[Federal Register: January 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 4)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 1135-1158]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07ja08-17]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is
proposing to establish a State-specific rule to provide management
direction for conserving and enhancing the roadless characteristics for
designated roadless areas in Idaho. The agency is particularly
interested in receiving public input regarding the following topics: to
what extent should the Forest Service allow building roads for the
purpose of conducting limited forest health activities in areas
designated as backcountry; are the limitations on sale
[[Page 1136]]
of common variety minerals and discretionary mineral leasing
appropriate; and will the proposed mechanism for administrative
corrections and modifications be sufficient to accommodate future
adjustments necessary due to changed circumstances or public need?
DATES: Comments must be received in writing by April 7, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent via email to IDcomments@fsroadless.org.
Comments also may be submitted via the world wide web/Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov. Written comments concerning this notice
should be addressed to Roadless Area Conservation-Idaho, P.O. Box
162909, Sacramento, CA 95816-2909, or via facsimile to 916-456-6724.
All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are
placed in the record and are available for public inspection and
copying. The public may inspect comments received at http://roadless.fs.fed.us
.
A copy of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), the DEIS
summary, and other information related to this rulemaking is available
at the national roadless Web site (http://www.roadless.fs.fed.us) as
well as by calling the number listed below, under the ``for further
information'' heading. Reviewers may request printed copies or compact
disks of the DEIS and the summary by writing to the Rocky Mountain
Research Station, Publication and Distribution, 240 West Prospect Road,
Fort Collins, CO 80526-2098. Fax orders will be accepted at 970-498-
1122. Order by e-mail from rschneider@fs.fed.us. When ordering,
requesters must specify if they wish to receive the summary or full set
of documents and if the material should be provided in print or on
disk.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad Gilbert, Idaho Roadless Rule Team
Leader, 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:
Background
As a leader in natural resource conservation, the Forest Service
provides direction for the management and use of the Nation's forests,
rangelands, and aquatic ecosystems. The Forest Service is charged to
collaborate cooperatively with states, Tribes, and other interested
parties regarding the use and management of the National Forest System
(NFS).
State of Idaho Petition
On June 23, 2005, the State of Idaho (hereafter referred to as
State) announced it would submit a petition pursuant to the State
Petitions Rule (70 FR 25654), requesting specific regulatory
protections and certain management flexibility for the approximately
9.3 million acres of NFS inventoried roadless areas in Idaho. As part
of that announcement, the State invited affected county commissioners,
Tribes, and members of the public to develop specific recommendations
for the NFS inventoried roadless areas in their respective areas.
Additionally, over 50 public meetings were held and the public was
encouraged to send individual comments directly to the Governor's
office for consideration.
Idaho's petition, under the State Petition Rule, was submitted to
the Secretary of Agriculture for consideration on September 20, 2006.
Subsequently, Idaho submitted a new petition on October 5, 2006, under
section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act and Department
regulations at 7 CFR Sec. 1.28. The Department has also received
rulemaking petitions from the Nez Perce Tribe and other organizations
and individuals requesting reinstatement of the 2001 rule.
The Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee (RACNAC)
(72 FR 13469) reviewed the Idaho petition on November 29 and 30, 2006,
in Washington, DC. Governor James Risch, on behalf of the State of
Idaho, discussed his views on the scope and intent of the petition
during the first day of the meeting. The committee also heard comments
from other State and Forest Service officials, and members of the
public.
On December 19, 2006, the committee issued a unanimous consensus-
based recommendation that the Secretary direct the Forest Service, with
the State as a cooperating agency, to proceed with rulemaking.
On December 22, 2006, the Secretary accepted the petition based on
the advisory committee's review and report, and directed the Forest
Service to initiate rulemaking.
