose a significant risk to at-risk
communities.
Comment: Restrictions on logging methods. One respondent suggested
that only selective logging by helicopter should be allowed in themes
where timber cutting is allowed because it would allow for better
quality wood without habitat destruction. Another respondent felt that
the rule should clarify whether maintaining roadless character means
that there will be no clear-cutting or seed tree harvest methods.
Response: The Department believes selection of logging methods to
meet silvicultural treatment objectives is best left to project-
specific decisionmaking. A general prohibition on particular harvest
systems, like clear-cutting or seed tree harvest methods, could
preclude necessary and otherwise permissible activities for treating
areas. Some areas with low commercial value, like lodgepole pine
stands, may be in need of treatment to protect local communities and
municipal water supplies. Restricting logging methods would
unnecessarily endanger these at-risk communities and municipal water
supplies.
Comment: Timber cutting and vegetative treatments to improve
roadless characteristics. Several respondents felt it was confusing to
allow timber cutting under proposed section 294.25 if it will maintain
or improve one or more of the roadless characteristics and suggested
changing the standard to be an assurance that timber cutting does not
degrade roadless character. One respondent suggested more rationale is
needed before conducting vegetative treatments to reduce significant
risks or for forest health activities in the Primitive and BCR themes.
Other respondents felt language was needed that requires scientific
documentation before activities for the maintenance and improvement of
threatened, endangered, and sensitive species can be authorized in
roadless areas.
Response: The final rule language has been modified and section
294.24(c)(2)(i) now provides that actions should maintain or improve
roadless characteristics over the long-term. The final rule includes
additional definitions and clarifications addressing when and where
actions undertaken for maintaining or restoring the characteristics of
ecosystem composition, structure, and processes; or significant risk
situations may occur. Agency procedures already require responsible
officials to identify the reasons for their decisions and the
scientific and other source material relied upon for agency
conclusions. Therefore, additional requirements are not necessary.
Comment: Wildland urban interface (WUI). Many respondents requested
clarifications and definition concerning WUIs and communities. One
respondent felt that a roadless area by definition is not part of the
urban interface and should not be included in WUI areas. Some
respondents suggested expanding the radius beyond one mile, while
others suggested reducing the radius to 200 feet. Still others wanted
more application of science when determining WUI boundaries.
Response: The proposed rule did not specifically use WUI as a
condition for road construction or timber cutting. The proposed rule
permitted road construction or reconstruction and timber cutting, sale,
or removal in the BCR theme to reduce the significant risk of wildland
fire effects. Significant risk was defined as ``a natural resource
condition threatening an at-risk community or municipal water supply
system.'' WUI as defined by the HFRA includes an area within or
adjacent to an at-risk community that is identified in a community
wildfire protection plan (CWPP) or is based on default criteria if a
CWPP does not exist. CWPPs are completed for all counties in Idaho.
Based on public comment and RACNAC recommendations, the timber
cutting section was modified to be more precise about where and under
what conditions timber cutting could be done. Timber cutting, sale, or
removal could be done in the CPZ as described as an at-risk community
in HFRA. The CPZ is an area extending one-half mile from the boundary
of an at-risk community; or an area within one and a half miles of the
boundary of an at-risk community, where any land (1) has a sustained
steep slope that creates the potential for wildfire behavior
endangering the at-risk community; (2) has a geographic feature that
aids in creating an effective fire break, such as a road or a ridge
top; or (3) is in condition class 3 as defined by HFRA meaning areas
where fire regimes on
[[Page 61472]]
land have been significantly altered from historical ranges; there
exists a high risk of losing key ecosystem components from fire; fire
frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by multiple
return intervals, resulting in dramatic changes to: (1) The size,
frequency, intensity, or severity of fires; and (2) landscape patterns;
and vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from the
historical range of the attributes. The final rule's definition of an
at-risk community comes from the HFRA.
Comment: Use of community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs).
Several respondents raised concerns over the legality of using CWPPs in
the rule to define the WUI because the development of a CWPP is not
solely in the control of the Federal Government. Some felt the Proposed
Rule's references to HFRA may unintentionally broaden forest fuels
treatments in roadless areas beyond limited community protection needs.
Others suggested adding language to cover any updates to the HFRA
Interim Field Guide. They also noted the field guidance is not limited
to community protection and includes municipal watersheds, ecosystem
components, and forest/rangeland resources.
Response: CWPPs were not specifically referenced in the proposed
rule. However, consideration of CWPPs was implied in provisions
regarding timber cutting and road construction to reduce significant
risk. The CWPPS were considered when developing the final rule as a way
to define a geographic area for projects that reduce significant risks
to communities and municipal water supply systems. However, this
concept was not considered in detail because it is too difficult to
define. Each CWPP is developed based on a variety of information, some
more scientific than others; and a set distance may not work in many
cases. While CWPPs can provide helpful information, they are not
developed and controlled solely by the Federal Government, and can vary
widely. In some instances, the county's CWPP indicates the entire
county is a WUI including all IRAs within the county. Therefore, the
Department decided that reliance exclusively on CWPPs was not
appropriate. After consideration of public comments and the RACNAC's
recommendation for allowing road building in certain circumstance
described above, the Department has decided to use a combination of
specific geographic criteria (the CPZs) and added requirements for the
situations when road construction and reconstruction could be used to
facilitate timber cutting to reduce significant risk outside the CPZs.
Responsible officials can consider information from CWPPs as in many
instances they may be a useful tool for determining whether a
significant risk situation exists.
Comment: Vegetation treatments in the BCR theme. One respondent
suggested that documentation should be required for maintenance or
improvement of habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, indicator,
and sensitive species. Another respondent recommended inclusion of
aspen as a type of restoration project. One respondent felt that the
rule should be more flexible in the BCR theme to allow for management
treatments outside of WUI and municipal watersheds. Another respondent
questioned if timber cutting activities in the BCR theme would maintain
all roadless characteristics or improve one or more of the roadless
characteristics.
Response: Agency planning procedures (i.e., NFMA, NEPA, ESA)
already require analysis, documentation and disclosure of the
scientific and other information relied upon for agency conclusions
regarding wildlife habitat. Therefore, additional requirements are not
necessary. Treatments in aspen stands are allowed as long as they
conform to the requirements of the rule. For a discussion of activities
outside of WUI, see the discussions above under significant risk and
under Summary of Changes in Proposed Section 294.25 (Final Rule Section
294.24). As a clarification, the final rule limits timber cutting in
the BCR theme to situations that (1) maintain or improve one or more of
the roadless characteristics over the long-term; (2) maximize the
retention of large trees as appropriate for the forest type to the
extent the trees promote fire-resilient stands; (3) are consistent with
LMP components other than those inconsistent with this final rule; and
(4) are approved by the regional forester.
Comment: Forest health activities. Some respondents were concerned
over the possible abuse of this exception and thought the language
should be struck from the rule. One respondent thought the two
exceptions in proposed section 294.25(c)(1) should stand on their own
and the reference to forest health should be removed. Others felt that
a definition was needed for the term forest health and that further
parameters should be included. Another respondent thought forest health
projects should not be allowed in the BCR theme, making the proposed
rule more like the 2001 roadless rule. One respondent felt forest
health should not be confined to the health of trees but other parts of
the ecosystem.
Response: The final rule has been designed to address vital forest
health needs. The final rule removes the proposed criteria that a road
could be constructed ``to facilitate forest health activities.'' The
final rule does not include a definition for forest health because the
term is not used. The BCR theme in the final rule does not permit road
building for the purpose of conducting limited forest health
activities. However, these limited forest health activities may proceed
using other means, including the use of aerial systems and existing
roads, including those temporary roads authorized by this rule until
the road is decommissioned. This adjustment is intended to add a small
degree of flexibility under special circumstances while maintaining
essentially the same management regime for these lands as directed
under the 2001 rule. The final rule does not impose restrictions on
forest health activities for the betterment of the ecosystem beyond
those expressly addressed by the regulation. For example, stream
habitat improvements like willow planting for shade improvement are
unaffected by the rule.
Proposed Section 294.26 Other Activities in Idaho Roadless Areas
Summary of Changes in Proposed Section 294.26 (Final Rule Section
294.26). The rule language concerning motorized travel, motorized
equipment, and mechanical transport has been simplified with no change
in intent. Along with other minor wording changes, the grazing
provision now uses permit rather than allotment. The proposed and final
rules both indicate that future grazing operations will conform to the
rule, but that current operations are not affected. Standard Forest
Service grazing permits have a maximum ten-year term. Allotment
management planning occurs periodically and has no set term. The
Department's intention for bringing future grazing operations into
conformance with the rule classifications is more readily accomplished
through the mandatory term permit system than through the optional
allotment management planning system as not all operations are covered
by an existing allotment management plan.
Comment: Public involvement during transportation planning. A
respondent suggested the rule should require that any present or future
roads analysis conducted in an Idaho roadless area
[[Page 61473]]
should be shared with county commissioners.
Response: The Governor's petition and final rule at section
294.26(a) identify that decisions concerning the future management and/
or status of existing roads or trails in IRAs under this rule will be
made during the applicable travel management processes. Forest Service
responsible officials are already directed to coordinate with counties
when engaged in travel management decisionmaking regarding designation
or revision of NFS roads, trails, and areas on NFS land as directed in
36 CFR 212.53. No additional regulatory direction is needed.
Comment: Ski areas. A respondent suggested ski areas should be
taken out of roadless area designations, including the Primitive theme.
Several respondents felt ski areas should be moved into the Forest Plan
Special Area (FPSA) designation. Another respondent requested a re-
evaluation of the ski area permit boundaries in LMPs and the ski area
master development plan to consider the actual ski use boundaries.
Response: The status and theme assignment for all ski areas was
further evaluated based on public comment. Based on the review, it was
determined that some existing LMP prescriptions did not match the
authorized ski area permit boundary. In the proposed rule, not all the
developed winter recreation sites had been placed into the FPSA
category. In the final rule, all developed winter recreation sites,
based on their permit boundaries are placed into FPSA. These areas
would be managed according to the applicable LMP.
For example, the potential for future expansion of Brundage
Mountain has been acknowledged in its master development plan,
including approximately 7,000 acres in the Patrick Butte Roadless Area.
The final rule identifies these lands as a FPSA and, as such, the lands
will be managed in accordance with the local land management plan and
standard administrative and environmental review processes for
evaluation of ski areas will apply. The final rule is neutral regarding
potential expansion, neither assuring nor baring the outcome of future
decisionmaking.
Classifications for ski areas, or parts of ski areas, where only
snowcat skiing is authorized were not adjusted as no rule related
activities are associated with these uses.
Proposed Section 294.27 Scope and Applicability
Summary of Changes in Proposed Section 294.27 (Final Rule Sections
294.27 and 294.28). Several adjustments were made to the scope and
applicability provisions set out in the proposed section 294.27. First,
a new paragraph 294.28(a) was added to respond to requests that the
rule clarify the relationship of this subpart to the 2001 roadless
rule. Paragraph (a) of the final rule is intended to make clear that
this rule supersedes the 2001 roadless rule. Therefore the 2001
roadless rule shall have no effect within the State of Idaho regardless
of the legal uncertainties of the 2001 roadless rule because of pending
litigation as noted above. The Department has reexamined management
direction for these lands under various regimes, considering national
and local interests, and determined that the final rule represents a
balanced solution that best meets the needs of the American public for
these lands. A clarification has been added about the relationship of
this final rule and LMPs in section 294.28(d). A further clarification
of the relationship between the rule and plans was made by adding
paragraph 294.28(f) in the final rule that expressly states that the
final rule is not intended to overwrite management direction applicable
within FPSAs. Paragraphs 294.28(g) and (h) are added to expressly note
that nothing in the rule waives any applicable requirements regarding
site-specific environmental analysis, public involvement, consultation
with Tribes and other agencies, or compliance with applicable laws; nor
modifies the relationship between the United States and Indian Tribes.
Finally, the corrections and modifications process has been simplified
to improve readability and placed in a separate section (294.27).
Comment: Role of LMP components during implementation of the rule.
Several respondents raised concerns that the proposed rule was silent
on meeting LMP standards and guidelines or other interagency standards
established to meet resource objectives, for example INFISH.
Response: The final rule (section 294.28(d)) makes it clear that
applicable LMP components (desired conditions, objectives, suitability,
guidelines, and standards) must be adhered to during the planning and
implementation of a project. For example, in the GFRG theme, LMP
components generally permit road construction. However, some components
set sideboards or conditions for road construction (e.g., roads may not
be constructed in riparian areas unless certain conditions are met or
may not be constructed in grizzly bear habitat unless certain road
densities are met). In particular LMPs provide management direction to
reduce or minimize adverse effects to threatened and endangered
species. This direction is not inconsistent with the final rule.
Therefore, these conditions would still apply to actions permissible
under the final rule and if the project cannot comply with the plan
requirements, the proposed project would have to be modified,
abandoned, or the specific LMP component amended. There are some IRAs
where the management theme direction established in the final rule
would be more permissive than existing LMPs, for example allowing the
use of a temporary road for fuels treatment within a CPZ while the
existing LMP does not allow for roads in the area. In these few
instances, the rule would override the plan's general allocation and
road construction could be permitted. However, any such road building
must still be consistent with all LMP direction that provides specific
criteria for designing projects or activities. In the example above,
the road must still meet requirements found in INFISH, PACFISH,
southwest Idaho Group Forest-wide requirements, the Final Conservation
Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area, the
Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment, or other species-specific direction.
Comment: Administrative corrections and modifications. Several
respondents felt that more clarity was needed on the procedures for
boundary changes to the IRA maps identified in proposed section 294.21.
Others requested further clarification regarding the proposed
significance determination for modifications. Several respondents
recommended public involvement no matter the magnitude of change even
if the proposed change is perceived by the Agency to be non-significant
or an administrative correction. In addition, respondents requested a
30-day public comment period before any change is made. One respondent
expressed concern that the change clause would allow incremental
erosion of IRA protections. A Tribal respondent felt that the change
clause would result in the categorical exclusions of public input and
Tribal government-to-government consultation. Other respondents felt
that the revision of boundary lines for the themes and roadless areas
should be made simpler.
Response: The Department identified the correction and modification
process as an aspect of the proposed rule where public input was most
desired. To improve readability, the final rule establishes a separate
provision for corrections and modifications. Although there was
widespread agreement that a
[[Page 61474]]
modification provision is needed, respondents sought clarifications
regarding two particular points: the public comment process and the
significance threshold for modifications.
The proposed rule identified that all changes, except correcting
typographic or mapping errors, would be subject to an opportunity for
public comment. The extent of public involvement was intended to vary
depending on whether a proposed change was deemed a significant
modification. Some respondents found the proposed rule's approach
overly complicated or confusing. Several respondents, including the
RACNAC, urged that an opportunity for public comment be provided for
all changes. Therefore, the Department has simplified the process. The
final rule directs the Chief to provide notice and comment for all
changes, including corrections for typographic or mapping errors.