The USDA is committed to conserving and managing inventoried
roadless areas. The Department considers the proposed rule the most
appropriate solution to address the challenges of inventoried roadless
area management on NFS lands in the State of Idaho. Additional
information, maps, and other materials concerning the Idaho Roadless
Areas, as well as other roadless areas, can be found at http://roadless.fs.
fed.us/. 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 State of Idaho petition included specific information and
recommendations for the management of individual inventoried roadless
areas in the State. This site-specific knowledge provided by the State
and its citizens aids the USDA and Forest Service in accomplishing
their objectives and is reflected in this proposed rulemaking.
Additionally, the State of Idaho examined roadless areas sharing
boundaries or overlapping with neighboring states and determined the
need to coordinate with Montana and Utah to insure consistency of
management themes assigned to these inventoried roadless areas. Lastly,
the Forest Service and the State anticipate collaborating on
implementing this proposed rulemaking. This commitment is reflected in
the Governor's Roadless Rule Implementation Commission (Idaho Executive
Order 2006-43), which is charged with the responsibility of working
with the Forest Service to accomplish collaborative implementation of
this proposed rule. The Executive Order can be found on the State of
Idaho's roadless Web site http://gov.idaho.gov/roadless_petition.htm.
National Forest System Land Inventories in Idaho
This rulemaking relies on the most recent inventory available for
each national forest and grassland in the State to identify the
inventoried roadless areas addressed by this rulemaking. Since 2001 the
Agency has continued with forest plan revisions within Idaho and have
continued to review and update their inventories using new technologies
such as geographic information systems (GIS) providing better and more
reliable data than was previously available., Therefore, the proposed
rule is based on the most recent and reliable information available for
land and resource management planning as well as using other
assessments and the inventory contained in the 2000 Roadless Rule Final
Environmental Impact Statement where that remained the best available
information. Using these inventories, the Forest Service has identified
9.3 million acres of inventoried roadless areas that are the subject of
this rulemaking.
[[Page 1137]]
Proposed Roadless Area Conservation Rule for Idaho
The Department believes this proposed Roadless Area Conservation
Rule for Idaho represents a unique opportunity to resolve
collaboratively and to provide certainty to the roadless issue in the
State. First, the proposed rule enables the Forest Service to account
for comments of those most affected or concerned about the contents of
state-specific rulemaking. Second, it allows the Agency to consider the
unique characteristics of each inventoried roadless area in the State.
Third, it balances the integrity and natural beauty of these roadless
areas with responsible stewardship.
During his presentation to the RACNAC, Governor Risch expressed the
need for stewardship of Idaho Roadless Areas focusing on limited forest
health activities. Clarifying what stewardship means is vital to
understanding the petition and subsequent rulemaking. The proposed rule
clarifies this by providing discretion for conducting activities that
maintain forest health by reducing the significant risk of wildland
fire (also known as wildfire) to communities, municipal water supplies,
threatened and endangered species, and to protect ecosystem components
in the same manner as provided in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act
(HFRA). All project activity will be subject to appropriate National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance procedures and public
comment opportunities.
The Department and the State believe a reduction in significant
risk situations before they become imminent threats to local
communities and water supplies can be better achieved by providing
flexibility beyond the restrictions imposed by the January 12, 2001
Roadless Area Conservation final rule (2001 rule) (66 FR 3244).
Implementing these limited, but necessary projects allows the Forest
Service to be a good neighbor for adjacent landowners and communities
and to help insure continued forest health and protection for life and
property.
The Forest Service, in cooperation with the State, has completed a
review of the social, economic, and environmental characteristics and
values associated with the inventoried roadless areas in the State.
With public input, the Agency has considered the question of how these
roadless lands should be managed within the scope of the Agency's
authority. Consistent with the 2001 rule's approach, the management
direction proposed by these regulations would take precedence over any
inconsistent regulatory provision or land and resource management plan.
It is also consistent with the Secretary's authority to establish
regulations to carry out the statutory requirements for planning and
the Forest Service's practice that forest plans must yield to
management direction of a higher order. Forest plan management
direction that is consistent with these provisions remains intact and
effective.