Further, the significance test has been eliminated and the Agency will
provide a 30-day comment period for corrections and a minimum 45-day
comment period for all other modifications. Adjustments will comply
with applicable administrative and environmental analysis requirements.
Proposed Section 294.28 List of Designated Idaho Roadless Areas
Summary of Changes in Proposed Section 294.28 (Final Rule Section
294.29). The final rule designations reflect adjustments to area
boundaries and assigned classifications for specific IRAs based upon
further review by Forest Service field units, the State, and in
response to public comment since publication of the 2001 roadless rule.
The FEIS Appendix A lists each adjustment and identifies the reason the
change was made. These roadless areas are based on the most current
inventory, found either in existing forest plans, proposed forest
plans, or the 2001 roadless rule. In most cases, the boundaries from
the three sources are the same.
Most of the Idaho's 2001 roadless rule roadless area boundaries
were based on forest plan inventories completed in the mid-1980s. Most
of these inventories were not updated for the 2001 roadless rule to
reflect activities that had occurred in the 1990s. During LMP revisions
since the 2001 roadless rule, national forests in Idaho updated their
inventories. Some roadless areas have decreased in size from the
inventories used by the 2001 roadless rule due to road construction and
timber sales that occurred between the mid-1980 inventory and prior to
the implementation of the 2001 roadless rule. Other roadless areas
increased in size due to lands gained through land exchanges or a new
inventory during a LMP revision found more adjacent lands qualifying
for consideration FSH 1909.12 Land Management Planning, Chapter 70
requirements. Additionally, some minor changes were made to correct
mapping errors found since the 2001 roadless rule.
Comment: Several respondents raised concerns that the proposed
theme designations for the propose rule did not correctly reflect
current LMP direction for the area. In addition, some respondents felt
that too many acres are being placed in the GFRG theme.
Response: As previously noted, the GFRG theme was reduced by
203,700 acres (from 609,600 to 405,900 acres) in the final rule as
described in FEIS, Appendices E and P. The Forest Service reviewed
current LMP direction for each IRA. Based on public comment and Forest
Service review, several changes were made to place some additional
areas into the forest plan special area (FPSA) category as this
category better reflects the management intent of the rule for these
areas. They include small developed or designated dispersed sites on
the Caribou-Targhee, Payette, and Sawtooth NFs, and the ski areas of
Brundage Mountain discussed above. A change was also made to remove
potential wild and scenic river corridors from the FPSA in the Idaho
Panhandle NFs. Similarly, a change was made on the Challis NF where
Management Areas 11 and 12 had been placed into the Primitive theme
based on the interpretation of LMP direction. However, after further
review by the Challis NF of the road construction or reconstruction
activities that have occurred in these management areas, it was
determined that the appropriate theme for these two areas is the BCR
theme. More information on these changes can be found in Appendix E of
the FEIS.
Regulatory Certifications
Regulatory Planning and Review
This final rule was reviewed under USDA procedures, Executive Order
(E.O.) 12866 issued September 30, 1993, as amended by E.O. 13258 and
E.O. 13422 on Regulatory Planning and Review and the major rule
provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness
Act (5 U.S.C. 800). This final rule is not an economically significant
rule. This final rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or
more or adversely affect the economy or economic sectors. This final
rule is not expected to interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency, nor raise legal or policy issues. This final rule will
not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or
loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such
programs. However, due to the level of interest in roadless area
management, this final rule has been designated as significant and is
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under
E.O. 12866.
A regulatory impact analysis has been prepared for this final rule.
OMB circulars as well as guidance regarding E.O. 12866 indicate that
regulatory impact analysis should include a benefit cost analysis and
an assessment of distributional effects. The benefits, costs, and
distributional effects of four alternatives referred to as follows:
2001 Roadless Rule (2001 Rule), existing forest plans (Existing Plans),
the Proposed Rule and the final rule are analyzed over a 15-year time
period from 2008 to 2022. For the purpose of regulatory impact
analysis, the 2001 Rule is assumed to be the no action alternative to
represent baseline conditions or goods and services provided by
national forests and grasslands in the near future in the absence of
the final rule. The baseline assumption is consistent with no action
alternative used in the final environmental impact statement for the
final rule. The IMPLAN modeling framework is used to estimate the
economic impacts of the regulatory action.
Summary of the Results of Impact Analysis
The regulatory impact analysis examines four alternatives
establishing regulatory direction for the management of the 9.3 million
acres of Idaho Roadless Areas (IRAs):
(1) Direction based on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
(2001 Rule);
(2) Direction based on existing land management plans for national
forests in Idaho (Existing Plans);
(3) Direction based on the proposed rule (Proposed Rule).
(4) Direction based on this final rule (Final Rule).
The purpose of the Final (and Proposed) Rule is to provide State-
specific direction for the conservation and management of Idaho's
inventoried roadless areas. The Final Rule integrates local management
concerns with the national objectives for protecting roadless area
values and characteristics.
[[Page 61475]]
The 2001 Rule
The 2001 Rule is the baseline alternative. The 2001 Rule
alternative presents a roadless area management regime based on
prohibitions with exceptions. This alternative prohibits road
construction and reconstruction in roadless areas with exceptions.
Timber cutting, sale, or removal, is prohibited with exceptions. Unless
an exemption applied, road construction would not be allowed for
discretionary (leasable and saleable) mineral activities.
Existing Plans
The Existing Plans alternative represents an Idaho Roadless Area
management regime based on each forest's land management plan (LMP).
Generally, LMPs would allow timber cutting and road construction or
reconstruction on 1.26 million acres of the 9.3 million acres of IRAs.
Road construction and timber cutting would be allowed on an additional
4.48 million acres over the baseline. Permissions for mineral activity
vary by each National Forest land management plan from limited to full
development.
Proposed Rule
The proposed Idaho Roadless Area Conservation Rule is programmatic
in nature and consists of five management themes. The themes provide a
management spectrum intended to meet the purpose of the rule. Depending
on the theme, road construction or reconstruction, timber cutting, and
discretionary mineral activities are allowed or prohibited with or
without exceptions.
Final Rule
The Final Rule refines and clarifies parts of the Proposed Rule
based on comments received on the Proposed Rule from the public,
Tribes, the State of Idaho, and recommendations from the RACNAC. The
major modifications between the Proposed Rule and Final Rule include:
The amount and type of roadless areas placed in the
various themes.
Clarifications on the permissions and restrictions
associated with road construction and reconstruction and timber
cutting, sale, or removal with fuel treatments in areas associated with
at-risk communities and municipal water supplies.
Restrictions on road construction in association with
leasable minerals other than phosphate.
The public comment requirements to make changes in the
future.
For more information on the alternatives, see discussion under
Alternatives Considered by the Department section in this preamble and
FEIS Chapter 2 (http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/idaho_roadless/feis/feis_vol_1.pdf).
The final rule establishes five management themes to clarify
direction in IRAs in contrast to the single management strategy
assigned to all IRAs under the 2001 Rule alternative. The five themes
are Wild Land Recreation (WLR), Primitive, Special Areas of Heritage
and Tribal Significance (SAHTS), Backcountry/Restoration (BCR), and
General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland (GFRG). In general, these
themes vary according to the degree to which road construction, timber
cutting, and discretionary minerals activity are prohibited in IRAs,
with the WLR theme being the most restrictive and the GFRG theme being
the least restrictive. Management direction under the 2001 Rule
alternative is most similar to the BCR theme under the final rule. The
final rule does not prescribe site-specific activities on the ground
nor does it irreversibly commit resources. Direct effects of site-
specific activities would be disclosed through NEPA project-level
analysis when site-specific decisions are made. Table 1 compares
roadless acres by theme, across alternatives.
Because the rule does not prescribe site-specific activities, it is
difficult to quantify the benefits and costs of the alternatives. It
should also be emphasized that the types of benefits derived from
roadless characteristics and the uses of roadless areas are far ranging
and include a number of non-market and non-use benefit categories.
Consequently, benefits and costs are not monetized, nor are net present
values or benefit cost ratios estimated. Instead, increases and/or
losses in benefits are discussed separately for each resource area in a
quantitative or qualitative way. Benefits and costs are organized and
discussed in the context of local resource concerns and roadless
characteristics to remain consistent with overall purpose of the rule,
recognizing that benefits associated ``with local concerns may trigger
indirect benefits in roadless characteristics in some cases (such as,
forest health).'' Table 2 summarizes the potential benefits and costs
of the final rule, the 2001 Rule, the Proposed Rule, and Existing Plans
alternatives.
Distributional effects or economic impacts, in terms of jobs and
labor income, are quantified for Idaho's five economic areas (EAs)
using regional impact models (IMPLAN). Economic impacts are evaluated
only for changes in activities directly affected by the rule (timber
cutting, minerals extraction, and road construction and
reconstruction). Distributional effects are also discussed in relation
to revenue sharing, small entities, and to the resource dependent
communities (counties) most likely to be affected by the rule. Table 3
summarizes distributional effects and economic impacts of the final
rule and alternatives. The precision of these estimates are unknown
since a formal analysis of uncertainty has not been undertaken.
Discussion of estimated economic impacts therefore focuses on the
direction of change and the relative differences in impacts across
alternatives, not absolute values of impacts.
Details about the environmental effects of the rule are in the
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
In general, projected activity levels associated with future road
construction and timber cutting are anticipated to be greater for the
final rule, relative to the 2001 Rule alternative baseline conditions.
For example, the final rule projects an increase in road construction
by 18 miles over the next 15 years. Reasonably foreseeable levels of
activities such as road construction can be projected, but the effects
of permitted activities on resource conditions or roadless
characteristics are more difficult to predict. As a consequence, the
agency is often limited to describing the extent to which particular
resource conditions (e.g., highly sensitive soils) overlap with
roadless areas where opportunities for activities (e.g., road
construction) exist under the different alternatives. The actual extent
of resource effects would be significantly smaller than the area of
overlap because reasonably foreseeable activities are projected to
occur on very small fractions of the total area where activities are
permitted under the alternatives. In addition, other requirements to
minimize or reduce adverse effects, such as management direction found
in land management plans would apply.
Local Resource Concerns
Local resource concerns include protecting communities, property,
and resources from risk of wildland fire, as well as protecting forests
from the adverse effects of wildfire, insects and disease, and ensuring
access (see Table 2).
Projected levels of timber cutting for reducing hazardous fuels
and/or reducing the risks from insects and disease in roadless areas
over 15 years, are greatest under Existing Plans alternative (40,500
acres) followed by
[[Page 61476]]
the Proposed Rule alternative (18,000 acres), the final rule (15,000
acres), and the 2001 Rule alternative (9,000 acres). Projected timber
cutting is estimated to generate approximately 3.0 million board feet
(MMBF) per year for the 2001 Rule alternative, 13.36 MMBF per year for
Existing Plans alternative, 5.8 MMBF per year for the Proposed Rule
alternative, and 5.0 MMBF per year for the final rule and would account
for 2 percent, 11 percent, 5 percent, and 4 percent respectively of the
average annual harvests from NFS land in Idaho. A majority of the
volume under the final rule is projected for the Idaho Panhandle
National Forest (NF) in the northern EA.
Approximately 1.44 million acres in Idaho Roadless Areas (IRAs) are
estimated to be at risk of 25 percent or more tree mortality (i.e.,
high risk) over the next 15 years. Under the 2001 Rule alternative, a
majority of the high-risk areas would remain untreated. Under the final
rule, opportunities for treatment increase as a result of acreage
assigned to the GFRG and BCR themes. Approximately 39,600 of the 1.44
million acres at risk are in the GFRG under the final rule. An
estimated 877,000 at-risk acres are in the BCR theme, of which 56,600
acres are in community protection zones (CPZs). The final rule
specifies that road construction under the BCR theme is primarily
limited to areas in CPZs (or areas determined to be at significant
risk) with the intent of focusing treatment opportunities in those
areas where reductions in wildfire to at-risk communities and/or
community water supplies can be obtained. The areas at high risk of
tree mortality that are located in the GFRG theme (39,600 acres) or in
CPZs under the BCR theme (56,600 acres) therefore have the most
potential to be treated under the final rule.
Compared to the final rule, the Proposed Rule alternative decreases
the amount of high risk acreage assigned to the GFRG theme to 25,600
acres and increases high risk acreage assigned to the BCR theme to
939,400 acres. The areas identified in the GFRG theme would have the
most potential to be treated given treatment flexibility. Timber
cutting in the BCR theme would be limited and would be done to retain
roadless characteristics. In contrast to the final rule, the Proposed
Rule alternative does not specify that road construction is limited to
CPZs or areas at significant risk under the BCR theme. Under the
Existing Plans alternative, the high risk acreage assigned to the GFRG
theme increases to 187,500 acres while 755,800 acres are assigned to
BCR. The Existing Plans alternative provides flexible opportunities to
treat high risk acres through timber cutting on lands assigned to BCR
and GFRG themes without constraints associated with roadless
characteristic retention requirements under the Proposed and final
rules.
Approximately 731,000 acres (8 percent) of IRAs are in the Wildland
Urban Interface (WUI), and about 418,900 acres (57 percent) of those
acres are in high priority fire risk areas as defined by fire regime
and condition class. Projected harvests for hazardous fuel reductions
could treat the equivalent of approximately 4 percent of high priority
areas in the WUI under the Proposed and final rules over a 15 year
period. In contrast, approximately 10 percent of high priority WUI
areas could be treated under Existing Plans alternative. An
insignificant amount of high priority WUI acreage would be treated
under the 2001 Rule alternative. As noted above, the final rule is more
prescriptive about where road construction is permitted in association
with treatments compared to the Proposed Rule alternative, thereby
clarifying the intent to focus projected treatments and tree-cutting in
areas at high risk of wildland fire, including the WUI.
Opportunities to use a full range of treatment methods to address
severe wildland fire risk, particularly in the WUI, are substantially
greater under the Proposed and final rules relative to the 2001 Rule
alternative. Treatment flexibility expands only slightly under the
Proposed and final rules compared to the Existing Plans alternative.
Approximately 66 percent of WUI acreage in IRAs is assigned to
management themes that permit flexible treatment methods (mechanical or
prescribed fire) with road construction under the final rule, compared
to 67 percent under the Proposed Rule alternative, and 65 percent under
the Existing Plans alternative.
Under the final rule, approximately 16 percent of community public
water system acreage that overlaps roadless areas is assigned to themes
that permit flexible treatments with road construction. Flexible
treatments with road construction are conditionally permitted on an
additional 42 percent of community public water systems acreage under
the final rule when significant risk conditions are met; these areas
are located primarily outside of CPZs. In contrast, flexible treatments
with road construction are permitted on 58 percent and 47 percent of
community public water systems areas under the Proposed Rule and
Existing Plans alternatives respectively.
There is some potential for spreading of noxious weeds under the
Existing Plans alternative, with decreasing potential under the
Proposed and final rules due to projected amounts of road construction
or reconstruction, timber cutting, and mineral activity. However, the
limited extent of projected activities would minimize the potential for
spreading noxious weeds.
The environmental consequences associated with climate change have
been considered in the context of carbon dioxide releases associated
with projected activity levels and the varying capability to respond to
climate change under the alternatives. Details about these consequences
are provided in the vegetation and forest health section of chapter 3
in the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the final rule.
Phosphate mining activity on existing leases will be similar across
the alternatives over the next 15 years. However, 13,190 acres of
unleased IRAs with known phosphate reserves (593 million tons) will be
made available for future leasing or lease expansion under the Proposed
Rule alternative that would not be accessible under the 2001 Rule
alternative. Areas of unleased reserves accessible under the final rule
decrease to 5,770 acres (260 million tons) due to additional road
construction prohibitions. Opportunities to recover phosphate from
unleased areas are negligible under the 2001 Rule alternative. Unleased
areas with known phosphate reserves accessible under the Existing Plans
alternative are estimated to be 13,620 acres (613 million tons).
Development of these areas is expected to occur over an extended period
of time (50+ years).
There are negligible opportunities for geothermal development under
the 2001 Rule alternative as well as the final rule due to road
construction prohibitions. Geothermal opportunities increase under the
Proposed Rule alternative where a total of 382,400 acres of land
suitable for leasing (less than 40 percent) are assigned to the GFRG
theme, though roadless acres (7,033 acres) under current lease
applications would not be accessible using road construction. Under the
Existing Plans alternative, opportunities increase to include a total
of 3,091,900 acres under the BCR and GFRG themes. Roadless areas under
current lease applications would be accessible under the Existing Plans
alternative. All future phosphate and geothermal lease proposals are
subject to NEPA review. There are currently no existing geothermal
leases
[[Page 61477]]
on NFS lands in Idaho, implying that information is not available to
project reasonably foreseeable geothermal activity in roadless areas.
The final rule is not expected to have a significant impact on
other local resource issues or concerns including livestock grazing,
saleable minerals, other leasable minerals (oil, gas, and coal),
locatable minerals, energy corridors, or wind or biomass energy.
Roadless Characteristics
Roadless characteristics include: high quality soil, water
(including drinking water), air; plant and animal diversity; habitat
for sensitive species; reference landscapes and high scenic quality;
primitive and semi-primitive recreation; cultural resources; and other
locally identified unique characteristics (see Table 2). Shifts in the
number of acres assigned to more permissive management themes can
increase the potential for adverse effects to roadless characteristics.
However, reasonably foreseeable effects in the next 15 years are likely
to be limited by the levels of road construction or reconstruction,
timber harvest, and leasable minerals activity that are projected to be
reasonably foreseeable during that time.
Based on activity prohibitions and the relative acreage assigned to
different management themes (e.g., GFRG), the final rule creates
greater potential for reductions in scenic integrity compared to the
2001 Rule alternative but lower potential relative to the Proposed Rule
and Existing Plans alternatives. Based on projected levels of timber
harvest over the next 15 years, reasonably foreseeable reductions in
scenic integrity from high to moderate levels are expected to occur on
15,000 acres under the final rule compared to 40,500 acres under the
Existing Plans alternative and 18,000 acres under the Proposed Rule
alternative. Reasonably foreseeable reductions in scenic integrity from
high to low levels from long-term development (50+ years) of the
Caribou-Targhee NF's unleased phosphate reserves are also lower under
the final rule (5,770 acres) compared to the Proposed Rule alternative
(13,190 acres) and the Existing Plans alternative (13,620 acres).
Development within a half-mile buffer around long-term future phosphate
activity could affect additional acres (e.g., estimated 812 acres under
the final rule). Reductions in scenic integrity associated with
development of existing phosphate leases are similar across the other
three alternatives.
The final rule does not directly affect wilderness designations in
the context of the National Wilderness Preservation System, but the
changes in activities permitted in IRAs under the final rule have the
potential to affect visitor experience in adjacent wilderness and the
degree to which IRAs are considered for future wilderness designation.
The final rule and Proposed Rule alternatives significantly reduce GFRG
theme acreage located adjacent to existing wilderness (9,400 GFRG
acres) compared to the Existing Plans alternative (158,300 GFRG acres
adjacent to wilderness); thereby limiting the potential for impacts on
wilderness experience in adjacent areas. There would be little or no
impact on wilderness experience under the 2001 Rule alternative.
Approximately 1,320,500 acres are recommended for wilderness under
the Existing Plans alternative. There is no change or effect on
recommended wilderness expected under the 2001 Rule alternative. Under
the final rule, parts of three of the recommended wilderness areas
would be managed under less protective themes (Primitive, BCR);
however, eight areas would benefit from a net increase in protection
under theme assignments under the final rule. Overall, a total of
1,479,700 acres would be managed under the WLR theme under the final
rule, implying 159,200 acres of additional protection of wilderness-
type characteristics. The Proposed Rule alternative also offers
additional overall protection (1,378,000 acres assigned to the WLR
theme) but to a lesser extent compared to the final rule. Parts of
three recommended wilderness areas would be assigned to less protective
themes with seven areas benefiting from a net increase in protection
under the Proposed Rule alternative. No measurable differences in
dispersed recreation opportunities are expected across alternatives.
Losses in dispersed recreation associated with development of existing
phosphate leases are equal for all alternatives over the next 15 years.
Development of future leases may affect dispersed recreation associated
with 13,620 and 13,190 acres under the Existing Plans and the Proposed
Rule alternatives respectively. Potential impacts decrease to 5,770
acres under the final rule. Perceptions of remoteness and solitude may
be affected in dispersed recreation areas where timber cutting and road
construction occur under all alternatives, but effects are constrained
by projected levels of these activities. No adverse effects to hunting
and fishing are expected under the final rule with the exception of
potential effects to opportunities in areas associated with development
linked to phosphate leases. Approximately 257,700 acres were reassigned
from the GFRG theme to the BCR theme under the final rule to provide
greater protection of big game habitat compared to the Proposed Rule
alternative.
Opportunities for developed recreation are limited under the
Proposed and final rule alternatives but increase to some extent under
the Existing Plans alternative, though reasonably foreseeable
development is minimal (there are no foreseeable developments planned).
Opportunities for maintaining dispersed recreation opportunities are
high under the 2001 Rule alternative with little potential for
increases in developed recreation opportunities. The potential for
shifts in recreational opportunity spectrum classes is slight across
the alternatives due to relatively limited activity level projections
and the focus on temporary roads that are not accessible for
recreation. Concerns about access and designations for motorized versus
non-motorized recreation were raised in comments during scoping;
however, the final rule does not provide direction on where and when
off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be permissible and makes clear that
travel planning-related actions should be addressed through travel
management planning and individual forest plans.
Existing special use permits for outfitters and guides would be
unaffected by the final rule. The potential for adverse effects to
outfitter and guide opportunities are expected to be limited because
the projected extent of activities or development would be relatively
small and localized in any outfitter's area of operation. Likewise,
existing permits for ski areas would not be affected by the final rule.
There are no foreseeable ski area expansions or developments into
roadless areas over the next 15 years for which an EIS does not already
exist. Future ski area expansion into roadless areas with road
construction would not be permitted under the 2001 Rule alternative.
Under the Existing Plans alternative, ski area expansion or development
could occur as permitted by the forest plan. Under the Proposed and
final rules, existing ski areas with development and any additional
development authorized in their master development plans are in the
forest plan special area theme and the applicable land management plan
direction would apply.
The overall effects of the 2001 Rule alternative on endangered,
threatened, candidate, or sensitive species are expected to be
beneficial, as are the effects derived from assigning roadless areas to
the WLR, Primitive, and SAHTS
[[Page 61478]]
themes under the other alternatives. There is some potential for
adverse effects from activities permitted under the BCR and GFRG
themes, with relative risks being highest under the Existing Plans
alternative and lowest under the final rule. Eleven threatened or
candidate plant and 339 to 345 sensitive plant populations are known to
occur in the BCR and GFRG themes under the Proposed Rule and Existing
Plans alternatives. These populations decrease to six and 51 in the
GFRG theme and in the CPZ areas within the BCR theme under the final
rule. In general, foreseeable effects to sensitive populations and
biodiversity are constrained by projected activity levels. No
measurable changes in populations are expected across the alternatives;
however, activities may impact individuals.
Road building associated with timber cutting will have a negligible
effect on high hazard soils under all alternatives. Acres of high
sensitivity soils assigned to themes where road construction is
permitted decreases from approximately 2 million acres under the
Existing Plans and Proposed Rule alternatives to 253,500 acres under
the final rule. Land management plan direction that provides guidance
on road construction across sensitive soils would apply across all
alternatives. Road construction is conditionally permissible on
1,786,400 acres of high sensitivity soils under the final rule. Road
construction is not permitted in areas that overlap with highly
sensitive soils under the 2001 Rule alternative. Road building is
likely to affect high hazard soils in areas associated with existing
phosphate leases but effects are equivalent across alternatives.
Similar effects associated with future leases are possible but not
likely to occur within the next 15 years under the Proposed Rule and
Existing Plans alternatives (future leases are not feasible under the
2001 Rule alternative).
Road construction and timber cutting under the 2001 Rule
alternative, the Proposed Rule alternative, and the final rule are
expected to have negligible effects on the water quality of 303(d)-
listed (i.e., impaired water quality) streams and drinking water.
Unleased known phosphate areas with potential for development over a
period of 50 or more years under the Existing Plans alternative, the
Proposed Rule alternative, and the final rule are estimated to overlap
with three 303(d)-listed streams, one of which is impaired by selenium,
and 640 acres of community water supplies (groundwater). Development of
these areas could affect the listed water bodies; however, mine
development or expansion would be required to use a variety of
environmental commitments and best management practices (BMPs) to
reduce the potential for exceeding environmental standards for
selenium. The EIS for the Smoky Canyon mine expansion predicts that
water quality criteria will not be exceeded. Operators would also be
required to monitor for selenium impacts and migration.
The final rule is expected to have negligible adverse effects on
other resources associated with roadless characteristics including
cultural resources, air quality, and non-timber products based on
reasonably foreseeable activity projections. Any adverse impacts to
these resources and services would be addressed through analysis
conduced in accordance with NEPA and minimized through compliance with
forest plan standards and guidelines.
Agency Costs and Revenues
Under all alternatives, road construction or reconstruction likely
would not see an increase in the foreseeable future (next 15 years)
because the appropriated road budget is expected to be flat or
declining. Reasonably foreseeable changes in agency costs associated
with roads are not likely to be significant under the Proposed or final
rules relative to the Existing Plans alternative given the types of
roads constructed (e.g., temporary, single-purpose, and/or built by the
user) and relative levels of construction or reconstruction projected.
None of the alternatives would restrict or limit road maintenance.
Given the current backlog of road maintenance, there is no emphasis on
constructing new roads that need to be maintained. New roads under the
Proposed and final rules must be temporary unless certain exceptions
are met. Many roads under the Existing Plans alternative are expected
to be single-purpose, closed between uses, and/or temporary. As a
result, road maintenance costs are not expected to be significantly
different across alternatives.
Timber sales are often used as a least-cost method (revenue is
returned to the Federal treasury to offset the costs of preparing and
carrying out the timber harvest) of managing vegetation to meet
resource objectives or to achieve desired ecosystem conditions. Net
revenues associated with reasonably foreseeable volumes may increase
under the Proposed and final rules relative to the 2001 Rule
alternative, primarily for the Idaho Panhandle NF and the northern EA
based on projected levels of timber cutting, though changes in harvest
are relatively small and may not result in significant changes to
aggregate volumes from all NFS lands. Net revenue may decrease under
the Proposed and final rules relative to the Existing Plans
alternative.
Vegetation treatments for forest health or fuel reductions can be
challenging in roadless areas because of the potential costs of
accessing sites and implementing treatment practices in areas that are
remote or otherwise dominated by roadless characteristics. Current
trends in silvicultural practices often require thinning and other
treatments with greater frequency, thus needing road access more often.
Thinning to remove excessive forest fuels, before using prescribed
fire, or to treat diseased or insect-infested stands is often
economically feasible only if a road system is present. Allowing road
construction for harvesting timber in the GFRG theme and to a limited
degree in the BCR theme under the Proposed and final rules reduces the
cost of using treatment methods that may contribute to forest health
objectives. Fuel treatments are likely to be more expensive and less
efficient to implement under the 2001 Rule alternative because road
construction or reconstruction is prohibited, and mechanical treatments
would generally occur near the limited number of existing roads.
Based on a qualitative comparison of relative treatment cost per
acre, treatments in the WUI are potentially most costly per acre for
the 2001 Rule alternative, followed by the Existing Plans alternative,
the Proposed Rule alternative and final rule. Relative treatment costs
per acre in areas with community public water systems ranked highest
for the 2001 Rule alternative, followed by the Existing Plans and
Proposed Rule alternatives. Relative costs under the final rule are
expected to be similar to the Proposed Rule if all community public
water systems are treated using a significant risk determination,
thereby allowing greater treatment flexibility. Otherwise, final rule
treatment costs are likely to fall between the 2001 Rule alternative
and the Existing Plans alternative.
Distributional Effects
Distributional effects, as represented by changes in employment and
income contributed under the final rule, are a function of projected
levels of road construction, timber cutting, and discretionary minerals
activity in roadless areas under the different alternatives. Employment
and income impacts (Table 3) are quantified for
[[Page 61479]]
reasonably foreseeable levels of activities over the next 15 years.
Phosphate mining on existing leases is estimated to contribute the
greatest number of jobs and income, but jobs from this sector are not
projected to differ by alternative. Timber cutting is primarily
responsible for differences in jobs and income across alternatives.
Under baseline or no-action conditions, as represented by the 2001 Rule
alternative, timber harvest and road construction are estimated to
contribute 19 jobs per year. Projected harvest and accompanying road
construction under the final rule is estimated to contribute an
additional 15 jobs and $371,900 in labor income per year, relative to
baseline conditions. These contributions are expected to occur in the
northern (Idaho Panhandle NF) and southeastern (Caribou/Targhee NF) EAs
where current employment in agriculture, mining, and construction
sectors is approximately 41,000 jobs in the northern EA and 32,000 jobs
in the southeastern EA, suggesting that distributional effects are
relatively small or insignificant under the final rule. Employment and
income are estimated to decrease by 53 jobs and $1.49 million per year
under the final rule compared to conditions expected under the Existing
Plans alternative. Impacts relative to the Existing Plans alternative
are likely to occur within the northern, southeastern, and central
(Clearwater NF) EAs but are again expected to be relatively small
compared to current employment levels in these economic areas.
Employment and income decreases by only 5 jobs and $134,500 per year
under the final rule relative to the Proposed Rule alternative.
Timber-dependent counties where changes in harvest opportunities
and corresponding jobs and income may have the most significant impact
on local economies are identified by EA. Timber cutting or harvest
opportunities increase or remain constant for all counties under the
final rule compared to the 2001 Rule alternative. When comparing the
opportunities under the final rule to those of the Existing Plans
alternative, nine counties are identified for the northern EA, while
five such counties are located in the central EA, one of which is
located in the State of Washington. One additional county is located in
the southeastern EA.