Discussion of the Proposed Management Themes
The management themes described in Idaho's petition and reflected
in Governor Risch's presentation before the RACNAC represent the
foundation for this rulemaking, and are imperative to understanding the
proposed rule. The proposed rule is structured around five themes: (1)
Wild Land Recreation; (2) Special Areas of Historic or Tribal
Significance; (3) Primitive; (4) Backcountry/Restoration; and (5)
General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland. These five themes were
developed and refined through review of the existing and draft
management prescriptions in each of Idaho's national forests.
Specifically, the proposed themes span a continuum (see Figure 1)
that includes at one end, a restrictive approach emphasizing passive
management and natural restoration, and on the other end, active
management designed to accomplish sustainable forest, rangeland, and
grassland management. This continuum accounts for stewardship of each
roadless area's unique landscape and the quality of roadless
characteristics in that area.
[[Page 1138]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07JA08.001
Allocation to a specific theme is not intended to 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, discretionary mineral activities, and
timber cutting. The themes also serve as a reference point for future
discussions between the Forest Service, the State, the Tribes, and the
public. Themes may also influence other future management choices such
as forest plan revisions or use determinations that are beyond the
scope of these regulations.
The State's petition identifies approximately 345,000 acres of
roadless areas that are already part of other land classification
systems (for example, Research Natural Areas) that are governed by
specific agency directives and existing forest plan direction. The
petition did not request the Forest Service impose additional or
superseding management direction or restrictions for these forest plan
special areas. Instead, the State 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. These lands are included in Sec. 294.28 for the sake
of completeness; however, the proposed rule does not recommend
management direction for those lands.
The following describes the current and desired conditions for each
management theme. While 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, grazing activities, or use of
motorized equipment and mechanical transport) are not changed by this
proposed rule. While these other activities are not regulated by this
proposed rule, such activities would be subject to future planning and
decisionmaking processes of the Forest Service. Furthermore, when
appropriate, wildland fire and prescribed fire are tools which would be
available across all themes. Additionally, like the 2001 rule, timber
cutting, sale, or removal in inventoried roadless areas is permitted
when incidental to implementation of a management activity not
otherwise prohibited by this proposed 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 proposed rule.
Management Theme 1: Wild Land Recreation (WLR)
Current Condition: WLR areas were generally identified during the
forest planning process as recommended for wilderness designation.
These areas show little evidence of historic or human use. Natural
conditions and processes are predominant. People visiting these areas
can find outstanding opportunities for solitude and challenge.
Desired Condition: WLR areas show little evidence of human-caused
disturbance and natural conditions and processes are predominant.
Management Theme 2: Special Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance
(SAHTS)
Current Condition: SAHTS are relatively undisturbed by human
management activities, and natural conditions and processes are
predominant. This theme consists of three areas: (1) Pilot Knob
(849), Nez Perce National Forest; (2) Nimiipuu and Lewis and
Clark National Historic Trials, which includes portions of Bighorn-
Weitas (306), Eldorado Creek (312), Hoodoo
(301), North Lochsa Slope (307), Weir-Post Office
(308), Clearwater National Forest; and (3) Pioneer Area--
Mallard-Larkins (300), Idaho Panhandle National Forest. The
[[Page 1139]]
Nez Perce Tribe and others expressed the desire to protect these areas
specifically based on their historic or Tribal significance. The RACNAC
recommended clarifying whether this theme would alter or apply to the
management of other ``special areas'' embedded in roadless areas in
individual forest plans (such as, Wilderness Study Areas, Recommended
and/or Designated Scenic, Wild, and Recreational Rivers, Research
Natural Areas). Those areas will not be subject to this proposed rule
and will continue to be managed by individual forest plan direction or
specific congressional direction provided by statute.
Desired Condition: SAHTS will continue to be relatively undisturbed
by human management activities in order to maintain their unique Tribal
or historic characteristics.
Management Theme 3: Primitive
Current Condition: The current condition of areas designated as
primitive generally reflects the undeveloped character described for
the WLR theme. However, these areas generally fall short of the Forest
Service's recommended wilderness suitability criteria.