Payments to counties are expected to remain the same under all
alternatives as long as the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act (SRSA) remains in effect. Mineral-based payments to
states are a function of receipts from leasable minerals, including
receipts from phosphate operations, but no differences in phosphate
production are projected across alternatives. Opportunities for mining-
dependent counties (e.g., Caribou, Oneida, Power, and Bannock) are
therefore expected to remain the same in the reasonably foreseeable
future (15 years).
Table 1--Comparison of Alternatives--Themes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 rule Existing plans Proposed rule Final rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho Roadless Rule and equivalent themes for the 2001 Rule and Existing Plans (acres)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WLR................................. 0 1,320,500 1,378,000 1,479,700
Primitive........................... 0 1,903,100 1,652,800 1,722,700
SAHTS............................... 0 0 70,700 48,600
Similar to BCR *.................... 9,304,300 0 0 0
BCR................................. 0 4,482,000 5,258,700 5,312,900
GFRG................................ 0 1,263,200 609,600 405,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other lands (acres) **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPSAs............................... 0 334,500 334,500 334,500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Idaho Roadless Area 9,304,300 9,304,300 9,304,300 9,304,300
Acres......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The 2001 roadless rule is similar to the BCR theme for timber cutting, and discretionary mineral activities,
except for the allowance for road construction or reconstruction to access phosphate deposits, and the
allowance for road construction or reconstruction to facilitate timber cutting in specific situations.
** The final rule would not apply to Forest Plan Special Areas (FPSA).
[[Page 61480]]
Table 2--Comparison of Benefits and Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 rule Existing plans Proposed rule Final rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOCAL RESOURCE CONCERNS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Health
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insects and disease............. Most of the 1.44 Opportunities for Opportunities for Opportunities for
million acres treatment of high- treatment of high- treatment of high-
currently at risk risk forests: risk forests: risk forests:
of 25 percent 187,500 acres of 25,600 acres in 39,600 acres in
mortality or high-risk forests GFRG; 939,400 GFRG; 877,000
significant in GFRG; 755,800 acres in BCR. acres in BCR, of
growth loss acres in BCR. Opportunities to which 56,600
(i.e., high-risk Projected treat GFRG. acres are in the
forests) would treatments on Opportunity for CPZ.
remain untreated. 40,500 acres treatment in BCR Opportunities to
Projected likely to be if done for treat GFRG.
treatments on effective over 15 forest health or Opportunity for
9,000 acres years. to reduce treatment in BCR
likely to be hazardous fuels. if done in the
effective over 15 Projected CPZ or to reduce
years. treatments on significant risk
18,000 acres of wildland fire
likely to be effects to at-
effective over 15 risk communities
years. or municipal
water supply
systems.
Projected
treatments on
15,000 acres
likely to be
effective over 15
years.
Noxious weeds--Potential for Spreading is Some potential for Some potential for Some potential for
noxious weed spread. unlikely given spreading based spreading based spreading based
limited potential on acreage on acreage on acreage
for soil assigned to GFRG assigned to GFRG assigned to GFRG
disturbance. (1.26 million (609,600 acres); (405,900 acres);
42,250 acres of acres); the the limited the limited
weeds currently limited degree of degree of degree of
in IRAs. projected road projected projected
construction, construction, construction,
timber cutting, harvest, and harvest, and
and mineral mineral activity mineral activity
activity would would minimize would minimize
minimize the the potential for the potential for
potential for spreading. 2,750 spreading. 3,070
spreading. 5,170 acres of noxious acres of noxious
acres of weeds weeds currently weeds currently
currently in GFRG. in GFRG. in GFRG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuels Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ability to treat Wildland Urban Road construction Treatments Treatments Treatments
Interface (WUI) and Community not permitted in (mechanical and (mechanical and (mechanical and
Public Water System (CPWS) conjunction with prescribed fire) prescribed fire) prescribed fire)
areas. treatments on 100 permitted on 89% permitted on 89% permitted on 87%
percent of the of the WUI and of the WUI and of the WUI and
WUI or CPWS that 93% of CPWS. 92% of CPWS. 92% of CPWS.
overlap roadless Treatments with Treatments with Treatments with
areas. road construction road construction road construction
Treatments more permitted on 65% permitted on 67% permitted on 66%
expensive; of WUI and 47% of of WUI and 58% of of WUI and 16% of
insignificant CPWS. CPWS. CPWS.
acreage treated Projected harvests Projected harvests Mechanical
relative to acres could treat 10 could treat 4 treatments with
at risk. Limited percent of high- percent of high- road construction
capacity to treat priority areas priority areas are permitted in
high-priority (Fire Regimes I, (Fire Regimes I, 42 percent of the
Condition class 2 II, and III; II and III, CPWS areas only
and 3 areas. Condition class 2 Condition class 2 when the
Projected harvests and 3) within and 3) within significant risk
could treat 2 WUIs or 1 percent WUIs or less than conditions are
percent of high- of high-priority half a percent of met.
priority areas areas overall. high-priority Projected harvests
(Fire Regimes I, May permit timber areas overall. could treat 4
II, and III; cutting to reduce Directly permits percent of high-
Condition class 2 risk of unwanted timber cutting to priority areas
and 3) within wildland fires. reduce risk of (Fire Regimes I,
WUIs or less than May permit fuel unwanted wildland II, and III;
half a percent of reduction to fires in the Condition class 2
high-priority reduce wildland Primitive, BCR, and 3) within
areas overall. fire risks to and GFRG themes. WUIs or less than
Does not directly municipal water Permits fuel- half a percent of
permit timber supply systems. reduction high-priority
cutting to reduce activities to areas overall.
risk of unwanted reduce wildland Directly permits
wildland fire. fire risks to timber cutting to
CPWSs in the reduce
Primitive, BCR, significant risk
and GFRG themes. of unwanted
wildland fires in
the BCR and
generally
permitted in GFRG
themes.
Permits fuel-
reduction
activities to
reduce wildland
fire risks to
CPWS in the
Primitive, BCR,
and GFRG themes.
[[Page 61481]]
Prescribed burning is permitted in 100 percent of the WUI or to protect CPWS
areas.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential for increase in human- No increase....... Potential for No measurable No measurable
caused fire starts. increase. increase. increase.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timber Cutting--Projected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timber harvest (Acres over 15 9,000............. 40,500............ 18,000............ 15,000.
years).
Harvest (MBF/year)\1\........... 3,000 (2% of 13,360 (11% of 5,840 (5% of 5,040 (4% of
annual avg.). annual avg.). annual avg.). annual avg.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roads--Projected (miles over 15 years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction--Permanent......... 12................ 72................ 12................ 12.
Construction--Temporary......... 3................. 33................ 26................ 21.
Reconstruction.................. 0................. 75................ 23................ 17.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 15.0.............. 180............... 61................ 50.
===============================================================================
Decommissioning................. 1.0............... 3.2............... 2.7............... 2.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leasable Minerals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geothermal development.......... No existing leases on NFS land. Trend data not available to project reasonably
foreseeable activity. Current lease applications include 7,033 acres within
roadless areas.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Negligible No opportunities No opportunities Negligible
opportunities for on 38% of acreage. on 93% of acreage. opportunities for
development. Development Development development.
opportunities on opportunities on
53% of BCR theme 63% of GFRG theme
(2,354,100 (382,400 suitable
suitable acres) acres) \3\.
and on 58% of 7,033 under
GFRG theme current lease
(737,800 suitable applications
acres) \3\. would not be
7,033 under accessible.
current lease
applications
accessible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phosphate--Reasonably Projected output is equal (2,000,000 tons per year) across all alternatives
foreseeable output (short term because (i) none of the alternatives prohibit road construction and
within 15 years). reconstruction associated with existing leases and (ii) existing leases are
expected to meet demand in reasonably foreseeable future.
Phosphate--Reasonable 1,100 acres of road construction and mining disturbance proposed in Sage Creek
foreseeable development in and Meade Peak Roadless Areas; development over next 15 years.
roadless areas.
Phosphate--Additional acres 6,100 acres of remaining unmined phosphate currently under lease in seven
under lease in roadless areas. roadless areas; development expected to be spread out over 50 or more years.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phosphate--Long term leasing of Opportunities to Estimated 613 Estimated 593 Estimated 260
unleased phosphate deposits (50 recover phosphate million tons of million tons of million tons of
or more years). from IRAs are phosphate phosphate phosphate
negligible. deposits from deposits from deposits from
13,620 unleased 13,190 unleased 5,770 unleased
acres available acres available acres available
for development. for development. for development.
\1/2\ mile buffer \1/2\ mile buffer \1/2\ mile buffer
could affect could affect could affect
additional 1,910 additional 1,850 additional 812
acres. acres. acres.
Road construction Road construction
prohibited in prohibited in
WLR, SAHTS, WLR, SAHTS,
Primitive, BCR Primitive, BCR
theme acres. themes, and 910
acres of GFRG
themes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Resource and Service Areas where Relative Impacts are Insignificant or Negligible
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Livestock Grazing............... Differences in activity, revenue, and operating costs are expected to be
minimal across alternatives; existing processes will regulate management
direction related to grazing (allotments and permitted use).
Leasable Minerals: Oil, gas, and Differences in activity and revenue associated with oil, gas, and coal
coal. development are expected to be minimal based on existing trends and
inventories.
Locatable Minerals: Gold, None of the alternatives would affect rights of reasonable access to prospect
silver, lead, etc. and explore lands open to mineral entry and develop valid claims under the
General Mining Law of 1872. Rights to reasonable access continue.
Saleable minerals (sand, stone, Differences in production of saleable minerals are projected to be minimal
gravel, pumice, etc.). across alternatives because of the relative inefficiencies of providing
saleable minerals from IRAs.
[[Page 61482]]
Energy corridors................ None of the proposed corridors designated for oil, gas, and/or electricity
under section 368 of the Energy Policy Act are within IRAs. Opportunities for
non-section 368 corridors within IRAs are a function of the themes assigned
to the areas proposed for corridor development; differences in opportunities
across alternatives cannot be discerned.
Wind and biomass energy......... Low potential for wind energy in IRAs because of technological, logistical,
and environmental issues associated with constructing wind turbines in the
more mountainous roadless areas. Biomass energy could be a by-product from
any alternative. It is unlikely that any medium- to large-scale wood biomass
in roadless areas would be conducted independently.
Road Construction allowed for Road construction to address CERCLA violations is allowed in all alternatives.
CERCLA violations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROADLESS CHARACTERISTICS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical Resources--Soils
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres of highly sensitive soils 0................. 2,049,300......... 2,121,300......... 253,500 (GFRG and
where road construction/ BCR/CPZ).
reconstruction is permitted
(BCR and GFRG themes).
Acres of highly sensitive soils 0................. 0................. 0................. 1,786,400.
where road construction is
conditionally permissible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects from road construction Land management plan direction that provides guidance on road construction on
on high-hazard soils. sensitive soils would apply across all alternatives; therefore although road
construction could be permitted land management plans may provide design
criteria to minimize effects, such as avoidance or mitigation practices. No
or negligible effect from road building associated with timber cutting.
Effects to soils are equal for road construction associated with phosphate
mining over next 15 years. Effects to high-hazard soils from long-term future
(50 or more years) phosphate leases are likely under the Existing Plans and
the Proposed Rule, but limited risk under the Final and 2001 Rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical Resources--Water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect of road construction, Negligible effect. Minimal effect.... Negligible effect. Negligible effect.
reconstruction, and timber
harvest on listed streams and
drinking water.
Effect of mining on listed Overlap with Overlap with Overlap with Overlap with
streams and drinking water. unleased unleased unleased unleased
phosphate in phosphate in phosphate in phosphate in
roadless areas: roadless areas: roadless areas: roadless areas:
Three 303(d) Three 303(d) Three 303(d) Three 303(d)
streams (one in streams (one in streams (one in streams (one in
roadless areas roadless areas roadless areas roadless areas
due to selenium);. due to selenium);. due to selenium);. due to selenium);
640 acres of 640 acres of 640 acres of 640 acres of
community water community water community water community water
supplies (ground- supplies supplies (ground- supplies (ground
water);. (groundwater);. water);. water);
Possible effect on Possible effect on Possible effect on Possible effect on
303(d) streams 303(d) streams 303(d) streams 303(d) streams
from selenium-- from selenium-- from selenium-- from selenium--
mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation
required at time required at time required at time required at time
of analysis. of analysis. of analysis. of analysis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selenium Mitigation............. Mine development or expansion would use a variety of environmental commitments
and Best Management Practices to reduce the potential for selenium
mobilization and migration from the mine site. Operators required to monitor
impacts on water, soils, vegetation, wildlife, and fisheries. Analysis for
preferred alternative for Smoky Canyon predicts that groundwater quality
protection standards or surface water quality standards would not be
exceeded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sensitive Species and Biodiversity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects on terrestrial and Projected activities may impact individuals, but no measurable change in
aquatic animal species or populations is expected. Projects and development would be subject to NEPA
habitat. and other regulatory requirements related to monitoring and mitigation for
sensitive species.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61483]]
Beneficial........ Beneficial in WLR, Beneficial in WLR, Beneficial in WLR,
Primitive, or Primitive, or Primitive, or
SAHTS; some SAHTS; limited SAHTS, BCR
potential risk of potential risk of outside CPZ;
adverse effects adverse effects limited potential
in management for activities risk of adverse
prescriptions occurring in BCR; effects for
similar to BCR some potential activities
and GFRG. risk in GFRG, but occurring in BCR
less than CPZ; some
Existing Plans. potential risk in
GFRG, but less
than Existing
Plans or the
Proposed Rule.
Effects on biodiversity of Beneficial........ Beneficial in WLR, Beneficial in WLR, Beneficial in WLR,
botanical species. Primitive, or Primitive, or Primitive, or
SAHTS. Some SAHTS. Some SAHTS, BCR
potential risk of potential risk of outside CPZ. Some
adverse effects adverse effects potential risk of
for activities for activities adverse effects
conducted in the conducted in the for activities
GFRG and BCR GFRG and BCR conducted in GFRG
themes. themes, but less and BCR CPZ but
than Existing less than
Plans. Existing Plans or
the Proposed
Rule.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of occurrences of known threatened and candidate plant populations, by
theme
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WLR/Primitive/SAHTS............. 0................. 0................. 0................. 0.
BCR............................. 16................ 9................. 9................. 11 (6 in BCR CPZ).
GFRG............................ 0................. 2................. 2................. 0.
Forest Plan Special Areas....... 0................. 5................. 5................. 5.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of occurrences of known sensitive plant populations, by theme
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WLR............................. 0................. 81................ 90................ 102.
Primitive/SAHTS................. 0................. 97................ 82................ 100.
BCR............................. 686............... 284............... 336............... 312 (46 in BCR
CPZ).
GFRG............................ 0................. 55................ 9................. 3.
Forest Plan Special Areas....... 0................. 169............... 169............... 169.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenic Integrity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential for change in scenic integrity--based on activity projections
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres that stay in High to Very 9,228,000......... 9,242,980......... 9,234,740......... 9,276,230.
High scenic integrity.
Acres likely to change to High 9,000............. 40,500............ 18,000............ 15,000.
or Moderate scenic integrity
from timber cutting or road
construction or reconstruction.
���������������������������������
Acres likely to change from High 7,200 acres associated with development of existing phosphate mining leases
to Low due to development of under all alternatives.
existing phosphate leases.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres likely to change to 0................. 13,620............ 13,190............ 5,770.
Moderate or Low scenic
integrity from phosphate mining
over long-term (50 or more
years).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dispersed Recreation (including Feeling of solitude or remoteness may change in areas where projected road
Hunting and Fishing). construction and timber cutting occur (see above for projected activity
levels, by alternative).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No measurable No measurable No measurable No measurable
change to change to change to change to
dispersed dispersed dispersed dispersed
recreation recreation recreation recreation
opportunities. opportunities, opportunities, opportunities,
except if except if except if
unleased unleased unleased
phosphate phosphate phosphate
deposits (13,620 deposits (13,190 deposits (5,770
acres) are acres) are acres) are
developed. developed. developed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61484]]
Developed recreation--ability to There are no foreseeable developments under any of the alternatives.
construct or reconstruct roads
to access new or expanded
developed recreation areas.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No road Road construction/ Road construction/ Road construction/
construction/ reconstruction reconstruction reconstruction
reconstruction generally permitted to permitted to
permitted to permitted to access new access new
access new access new developed developed
developed developed recreation sites recreation sites
recreation sites recreation sites management in management in
(9.3 million in management GFRG (0.6 million GFRG (0.4 million
acres). prescriptions acres). acres).
similar to BCR
and GFRG (5.7
million acres).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreation Opportunities\2\..... In general, the magnitude of shifts in recreational opportunity spectrum
classes is slight across the alternatives because: (i) differences in road
construction is minimal, and (ii) many constructed roads are likely to be
temporary and not accessible for recreation purposes. As a consequence,
changes in dispersed compared to developed recreation opportunities are small
across alternatives. Relative differences include the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relatively high Greatest High level of High level of
potential for opportunity for protection for protection for
maintaining developed and dispersed dispersed
existing road-based recreation, recreation,
dispersed recreation to foreseeable foreseeable
recreation occur and expand, threats from threats from
opportunities; but magnitude of construction and construction and
little potential shift is tempered development are development are
for increasing by limited amount remote. remote.
developed of construction
recreation. projected to
occur.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special uses--Ski areas......... Existing permits are unaffected. No foreseeable ski area expansions or
developments into IRAs over next 15 years.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expansion or Expansion or Existing ski areas with development
development with development as and any additional development
roads not permitted by the authorized in their master
permitted. forest plan. development plans are in FPSA theme
and the rule does not apply.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special uses--Outfitters and Existing permits are unaffected. None of the alternatives directly affect the
Guides. processing or administration of special use permits. Potential for adverse
effects is limited because projected levels of activity would be relatively
small and localized within any outfitter's area of operation. Recreational
experience may change in some areas where activities occur, but outfitter and
guide services are not expected to be affected due to the dispersed nature of
the activities.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunting and fishing............. No effect on Opportunities Opportunities Opportunities
opportunities. could be affected could be affected could be affected
in locations of in locations of in locations of
phosphate leasing phosphate leasing phosphate
and geothermal and geothermal leasing. No
development. No development. No effect from
effect from effect from geothermal
timber cutting timber cutting development. No
and limited road and limited road effect from
construction. construction. timber cutting
and limited road
construction.
Additional
protections
provided to
257,700 acres
moved from GFRG
to BCR because of
big game habitat.
���������������������������������
Wilderness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing wilderness areas Limited to no 158,300 acres of 9,400 acres of 9,400 acres of
(1,723,300 acres of IRAs indirect effects GFRG adjacent to GFRG adjacent to GFRG adjacent to
adjacent to existing to wilderness wilderness; wilderness; wilderness;
wilderness). from activities 841,900 acres of 951,000 acres of 951,000 acres of
in roadless areas. BCR. BCR. BCR.
Limited potential Limited potential Limited potential
for impacts to for impacts on for impacts on
wilderness wilderness wilderness
experience. experience. experience.
[[Page 61485]]
Recommended wilderness.......... No change or Existing Plans No change to No change to
effect on recommend recommendations recommendations
recommended 1,320,500 as in Existing Plans. in Existing
wilderness in wilderness. 1,378,000 acres in Plans.
Existing Plans. WLR, implying 1,479,700 acres in
57,500 acres of WLR, implying
additional 159,200 acres of
protection over additional
existing plans. protection over
Seven recommended Existing Plans.
wilderness areas Eight recommended
benefit from wilderness areas
increased benefit from
protection on a increased
total of 93,100 protection on a
acres. Net total of 172,200
decreases in acres. Net
protection occur decreases in
in three areas protection occur
(total of 35,600 in three areas
acres). (total of 13,000
acres).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roadless area characteristics Majority of Areas developed could have reduced roadless area
associated with wilderness. roadless areas character. Activities in GFRG may not change roadless
retain their character if prior activities are still evident.
existing
character.
���������������������������������
Based on Based on Based on Based on
projections, 99.9 projections, projections, projections,
percent 99.55% of 99.9% of roadless 99.9% of roadless
unaffected over roadless areas areas unaffected areas unaffected
the next 15 years. unaffected over over the next 15 over the next 15
the next 15 years. years. years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Resource and Service Areas where Relative Impacts are Negligible or Minimal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-timber products............. Current access for the harvest of non-timber products is not expected to
change under the Proposed and Final Rules. Assignment of roadless acres to
themes that restrict road construction may limit access opportunities for
some individuals, but construction may also reduce availability of some
species.
Cultural resources.............. Prior to management actions taking place on the ground under any alternative
or theme, cultural resource inventories and appropriate mitigation are
required by law. Differences in risk to cultural resources are not expected
to be measurable across alternatives because of projected levels of road
construction and long-term use and fate of new roads. There is low potential
for disturbance/vandalism under all alternatives with the exception of low to
moderate potential under Existing Plans.
Air Quality..................... Negligible effects on air quality from fuel reduction projects are expected;
subject to strict guidelines for minimizing impacts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGENCY COSTS AND REVENUES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roads........................... Reasonably foreseeable changes in agency costs associated with roads
(administration, construction, maintenance) are not likely to be significant
under the Proposed or Final Rules relative to the 2001 Rule given the types
of roads constructed (e.g., temporary, single-purpose, and/or built by the
user), relative levels of construction or reconstruction projected, and flat
budget expectations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timber and Vegetation/Fuel Accessing sites and implementing treatments in remote areas, dominated by
Treatments. roadless characteristics can be costly. Revenue from timber sales are often
used to offset the costs of treatments. There is slight potential for gains
in net revenues for some forest units (e.g., Idaho Panhandle) under the Final
and Proposed Rules, as well as Existing Plans, relative to the 2001 Rule, but
projected changes in harvest are relatively small and may not result in
significant changes to aggregate volumes from all forest system lands.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest cost per Second highest Lowest cost per Lowest cost per
acre and less cost per acre for acre for acre for
efficient treatments in the treatments in the treatments in the
treatments due to WUI and community WUI and CPWS WUI (and equal to
road construction public water areas (and equal the Proposed
prohibitions. system (CPWS) to the Final Rule Rule).
areas. in the WUI). Lowest cost per
acre for
treatments in
CPWS areas if
using significant
risk
determination for
CPWS; otherwise,
cost per acre is
second highest
for CPWS areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Percentage of average harvest on all NF land within Idaho that occurred between 2002 and 2006. Harvest
primarily attributable to stewardship and treatments for forest health and fuels management.
\2\ The alternatives do not provide direction on where and when OHV use would be permissible.
\3\ Suitability based on areas with acceptable slopes for leasing (<40% slope).
CPZ = Community Protection Zone
CPWS = Community Public Water System
GFRG = General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland theme
NF = National Forest
SAHTS = Special Areas of Historical and Tribal Significance theme
WUI = Wildland Urban Interface
[[Page 61486]]
Table 3--Summary of Distributional Effects and Economic Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 rule Existing plans Proposed rule Final rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timber Cutting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jobs per year (1)............... 17................ 75................ 35................ 30.
Labor income per year (1)....... $452,700.......... $1,902,800........ $849,600.......... $741,900.
Location of jobs: BEA Economic Northern EA (Idaho Northern (Idaho Northern (Idaho Northern (Idaho
Areas (EA). Panhandle NF). Panhandle), Panhandle), and Panhandle), and
Southeastern Southeastern Southeastern
(Caribou/Targhee (Caribou/Targhee (Caribou/Targhee
NF), and Central NF) EAs. NF) EA.
(Clearwater and
Nez Perce NF) EAs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leasable Minerals: Phosphate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jobs and labor income per year No changes in jobs (582/year) or labor income ($23.5 million) contributed by
(1). phosphate on existing leases within IRAs, due to the fact that none of the
alternatives affect existing leases.
No new leases in Jobs and income from new leases on unleased phosphate
roadless areas reserves within IRAs in the southeastern EA are expected
likely to be to occur in the future over an extended period of time
feasible. (50 or more years).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Road Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jobs per year (1)............... 2................. 12................ 4................. 4.
Labor income per year (1)....... $52,900........... $462,500.......... $162,400.......... $135,600.
Location of jobs: BEA Economic Northern and Northern, Northern and Northern and
Areas (EA). Southeastern EAs. Southeastern, and Southeastern EAs. Southeastern EAs.
Central EAs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue Sharing and Resource-Dependent Counties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource-dependent counties Opportunities increase for all timber-dependent counties under the Final or
where potential opportunities Proposed Rule relative to the 2001 Rule. Opportunities for mining-dependent
decrease. counties (e.g., Caribou, Oneida, Power, and Bannock) remain the same based on
reasonably foreseeable phosphate output (over next 15 years) that remains
constant across alternatives.
Potential opportunities decrease for the following timber-dependent counties
under the Final and Proposed Rule relative to Existing Plans (2):
Northern EA: Boundary, Bonner, Kootenai, Benewah, Latah, Ferry (WA), Pend
Oreille (WA), Shoshone, and Stevens (WA).
Central EA: Clearwater, Idaho, Lewis, Nez Perce, and Asotin (WA).
Southeastern EA: Bear Lake.
Revenue sharing................. Payments to counties are expected to remain the same under all alternatives as
long as the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act remains
in effect. Mineral-based payments to states are a function of leasable
receipts, but no differences in phosphate production are projected across
alternatives over the next 15 years.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adverse impacts to small Greatest potential Least potential Limited potential for losses of small
entities. given given fewest entity opportunities. Opportunity
prohibitions in prohibitions and losses are not expected to result in
roadless areas; theme significant adverse economic impacts
most protective assignments; and/or affect substantial numbers of
of sectors that least protective small entities, including
benefit from of sectors that recreational special use permit
resource benefit from holders that may benefit from
conditions resource resource conditions associated with
associated with conditions roadless characteristics.
roadless areas. associated with
roadless areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Jobs and income contributed annually (2007$). Based on projected levels of timber harvest, road
construction, and phosphate mining output per year, conversion of physical output to final demand ($) and
application of regional economic multipliers.
(2) Counties where 10% of total labor income is attributable to timber-related sectors and that are located in
economic areas (EAs) where there is a significant net decrease in acreage assigned to the GFRG theme.
Proper Consideration of Small Entities
This final rule has also been considered in light of E.O. 13272
regarding proper consideration of small entities and the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), which amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The Forest Service
with the assistance of the State of Idaho has determined that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities as defined by the E.O. 13272 and SBREFA,
because the final rule does not subject small entities to regulatory
requirements. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required for this final rule.
For many activities and/or program areas, small entity
opportunities under the final rule are projected to increase, relative
to the 2001 Rule alternative (i.e., baseline or no-action alternative)
as a result of (1) easing of restrictions on selected activities under
the BCR management theme under the final rule, and (2) adopting the
less-restrictive GFRG theme for some roadless acres under the final
rule. There is some potential for reasonably foreseeable decreases in
small entity opportunities to occur for special uses (recreation--
outfitters and guides) under the final rule, relative to the 2001 Rule
alternative. When comparing the impacts to entities associated with
wood products, the number of jobs under the final rule are projected to
increase relative to the 2001 Rule, though the magnitude of this
increase is less than corresponding increases projected to occur under
existing plans or the Proposed Rule. None of these
[[Page 61487]]
opportunity losses are expected to result in significant economic
impacts and/or affect a substantial number of small entities.
Jobs and income related to timber harvest are projected to increase
under the final rule relative to the 2001 Rule for all EAs, in large
part, because prohibitions on road construction and timber cutting are
eased under the GFRG theme and some areas under the BCR theme (e.g.,
CPZs). In contrast, jobs and income decrease under the final rule,
relative to the Existing Plans alternative primarily for the northern
and central EAs, implying potential decreases in small entity
opportunities associated with timber harvest (opportunities are not
expected to decrease significantly in other EAs). However, the decrease
in jobs associated with timber cutting in roadless areas under the
final rule is only 45 jobs relative to the Existing Plans alternative.
This number of jobs is relatively small (less than 1%) when compared to
4,581 workers employed by small business establishments within the
forestry/logging/sawmill sectors in Idaho. The decreases in timber
harvest projected under the final rule for these EAs are representative
of volumes from roadless acres only, and it should be noted that recent
harvests from IRAs, as represented by projected harvests under the 2001
Rule alternative have been equal to or less than the volumes projected
under the final rule. As a consequence, reasonably foreseeable
opportunities for timber harvest from roadless areas under the final
rule are projected to be equal to or larger than timber volumes
harvested from IRAs in recent years or volumes projected under the 2001
Rule alternative. Timber sales to small businesses are currently
exceeding established small business shares in all forest units within
the northern and central EAs, with the exception of the Kanisku portion
of the Idaho Panhandle NF. This suggests that economic impacts to small
businesses in the wood product sectors are not expected to be
significant nor are a substantial number of small businesses likely to
be adversely affected under the final rule.
In the context of special use permits for recreation (320 outfitter
and guide permits are associated with Idaho's NFs, as of fall 2006),
none of the four alternatives address the processing or administration
of special use permits directly. All decisions regarding existing and
future special use permits will be project-specific and require
compliance with all environmental regulations. Relative to the 2001
Rule alternative, increases in timber harvest opportunities projected
for roadless areas under the final rule suggest the potential for
losses in desirable resource conditions and corresponding decreases in
small business opportunities for outfitters and guides for the
southeastern EA. However, the magnitude of these decreases is expected
to be small given minimal overlap between existing permit locations and
the location of projected harvests on IRAs, as well as the relatively
small percentage of roadless areas projected to be affected by timber
cutting (less than 0.01% of roadless area per year) within the
southeastern EA. Economic impacts to small businesses are therefore not
expected to be significant in this EA. Similar effects in the northern
EA (approximately 0.02% of roadless areas affected by timber cutting
per year) are also not expected to result in significant economic
impacts, nor affect a substantial number of small businesses (22 of the
320 outfitter and guide permits are associated with the Idaho Panhandle
NF in the northern EA).
Reasonably foreseeable opportunities for small businesses linked to
phosphate mining over the next 15 years are expected to remain the same
across all alternatives because projected phosphate output from
existing leases is not projected to vary across alternatives. In the
long-term, a greater number of acres associated with unleased known
phosphate reserves would be made accessible under the final rule,
relative to the 2001 Rule, implying greater opportunities for small
businesses. Unleased phosphate acreage accessible under the Existing
Plans alternative (13,620 acres) and the Proposed Rule alternative
(13,190 acres) is greater than corresponding acreage under the final
rule (5,770 acres), but the impacts of these differences are expected
to occur over a period of 50 years or more. It is also noted that none
of the companies currently operating phosphate mines in Idaho can be
classified as small businesses. Adverse economic impacts are therefore
not expected to occur to small entities associated with phosphate
mining in the reasonably foreseeable future.
There are no changes in small business opportunities under the
final rule compared to the 2001 Rule alternative because opportunities
for geothermal development are negligible under both alternatives due
to prohibitions on road construction for this purpose. Under the
Existing Plans and Proposed Rule alternatives, road construction
associated with geothermal development is permitted primarily in acres
assigned to the GFRG theme. Given the stated permission for road
construction for geothermal development under the Existing Plans and
Proposed Rule alternatives, and the corresponding prohibition of road
construction for geothermal purposes under the final rule, there is
some potential for decreases in opportunities for geothermal
development under the final rule. However, the absence of existing
geothermal leases on NFS land in Idaho, combined with evidence that 11
of 14 pending or authorized geothermal leases on BLM land in Idaho are
held by a company that cannot be considered a small business per the
definitions set forth by the Small Business Administration, suggests
that these opportunity losses will not result in significant economic
impacts nor affect a substantial number of small businesses in the
reasonably foreseeable future.
Decreases in small entity opportunities under the final rule are
expected to be minimal or negligible for other sectors, including
construction (i.e., roads), saleable minerals, oil and gas, livestock,
non-forest timber products, ski areas, and other special uses (energy
corridors).
Thirty eight of Idaho's 44 counties are considered small with
population size of less than 50,000. Thirty five of these small
counties are considered rural and are natural resource-dependent
counties. Opportunities increase for all timber-dependent counties
under the final rule or Proposed Rule alternative relative to the 2001
Rule alternative. Opportunities for mining-dependent counties (e.g.,
Caribou, Oneida, Power, and Bannock) remain the same based on
reasonably foreseeable phosphate output (over the next 15 years) that
remains constant across alternatives. When comparing the final rule or
the Proposed Rule alternative relative to the Existing Plans
alternative, potential opportunities may be decreased for the following
timber-dependent counties: Northern EA: Boundary, Bonner, Kootenai,
Benewah, Latah, Ferry (WA), Pend Oreille (WA), Shoshone, and Stevens
(WA); Central EA: Clearwater, Idaho, Lewis, Nez Perce, and Asotin (WA);
and Southeastern EA: Bear Lake.
Revenue sharing with counties (i.e., secure payments to counties,
payments in lieu of taxes) is expected to remain the same under all
alternatives as long as the Secure Rural School and Community Self-
Determination Act (SRSA) remains in effect. Counties that may
experience losses in funding associated with 25% revenue-sharing, in
the event that SRSA is not reauthorized, are those counties that share
land with national forests where revenue-
[[Page 61488]]
generating opportunities potentially decrease. These counties may
include timber-dependent counties in the northern and central EAs when
comparing the final rule to the Existing Plans or Proposed Rule
alternatives. However, reasonably foreseeable levels of revenue-sharing
from timber harvest from roadless areas under the final rule are
expected to be equal to or larger than revenue shares derived from
harvest projected to occur under the 2001 Rule or volumes harvested
from roadless areas in recent years. Revenue-sharing opportunities
increase or remain the same for all counties under the final rule
compared to the 2001 Rule, indicating that the final rule is not
expected to have a significant adverse economic impact on small
government entities. Mineral-based payments to states are a function of
receipts from leasable minerals, including receipts from phosphate
operations, but no differences in phosphate production are projected
across alternatives. Opportunities for mining-dependent counties (e.g.,
Caribou, Oneida, Power, and Bannock) are therefore expected to remain
the same in the reasonably foreseeable future (15 years).
Mitigation measures for small entity impacts associated with the
final rule are not relevant in many cases, because the final rule eases
restrictions on a number of activities in many areas, implying
increases in potential opportunities for small entities, as noted
above. Mitigation measures associated with existing programs and laws
regarding revenue sharing with counties and small business shares or
set-asides will continue to apply (e.g., SRSA).
Environmental Impact
The Agency has prepared a FEIS in concert with this rule. In it,
the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the final rule and
alternatives are disclosed. The FEIS may be viewed at http://www.roadless.fs.fed.us/idaho.
The Agency has prepared a biological assessment on the potential
effects of the final rule on threatened, endangered, and proposed
species and formally consulted with the FWS and NOAA. The biological
opinions can be found at http://roadless.fs.fed.us/idaho.shtml and
effects are discussed in the FEIS at sections 3.7 Botanical Resources,
3.8 Aquatic Species, and 3.9 Terrestrial Animal Habitat and Species.
Energy Effects
This final rule has been reviewed under E.O. 13211 of May 18, 2001,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that this final rule does
not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the Executive
order.
As explained in greater detail in the FEIS, this final rule is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
The final rule does not disturb existing access or mineral rights,
restrictions on saleable mineral materials are narrow, and no oil and
gas leasing is currently underway or projected for these lands. The
final rule is not expected to have a significant impact on wind or
biomass energy. Opportunities for geothermal development are negligible
under both the final rule and the 2001 Rule alternative.
No novel legal or policy issues regarding adverse effects to
supply, distribution, or use of energy are anticipated beyond what has
already been addressed in the FEIS or the Regulatory Impact Analysis.
None of the proposed corridors designated for oil, gas, and/or
electricity under section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 are
within IRAs.
The final rule also provides a regulatory mechanism for
consideration of requests for modification of restrictions if
adjustments are determined to be necessary in the future. Therefore,
this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
This rule does not call for any additional record keeping or
reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as
defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not
already approved for use and, therefore, imposes no additional
paperwork burden on the public. Accordingly, the review provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and its
implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.
Federalism
The Department has considered this rule under the requirements of
E.O. 13132 issued August 4, 1999, Federalism. The Department assessed
that the rule conforms with the Federalism principles set out in this
Executive order; would not impose any compliance costs on the states;
and would not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, nor on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Therefore, the Department concludes that this rule does not
have Federalism implications. This rule is based on a petition
submitted by the State of Idaho under the Administrative Procedure Act
at 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and pursuant to Department of Agriculture
regulations at 7 CFR 1.28. The State's petition was developed with
involvement of local governments. The State has been a cooperating
agency for the development of the EIS for this rule. State and local
governments were encouraged to comment on this rule in the course of
this rulemaking process.
Consultation With Indian Tribal Governments
Pursuant to E.O. 13175 of November 6, 2000, ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,'' the Agency has assessed
the impact of this rule on Indian Tribal governments and has determined
the rule does not significantly or uniquely affect Indian Tribal
governments. The rule deals with future permitted road construction,
timber cutting, and certain mineral development projects in IRAs and
has no direct effect on the current occupancy or use of these NFS
lands. The rule does not waive any applicable requirements regarding
site-specific environmental analysis, public involvement, consultation
with Tribes, and other agencies or compliance with applicable laws. Nor
does the rule modify the unique relationship between the United States
and Indian Tribes that requires the Federal Government to work with
federally recognized Indian Tribes government-to-government as provided
for in E.O. 13175. Nothing herein limits or modifies prior existing
Tribal rights, including those involving hunting, fishing, or
gathering. The Agency has also determined this rule does not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments. This
rule does not mandate Tribal participation in NFS planning. Rather, the
rule recognizes the responsibility of Forest Service officials to
consult early with Tribal governments and to work cooperatively with
them where planning issues affect Tribal interests.
No Takings Implications
This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria in E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with
Civil Constitutionally Protected Rights. It has been determined that
the rule does not pose the risk of a taking of private property. The
rule effects only NFS lands and contains exemptions that prevent the
taking of constitutionally protected private property.
[[Page 61489]]
Civil Justice Reform
This final rule has been reviewed under E.O. 12988, Civil Justice
Reform. The Department has not identified any State or local laws or
regulations that are in conflict with this regulation or that would
impede full implementation of this rule. Nevertheless, in the event
that such a conflict was to be identified, the final rule, if
implemented, would preempt the State or local laws or regulations found
to be in conflict. However, in that case (1) no retroactive effect
would be given to this final rule and (2) the Department would not
require the use of administrative proceedings before parties could file
suit in court challenging its provisions.
Unfunded Mandates
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22,
1995, the Department has assessed the effects of this final rule on
State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. This rule
does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State,
local, or Tribal governments or anyone in the private sector.
Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is not required.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 294
National Forests, Navigation (air), Recreation areas, State
petitions for inventoried roadless area management.
0
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Forest
Service proposes to amend part 294 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal
Regulations by adding new subpart C to read as follows:
PART 294--SPECIAL AREAS
Subpart C--Idaho Roadless Area Management
Sec.
294.20 Purpose.
294.21 Definitions.
294.22 Idaho Roadless Areas.
294.23 Road construction and reconstruction in Idaho Roadless Areas.
294.24 Timber cutting, sale, or removal in Idaho Roadless Areas.
294.25 Mineral activities in Idaho Roadless Areas.
294.26 Other activities in Idaho Roadless Areas.
294.27 Corrections and modifications.
294.28 Scope and applicability.
294.29 List of designated Idaho Roadless Areas.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 472, 529, 551, 1608, 1613; 23 U.S.C. 201,
205.
Sec. 294.20 Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to provide, in the context of
multiple-use management, State-specific direction for the conservation
of inventoried roadless areas in the national forests within the State
of Idaho. This subpart sets forth the procedures for management of
Idaho Roadless Areas consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield
Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528-531).
Sec. 294.21 Definitions.
The following terms and definitions apply to this subpart.
At-risk community: As defined under section 101 of the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act (HFRA).
Community protection zone: An area extending one-half mile from the
boundary of an at-risk community or an area within one and a half miles
of the boundary of an at-risk community, where any land:
(1) Has a sustained steep slope that creates the potential for
wildfire behavior endangering the at-risk community;
(2) Has a geographic feature that aids in creating an effective
fire break, such as a road or a ridge top; or
(3) Is in condition class 3 as defined by HFRA.
Fire hazard and risk: The fuel conditions on the landscape.
Fire occurrence: The probability of wildfire ignition based on
historic fire occurrence records and other information.
Forest Plan Special Area: Certain lands identified on the Idaho
Roadless Area Maps, Sec. 294.22(c) and listed in Sec. 294.29 shall be
managed pursuant to applicable land management components. These lands
include areas such as research natural areas, designated and eligible
wild and scenic river corridors, developed recreation sites, or other
specified management purposes, as described in the Roadless Area
Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix Q.
Forest road: As defined at 36 CFR 212.1, the term means a road
wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National Forest
System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the
protection, administration, and use of the National Forest System and
the use and development of its resources.
Forest type: A forest stand that is essentially similar throughout
its extent in composition under generally similar environmental
conditions, including temporary, permanent, climax, and cover types.
Hazardous fuels: Excessive live or dead wildland fuel accumulations
that increase the potential for uncharacteristically intense wildland
fire and decrease the capability to protect life, property, and natural
resources.
Idaho Roadless Areas: Areas designated pursuant to this rule and
identified in a set of maps maintained at the national headquarters
office of the Forest Service.
Municipal water supply system: As defined under section 101 of the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act, the term means the reservoirs, canals,
ditches, flumes, laterals, pipes, pipelines, and other surface
facilities and systems constructed or installed for the collection,
impoundment, storage, transportation, or distribution of drinking
water.
Responsible official: The Forest Service line officer with the
authority and responsibility to make decisions about protection and
management of Idaho Roadless Areas pursuant to this subpart.
Road: As defined at 36 CFR 212.1, the term means a motor vehicle
route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail.
Road construction and reconstruction: As defined at 36 CFR 212.1,
the terms mean supervising, inspecting, actual building, and incurrence
of all costs incidental to the construction or reconstruction of a
road.
Road decommissioning: As defined at 36 CFR 212.1, the term means
activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded
roads to a more natural state.
Road maintenance: The ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to retain
or restore the road to the approved road management objective.
Road realignment: Activity that results in a new location of an
existing road or portions of an existing road, and treatment of the old
roadway.
Roadless characteristics: Resources or features that are often
present in and characterize Idaho Roadless Areas, including:
(1) High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air;
(2) Sources of public drinking water;
(3) Diversity of plant and animal communities;
(4) Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and
sensitive species, and for those species dependent on large,
undisturbed areas of land;
(5) Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive
motorized classes of dispersed recreation;
(6) Reference landscapes;
(7) Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality;
[[Page 61490]]
(8) Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and
(9) Other locally identified unique characteristics.
Substantially altered portion: An area within an Idaho Roadless
Area where past road construction, timber cutting, or other uses have
materially diminished the area's roadless characteristics.
Temporary road: As defined at 36 CFR 212.1, the term means a road
necessary for emergency operations or authorized by contract, permit,
lease, or other written authorization that is not a forest road and
that is not included in a forest transportation atlas. Temporary roads
are available for administrative use until decommissioned.
Uncharacteristic wildland fire effects: An increase in wildland
fire size, severity, and resistance to control; and the associated
impact on people, property, and fire fighter safety compared to that
which occurred in the native system.
Sec. 294.22 Idaho Roadless Areas.
(a) Designations. All National Forest System lands within the State
of Idaho listed in Sec. 294.29 are hereby designated as Idaho Roadless
Areas.
(b) Management classifications. Management classifications for
Idaho Roadless Areas express a management continuum. The following
management classifications are established:
(1) Wild Land Recreation;
(2) Special Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance;
(3) Primitive;
(4) Backcountry/Restoration; and
(5) General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland.
(c) Maps. The Chief shall maintain and make available to the public
a map of each Idaho Roadless Area, including records regarding any
corrections or modifications of such maps pursuant to Sec. 294.27.
(d) Activities in Idaho Roadless Areas shall be consistent with the
applicable management classification listed for each area under Sec.
294.29.
Sec. 294.23 Road construction and reconstruction in Idaho Roadless
Areas.
(a) Wild Land Recreation, Special Areas of Historic or Tribal
Significance, or Primitive. Road construction and reconstruction are
prohibited in Idaho Roadless Areas designated as Wild Land Recreation,
Special Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance, or Primitive.
However, the Regional Forester may authorize a road to be constructed
or reconstructed in an area designated as Wild Land Recreation, Special
Area of Historic or Tribal Significance, or Primitive if pursuant to
statute, treaty, reserved or outstanding rights, or other legal duty of
the United States.
(b) Backcountry/Restoration. (1) Road construction and
reconstruction are only permissible in Idaho Roadless Areas designated
as Backcountry/Restoration where the Regional Forester determines:
(i) A road is needed to protect public health and safety in cases
of an imminent threat of flood, wildland fire, or other catastrophic
event that, without intervention, would cause the loss of life or
property;
(ii) A road is needed to conduct a response action under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) or to conduct a natural resource restoration action under
CERCLA, section 311 of the Clean Water Act, or the Oil Pollution Act;
(iii) A road is needed pursuant to statute, treaty, reserved or
outstanding rights, or other legal duty of the United States;
(iv) A road realignment is needed to prevent irreparable resource
damage that arises from the design, location, use, or deterioration of
a road and cannot be mitigated by road maintenance. Road realignment
may occur under this subsection only if the road is deemed essential
for public or private access, natural resource management, or public
health and safety;
(v) Road reconstruction is needed to implement a road safety
improvement project on a road determined to be hazardous based on
accident experience or accident potential on that road; or
(vi) The Secretary of Agriculture determines that a Federal Aid
Highway project, authorized pursuant to Title 23 of the United States
Code, is in the public interest or is consistent with the purpose for
which the land was reserved or acquired and no other reasonable and
prudent alternative exists.
(2) A responsible official may authorize temporary road
construction or road reconstruction for community protection zone
activities pursuant to Sec. 294.24(c)(1)(i) if in the official's
judgment the community protection objectives cannot be reasonably
accomplished without a temporary road.
(3) The Regional Forester may approve temporary road construction
or road reconstruction to reduce hazardous fuel conditions outside a
community protection zone where in the Regional Forester's judgment the
circumstances set out below exist. Temporary road construction or road
reconstruction to reduce hazardous fuel conditions under this provision
will be dependent on forest type and is expected to be infrequent.
(i) There is a significant risk that a wildland fire disturbance
event could adversely affect an at-risk community or municipal water
supply system pursuant to Sec. 294.24(c)(1)(ii). A significant risk
exists where the history of fire occurrence, and fire hazard and risk,
indicate a serious likelihood that a wildland fire disturbance event
would present a high risk of threat to an at-risk community or
municipal water supply system.
(ii) The activity cannot be reasonably accomplished without a
temporary road.
(iii) The activity will maintain or improve one or more roadless
characteristics over the long-term.
(c) General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland. (1) A forest road may
be constructed or reconstructed or a temporary road may be constructed
in Idaho Roadless Areas designated as General Forest, Rangeland, and
Grassland, unless prohibited in Sec. 294.25(e).
(2) Forest roads constructed or reconstructed pursuant to Sec.
294.23(c)(1) must be conducted in a way that minimizes effects on
surface resources and must be consistent with land management plan
components as provided for in Sec. 294.28(d).
(d) Temporary roads. (1) Temporary road construction must be
conducted in a way that minimizes effects on surface resources, is
consistent with land management plan components as provided for in
Sec. 294.28(d), and may only be used for the specified purpose(s).
(2) Temporary roads must be decommissioned upon completion of the
project or expiration of the contract or permit, whichever is sooner. A
road decommissioning provision will be required in all such contracts
or permits and may not be waived.
(e) Road maintenance. Maintenance of temporary and forest roads is
permissible in Idaho Roadless Areas.
(f) Roads associated with mineral activities. Road construction or
reconstruction associated with mineral activities is provided for in
Sec. 294.25.
Sec. 294.24 Timber cutting, sale, or removal in Idaho Roadless Areas.
(a) Wild Land Recreation. The cutting, sale, or removal of timber
is prohibited in Idaho Roadless Areas designated as Wild Land
Recreation under this subpart, except:
(1) For personal or administrative use, as provided for in 36 CFR
part 223; or
(2) Where incidental to the implementation of a management
[[Page 61491]]
activity not otherwise prohibited by this subpart.
(b) Special Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance and Primitive.
(1) The cutting, sale, or removal of timber is prohibited in Idaho
Roadless Areas designated as a Special Area of Historic or Tribal
Significance or as Primitive under this subpart, except:
(i) To improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive
species habitat;
(ii) To maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem
composition, structure, and processes;
(iii) To reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildland fire effects
to an at-risk community or municipal water supply system;
(iv) For personal or administrative use, as provided for in 36 CFR
part 223; or
(v) Where such cutting, sale or removal is incidental to the
implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited by
this subpart.
(2) Any action authorized pursuant to paragraphs Sec.
294.24(b)(1)(i) through (iii) shall be limited to situations that:
(i) Maintain or improve one or more of the roadless characteristics
over the long-term;
(ii) Use existing roads or aerial harvest systems;
(iii) Maximize the retention of large trees as appropriate for the
forest type, to the extent the trees promote fire-resilient stands;
(iv) Are consistent with land management plan components as
provided for in Sec. 294.28(d); and
(v) Is approved by the regional forester.
(c) Backcountry/Restoration. (1) The cutting, sale, or removal of
timber is permissible in Idaho Roadless Areas designated as
Backcountry/Restoration only:
(i) To reduce hazardous fuel conditions within the community
protection zone if in the responsible official's judgment the project
generally retains large trees as appropriate for the forest type and is
consistent with land management plan components as provided for in
Sec. 294.28(d);
(ii) To reduce hazardous fuel conditions outside the community
protection zone where there is significant risk that a wildland fire
disturbance event could adversely affect an at-risk community or
municipal water supply system. A significant risk exists where the
history of fire occurrence, and fire hazard and risk, indicate a
serious likelihood that a wildland fire disturbance event would present
a high risk of threat to an at-risk community or municipal water supply
system;
(iii) To improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive
species habitat;
(iv) To maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem
composition, structure, and processes;
(v) To reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildland fire effects;
(vi) For personal or administrative use, as provided for in 36 CFR
part 223;
(vii) Where incidental to the implementation of a management
activity not otherwise prohibited by this subpart; or
(viii) In a portion of an Idaho Roadless Area designated as
Backcountry/Restoration that has been substantially altered due to the
construction of a forest road and subsequent timber cutting. Both the
road construction and subsequent timber cutting must have occurred
prior to October 16, 2008.
(2) Any action authorized pursuant to paragraphs Sec.
294.24(c)(1)(ii) through (v) shall be approved by the Regional Forester
and limited to situations that, in the Regional Forester's judgment:
(i) Maintains or improves one or more of the roadless
characteristics over the long-term;
(ii) Maximizes the retention of large trees as appropriate for the
forest type to the extent the trees promote fire-resilient stands; and
(iii) Is consistent with land management plan components as
provided for in Sec. 294.28(d).
(3) The activities in paragraph Sec. 294.24(c)(1) may use any
forest roads or temporary roads, including those authorized under Sec.
294.23(b)(2 and 3) until decommissioned.
(d) General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland. Timber may be cut,
sold, or removed within Idaho Roadless Areas designated as General
Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland but shall be consistent with the land
management plan components as provided for in Sec. 294.28(d).
Sec. 294.25 Mineral activities in Idaho Roadless Areas.
(a) Nothing in this subpart shall be construed as restricting
mineral leases, contracts, permits, and associated activities
authorized prior to October 16, 2008.
(b) Nothing in this subpart shall affect mining activities
conducted pursuant to the General Mining Law of 1872.
(c) Wild Land Recreation, Special Areas of Historic or Tribal
Significance, or Primitive. (1) For mineral leases, contracts, permits,
and other associated activities authorized after the effective date of
this subpart the Forest Service will not recommend, authorize, or
consent to road construction, road reconstruction, or surface occupancy
associated with mineral leases in Idaho Roadless Areas designated as
Wild Land Recreation, Special Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance,
or Primitive themes.
(2) After October 16, 2008, the Forest Service will not authorize
sale of common variety mineral materials in Idaho Roadless Areas
designated as Wild Land Recreation, Special Areas of Historic or Tribal
Significance, or Primitive themes.
(d) Backcountry/Restoration. (1) For mineral leases, contracts,
permits, and other associated activities authorized after the effective
date of this subpart, the Forest Service will not recommend, authorize,
or consent to road construction or road reconstruction associated with
mineral leases in Idaho Roadless Areas designated as Backcountry/
Restoration. Surface use or occupancy without road construction or
reconstruction is permissible for all mineral leasing unless prohibited
in the applicable land management plan.
(2) After October 16, 2008, the Forest Service may authorize the
use or sale of common variety mineral materials, and associated road
construction or reconstruction to access these mineral materials, in
Idaho Roadless Areas designated as Backcountry/Restoration only if the
use of these mineral materials is incidental to an activity otherwise
permissible in backcountry/restoration under this subpart.
(e) General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland. (1) For mineral
leases, contracts, permits, and other associated activities authorized
after October 16, 2008, the Forest Service will not recommend,
authorize, or consent to road construction or reconstruction associated
with mineral leases in Idaho Roadless Areas designated as General
Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland theme; except such road construction
or reconstruction may be authorized by the responsible official in
association with phosphate deposits as described in Figure 3-20 in
section 3.15 Minerals and Energy in the Roadless Area Conservation;
National Forest System Lands in Idaho Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Surface use or occupancy without road construction or
reconstruction is permissible for all mineral leasing unless prohibited
in the land management plan components.
(2) After October 16, 2008, the Forest Service may authorize the
use or sale of common variety mineral materials, and associated road
construction or reconstruction to access these mineral materials, in
Idaho Roadless Areas designated as General Forest,
[[Page 61492]]
Rangeland, and Grassland only if the use of these mineral materials is
incidental to an activity otherwise permissible in General Forest,
Rangeland, and Grassland under this subpart.
(3) Road construction or reconstruction associated with mining
activities permissible under this subsection may only be approved after
evaluating other access options.
(4) Road construction or reconstruction associated with mining
activities permissible under this subsection must be conducted in a
manner that minimizes effects on surface resources and must be
consistent with land management plan components as provided for in
Sec. 294.28(d). Roads constructed or reconstructed must be
decommissioned upon completion of the project, or expiration of the
lease, or permit, or other authorization, whichever is sooner.
Sec. 294.26 Other activities in Idaho Roadless Areas.
(a) Motorized travel. Nothing in this subpart shall be construed as
affecting existing roads or trails in Idaho Roadless Areas. Decisions
concerning the future management of existing roads or trails in Idaho
Roadless Areas shall be made during the applicable travel management
process.
(b) Grazing. Nothing in this subpart shall be construed as
affecting existing grazing permits in Idaho Roadless Areas. Future road
construction associated with livestock operations shall conform to this
subpart.
(c) Motorized equipment and mechanical transport. Nothing in this
subpart shall be construed as affecting the use of motorized equipment
and mechanical transport in Idaho Roadless Areas.
Sec. 294.27 Corrections and modifications.
Correction or modification of designations made pursuant to this
subpart may occur under the following circumstances:
(a) Administrative corrections. Administrative corrections to the
maps of lands identified in Sec. 294.22(c) include, but are not
limited to, adjustments that remedy clerical errors, typographical
errors, mapping errors, or improvements in mapping technology. The
Chief may issue administrative corrections after a 30-day public notice
and opportunity to comment.
(b) Modifications. The Chief may add to, remove from, or modify the
designations and management classifications listed in Sec. 294.29
based on changed circumstances or public need. The Chief shall provide
at least a 45-day public notice and opportunity to comment for all
modifications.
Sec. 294.28 Scope and applicability.
(a) After October 16, 2008 subpart B of this part shall have no
effect within the State of Idaho.
(b) This subpart does not revoke, suspend, or modify any permit,
contract, or other legal instrument authorizing the occupancy and use
of National Forest System land issued prior to October 16, 2008.
(c) This subpart does not revoke, suspend, or modify any project or
activity decision made prior to October 16, 2008.
(d) The provisions set forth in this subpart shall take precedence
over any inconsistent land management plan component. Land management
plan components that are not inconsistent with this subpart will
continue to provide guidance for projects and activities within Idaho
Roadless Areas; as shall those related to protection of threatened and
endangered species. This subpart does not compel the amendment or
revision of any land management plan.
(e) The prohibitions and permissions set forth in the subpart are
not subject to reconsideration, revision, or rescission in subsequent
project decisions or land and resource management plan amendments or
revisions undertaken pursuant to 36 CFR part 219.
(f) This subpart shall not apply to Forest Plan Special Areas
within Idaho Roadless Areas.
(g) Nothing in this subpart waives any applicable requirements
regarding site-specific environmental analysis, public involvement,
consultation with Tribes and other agencies, or compliance with
applicable laws.
(h) This subpart does not modify the unique relationship between
the United States and Indian Tribes that requires the Federal
Government to work with federally recognized Indian Tribes government-
to-government as provided for in treaties, laws or Executive orders.
Nothing herein limits or modifies prior existing tribal rights,
including those involving hunting, fishing, gathering, and protection
of cultural and spiritual sites.
(i) If any provision of the rules in this subpart or its
application to any person or to certain circumstances is held invalid,
the remainder of the regulations in this subpart and their application
remain in force.
Sec. 294.29 List of designated Idaho Roadless Areas.
The acronyms used in the list are Wild Land Recreation (WLR),
Backcountry/Restoration (BCR), General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland
(GFRG), Special Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance (SAHTS) and
Forest Plan Special Areas (FPSA).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Idaho roadless area WLR Primitive BCR GFRG SAHTS FPSA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boise................................... Bald Mountain.............. 019 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Bear Wallow................ 125 .......... X .......... .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Bernard.................... 029 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Black Lake................. 036 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Blue Bunch................. 923 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Breadwinner................ 006 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Burnt Log.................. 035 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Cathedral Rocks............ 038 .......... X .......... .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Caton Lake................. 912 .......... .......... X X .......... X
Boise................................... Cow Creek.................. 028 .......... X .......... .......... .......... ..........
Boise................................... Danskin.................... 002 .......... X .......... .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Deadwood................... 020 .......... X X .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Elk Creek.................. 022 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Grand Mountain............. 007 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Grimes Pass................ 017 .......... .......... X X .......... X
Boise................................... Hanson Lakes............... 915 X X .......... .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Hawley Mountain............ 018 .......... X .......... .......... .......... ..........
Boise................................... Horse Heaven............... 925 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Boise................................... House Mountain............. 001 .......... X .......... .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Lime Creek................. 937 .......... X .......... .......... .......... ..........
[[Page 61493]]
Boise................................... Lost Man Creek............. 041 .......... X .......... .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Meadow Creek............... 913 .......... .......... X X .......... X
Boise................................... Mt Heinen.................. 003 .......... X .......... .......... .......... ..........
Boise................................... Nameless Creek............. 034 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Boise................................... Needles.................... 911 X X X X .......... X
Boise................................... Peace Rock................. 026 .......... X X .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Poison Creek............... 042 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Boise................................... Poker Meadows.............. 032 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Rainbow.................... 008 .......... X .......... .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Red Mountain............... 916 X X X X .......... X
Boise................................... Reeves Creek............... 010 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Boise................................... Sheep Creek................ 005 .......... X .......... .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Smoky Mountains............ 914 .......... X .......... .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Snowbank................... 924 .......... X .......... .......... .......... ..........
Boise................................... Steel Mountain............. 012 .......... X .......... .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Stony Meadows.............. 027 .......... X X .......... .......... ..........
Boise................................... Ten Mile/Black Warrior..... 013 X X .......... X .......... X
Boise................................... Tennessee.................. 033 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Boise................................... Whiskey.................... 031 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Boise................................... Whiskey Jack............... 009 .......... X .......... .......... .......... ..........
Boise................................... Whitehawk Mountain......... 021 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Boise................................... Wilson Peak................ 040 .......... X .......... .......... .......... ..........
Caribou................................. Bear Creek................. 615 .......... X X X .......... X
Caribou................................. Bonneville Peak............ 154 .......... .......... X X .......... X
Caribou................................. Caribou City............... 161 X .......... X .......... .......... X
Caribou................................. Clarkston Mountain......... 159 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Caribou................................. Deep Creek................. 158 .......... .......... X X .......... X
Caribou................................. Dry Ridge.................. 164 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Caribou................................. Elkhorn Mountain........... 156 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Caribou................................. Gannett-Spring Creek....... 111 .......... X X X .......... X
Caribou................................. Gibson..................... 181 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Caribou................................. Hell Hole.................. 168 .......... .......... .......... X .......... X
Caribou................................. Huckleberry Basin.......... 165 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Caribou................................. Liberty Creek.............. 175 .......... .......... X X .......... X
Caribou................................. Meade Peak................. 167 .......... X X X .......... X
Caribou................................. Mink Creek................. 176 .......... .......... X X .......... X
Caribou................................. Mount Naomi................ 758 X .......... X X .......... X
Caribou................................. North Pebble............... 155 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Caribou................................. Oxford Mountain............ 157 .......... .......... X X .......... X
Caribou................................. Paris Peak................. 177 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Caribou................................. Pole Creek................. 160 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Caribou................................. Red Mountain............... 170 .......... X X .......... .......... ..........
Caribou................................. Sage Creek................. 166 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Caribou................................. Schmid Peak................ 163 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Caribou................................. Scout Mountain............. 152 .......... .......... X X .......... X
Caribou................................. Sherman Peak............... 172 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Caribou................................. Soda Point................. 171 .......... .......... X X .......... X
Caribou................................. Station Creek.............. 178 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Caribou................................. Stauffer Creek............. 173 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Caribou................................. Stump Creek................ 162 .......... X X X .......... X
Caribou................................. Swan Creek................. 180 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Caribou................................. Telephone Draw............. 169 .......... .......... X X .......... X
Caribou................................. Toponce.................... 153 .......... X X .......... .......... ..........
Caribou................................. West Mink.................. 151 .......... .......... X X .......... X
Caribou................................. Williams Creek............. 174 .......... .......... X X .......... X
Caribou................................. Worm Creek................. 170 .......... .......... X X .......... X
Challis................................. Blue Bunch Mountain........ 923 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Borah Peak................. 012 X .......... X .......... .......... X
Challis................................. Boulder-White Clouds....... 920 X .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Camas Creek................ 901 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Challis Creek.............. 004 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Cold Springs............... 026 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Copper Basin............... 019 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Diamond Peak............... 601 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Challis................................. Greylock................... 007 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Grouse Peak................ 010 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Hanson Lake................ 915 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Jumpoff Mountain........... 014 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. King Mountain.............. 013 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Lemhi Range................ 903 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Challis................................. Loon Creek................. 908 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Pahsimeroi Mountain........ 011 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Pioneer Mountains.......... 921 X .......... X .......... .......... X
Challis................................. Prophyry Peak.............. 017 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
[[Page 61494]]
Challis................................. Railroad Ridge............. 922 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Red Hill................... 027 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Red Mountain............... 916 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Seafoam.................... 009 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Spring Basin............... 006 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Squaw Creek................ 005 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Taylor Mountain............ 902 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Warm Creek................. 024 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. White Knob................. 025 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Challis................................. Wood Canyon................ 028 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Clearwater.............................. Bighorn-Weitas............. 306 .......... .......... X .......... X X
Clearwater.............................. Eldorado Creek............. 312 .......... .......... X .......... X ..........
Clearwater.............................. Hoodoo..................... 301 X .......... .......... .......... X ..........
Clearwater.............................. Lochsa Face................ 311 .......... X X .......... X X
Clearwater.............................. Lolo Creek (LNF)........... 805 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Clearwater.............................. Mallard-Larkins............ 300 X X X .......... .......... ..........
Clearwater.............................. Meadow Creek--Upper North 302 .......... X X .......... .......... ..........
Fork.
Clearwater.............................. Moose Mountain............. 305 .......... X X .......... .......... ..........
Clearwater.............................. North Fork Spruce--White 309 X X X .......... .......... ..........
Sand.
Clearwater.............................. North Lochsa Slope......... 307 .......... X X .......... X X
Clearwater.............................. Pot Mountain............... 304 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Clearwater.............................. Rackliff-Gedney............ 841 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Clearwater.............................. Rawhide.................... 313 .......... X X .......... .......... ..........
Clearwater.............................. Siwash..................... 303 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Clearwater.............................. Sneakfoot Meadows.......... 314 X X X .......... .......... X
Clearwater.............................. Weir-Post Office Creek..... 308 .......... .......... X .......... X X
Idaho Panhandle......................... Beetop..................... 130 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Big Creek.................. 143 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Blacktail Mountain......... 122 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... Blacktail Mountain......... 161 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Buckhorn Ridge............. 661 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Continental Mountain....... 004 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... East Cathedral Peak........ 131 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... East Fork Elk.............. 678 .......... .......... .......... X .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Gilt Edge-Silver Creek..... 792 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Graham Coal................ 139 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... Grandmother Mountain....... 148 X .......... X X .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... Hammond Creek.............. 145 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Hellroaring................ 128 .......... .......... .......... X .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Katka Peak................. 157 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Kootenai Peak.............. 126 .......... .......... .......... X .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Little Grass Mountain...... 121 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Lost Creek................. 137 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... Magee...................... 132 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Mallard-Larkins............ 300 X .......... X .......... .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... Maple Peak................. 141 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Meadow Creek-Upper N. Fork. 302 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... Midget Peak................ 151 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... Mosquito-Fly............... 150 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... Mt. Willard-Lake Estelle... 173 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... North Fork................. 147 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... Packsaddle................. 155 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Pinchot Butte.............. 149 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Roland Point............... 146 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Saddle Mountain............ 154 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Salmo-Priest............... 981 X .......... .......... .......... .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... Schafer Peak............... 160 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Scotchman Peaks............ 662 X .......... X .......... .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... Selkirk.................... 125 X .......... X X .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... Sheep Mountain-State Line.. 799 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... Skitwish Ridge............. 135 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Spion Kop.................. 136 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... Stevens Peak............... 142 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Storm Creek................ 144 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Tepee Creek................ 133 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Trestle Peak............... 129 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Trouble Creek.............. 138 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... Trout Creek................ 664 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... Upper Priest............... 123 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Idaho Panhandle......................... White Mountain............. 127 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Idaho Panhandle......................... Wonderful Peak............. 152 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Kootenai................................ Mt. Willard-Lake Estelle... 173 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Kootenai................................ Roberts.................... 691 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Kootenai................................ Scotchman Peaks............ 662 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
[[Page 61495]]
Kootenai................................ West Fork Elk.............. 692 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Nez Perce............................... Clear Creek................ 844 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Nez Perce............................... Dixie Summit--Nut Hill..... 235 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Nez Perce............................... East Meadow Creek.......... 845 .......... X .......... .......... .......... X
Nez Perce............................... Gospel Hump................ 921 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Nez Perce............................... Gospel Hump Adjacent to ......... .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Wilderness.
Nez Perce............................... John Day................... 852 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Nez Perce............................... Lick Point................. 227 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Nez Perce............................... Little Slate Creek......... 851 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Nez Perce............................... Little Slate Creek North... 856 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Nez Perce............................... Mallard.................... 847 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Nez Perce............................... North Fork Slate Creek..... 850 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Nez Perce............................... O'Hara--Falls Creek........ 226 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Nez Perce............................... Rackliff--Gedney........... 841 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Nez Perce............................... Rapid River................ 922 X .......... .......... .......... .......... X
Nez Perce............................... Salmon Face................ 855 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Nez Perce............................... Selway Bitterroot.......... ......... .......... X .......... .......... .......... ..........
Nez Perce............................... Silver Creek--Pilot Knob... 849 .......... .......... .......... .......... X ..........
Nez Perce............................... West Fork Crooked River.... ......... .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Nez Perce............................... West Meadow Creek.......... 845 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Payette................................. Big Creek Fringe........... 009 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Payette................................. Caton Lake................. 912 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Payette................................. Chimney Rock............... 006 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Payette................................. Cottontail Point/Pilot Peak 004 .......... X X .......... .......... X
Payette................................. Council Mountain........... 018 .......... X .......... .......... .......... X
Payette................................. Crystal Mountain........... 005 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Payette................................. Cuddy Mountain............. 016 .......... X .......... X .......... X
Payette................................. French Creek............... 026 .......... X X X .......... X
Payette................................. Hells Canyon/7 Devils 001 .......... X .......... .......... .......... X
Scenic.
Payette................................. Horse Heaven............... 925 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Payette................................. Indian Creek............... 019 .......... X .......... .......... .......... ..........
Payette................................. Meadow Creek............... 913 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Payette................................. Needles.................... 911 X X X .......... .......... X
Payette................................. Patrick Butte.............. 002 .......... X X .......... .......... X
Payette................................. Placer Creek............... 008 .......... X X .......... .......... X
Payette................................. Poison Creek............... 042 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Payette................................. Rapid River................ 922 X .......... .......... .......... .......... X
Payette................................. Secesh..................... 010 X X X .......... .......... X
Payette................................. Sheep Gulch................ 017 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Payette................................. Smith Creek................ 007 .......... X .......... .......... .......... ..........
Payette................................. Snowbank................... 924 .......... X .......... .......... .......... ..........
Payette................................. Sugar Mountain............. 014 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Agency Creek............... 512 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Allan Mountain............. 946 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Salmon.................................. Anderson Mountain.......... 942 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Blue Joint Mountain........ 941 .......... X .......... .......... .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Camas Creek................ 901 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Deep Creek................. 509 .......... .......... .......... X .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Duck Peak.................. 518 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Salmon.................................. Goat Mountain.............. 944 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Goldbug Ridge.............. 903 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Haystack Mountain.......... 507 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Italian Peak............... 945 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Jesse Creek................ 510 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Jureano.................... 506 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Lemhi Range................ 903 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Salmon.................................. Little Horse............... 514 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Long Tom................... 521 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Salmon.................................. McEleny.................... 505 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Musgrove................... 517 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Napias..................... 515 .......... .......... .......... X .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Napoleon Ridge............. 501 .......... .......... X X .......... X
Salmon.................................. Oreana..................... 516 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Perreau Creek.............. 511 .......... .......... .......... X .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Phelan..................... 508 .......... .......... .......... X .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Sal Mountain............... 513 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Sheepeater................. 520 .......... .......... X X .......... X
Salmon.................................. South Deep Creek........... 509 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. South Panther.............. 504 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. Taylor Mountain............ 902 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Salmon.................................. West Big Hole.............. 943 .......... X X X .......... X
Salmon.................................. West Panther Creek......... 504 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Sawtooth................................ Black Pine................. 003 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
[[Page 61496]]
Sawtooth................................ Blackhorse Creek........... 039 .......... X .......... .......... .......... ..........
Sawtooth................................ Boulder-White Clouds....... 920 X X X .......... .......... X
Sawtooth................................ Buttercup Mountain......... 038 .......... X .......... .......... .......... X
Sawtooth................................ Cache Peak................. 007 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Sawtooth................................ Cottonwood................. 010 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Sawtooth................................ Elk Ridge.................. 019 .......... X .......... .......... .......... ..........
Sawtooth................................ Fifth Fork Rock Creek...... 023 .......... X .......... X .......... ..........
Sawtooth................................ Hanson Lakes............... 915 X X X .......... .......... X
Sawtooth................................ Huckleberry................ 016 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Sawtooth................................ Liberal Mountain........... 040 .......... X .......... X .......... ..........
Sawtooth................................ Lime Creek................. 937 .......... X .......... .......... .......... X
Sawtooth................................ Lone Cedar................. 011 .......... .......... .......... X .......... ..........
Sawtooth................................ Loon Creek................. 908 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Sawtooth................................ Mahogany Butte............. 012 .......... .......... .......... X .......... ..........
Sawtooth................................ Mount Harrison............. 006 .......... X X X .......... X
Sawtooth................................ Pettit..................... 017 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Sawtooth................................ Pioneer Mountains.......... 921 X X X .......... .......... X
Sawtooth................................ Railroad Ridge............. 922 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Sawtooth................................ Smoky Mountains............ 914 .......... X X .......... .......... X
Sawtooth................................ Sublett.................... 005 .......... X .......... .......... .......... ..........
Sawtooth................................ Third Fork Rock Creek...... 009 .......... X .......... X .......... ..........
Sawtooth................................ Thorobred.................. 013 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Targhee................................. Bald Mountain.............. 614 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Targhee................................. Bear Creek................. 615 .......... .......... X X .......... X
Targhee................................. Caribou City............... 161 .......... .......... X X .......... ..........
Targhee................................. Diamond Peak............... 601 X X X X .......... X
Targhee................................. Garfield Mountain.......... 961 .......... X X X .......... X
Targhee................................. Garns Mountain............. 611 .......... .......... X X .......... X
Targhee................................. Italian Peak............... 945 X .......... X .......... .......... X
Targhee................................. Lionhead................... 963 X .......... X .......... .......... X
Targhee................................. Mt. Jefferson.............. 962 .......... X X X .......... X
Targhee................................. Palisades.................. 613 X .......... X .......... .......... X
Targhee................................. Poker Peak................. 616 .......... X .......... .......... .......... X
Targhee................................. Pole Creek................. 160 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Targhee................................. Raynolds Pass.............. 603 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Targhee................................. Two Top.................... 604 .......... X .......... .......... .......... ..........
Targhee................................. West Slope Tetons.......... 610 .......... .......... X .......... .......... X
Targhee................................. Winegar Hole............... 347 .......... X X .......... .......... X
Wallowa-Whitman......................... Big Canyon Id.............. 853 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Wallowa-Whitman......................... Klopton Creek--Corral Creek 854 .......... .......... X .......... .......... ..........
Id.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: October 7, 2008.
Mark Rey,
Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment.
[FR Doc. E8-24285 Filed 10-8-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P