Desired Condition: Primitive areas are relatively undisturbed by
human management activities while allowing for limited forest health
activities including preserving biological strongholds for a variety of
species and protecting ecological integrity.
Management Theme 4: Backcountry/Restoration (Backcountry)
Current Condition: Areas designated as backcountry generally
reflect the undeveloped character found in all roadless areas. However,
there may be portions within these areas that have evidence of human
use and occupancy or past vegetation manipulation.
Desired Condition: Backcountry areas are managed to retain their
undeveloped character, while providing a variety of recreation
opportunities and allowing for limited forest health activities
including preserving biological strongholds for a variety of species
and maintaining or restoring the characteristics of ecosystem
composition and structure.
Management Theme 5: General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland (GFRG)
Current Condition: Areas designated as GFRG include locations that
may display relatively more evidence of human use, including roads,
facilities, evidence of vegetative manipulation, and mineral
exploration/extraction.
Desired Condition: GFRG areas are managed to allow for a variety of
goods and services, and conservation of natural resources.
Geothermal Energy
During the development of the proposed rule, consideration was
given to whether the rule is overly restrictive regarding potential
exploration and/or development of geothermal energy resources in areas
designated as backcountry. While Idaho has high geothermal energy
potential, site-specific information on this resource in Idaho Roadless
Areas is currently limited (see discussion in DEIS). At this time the
Department has chosen not to include a special exemption for geothermal
energy resources.
The Department expects that more information about this energy
resource will become available over the next 5 to 10 years. Once
additional information becomes available, at that point, if necessary,
the State or other parties can seek a change in the rule's
restrictions. A site-specific modification to the rule could then be
proposed and reviewed under Sec. 294.27(e)(2).
Specific Request for Public Comment
With regard to road construction, discretionary mineral activities,
and timber cutting, Idaho's proposed management continuum can be
succinctly summarized as three themes; one theme more restrictive than
the 2001 rule, one theme similar to the 2001 rule, and one theme less
restrictive than the 2001 rule. The agency is particularly interested
in receiving public input regarding the following topics: (1) To what
extent should the Forest Service allow building roads for the purpose
of conducting limited forest health activities in areas designated as
backcountry; (2) are the limitations on sale of common variety minerals
and discretionary mineral leasing appropriate; and (3) will the
proposed mechanism for administrative corrections and modifications be
sufficient to accommodate future adjustments necessary due to changed
circumstances or public need? The following illustrates the additions
and/or changes from the 2001 rule.
Limited Roads for Activities in Backcountry
The proposed regulation at Sec. 294.23(b)(1)(i) allows limited
road construction in Idaho Roadless Areas designated to be managed
pursuant to the backcountry theme when a ``road is needed to protect
public health and safety in cases of significant risk or imminent
threat of flood, wildland fire, or other catastrophic event that,
without intervention, would cause the loss of life or property; or to
facilitate forest health activities permitted under Sec.
294.25(c)(1).'' The phrase ``significant risk'' is an addition to the
imminent threat language contained in the 2001 rule's exceptions and
bears further explanation.
During its presentation to the RACNAC, the State was under the
impression that the ``imminent threat'' exception provides the needed
flexibility to allow the Forest Service to build roads for the purpose
of conducting what Governor Risch and other State representatives
identified as ``stewardship activities.'' An example of such an
activity would be a fuel treatment project to protect a municipal water
supply system conducted cooperatively with the Forest Service through
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) (Pub. L. 108-148). However,
when read in context of the 2001 rule's preamble language, the
application of the ``imminent threat'' regulatory language may not
always achieve the State's desire for more progress toward the
congressional goals identified in HFRA.
Referring to the ``imminent threat'' language, the preamble to the
2001 rule stated that the exception ``does not constitute permission to
engage in routine forest health activities, such as temporary road
construction for thinning to reduce mortality due to insect and disease
infestation'' (66 FR 3243, 3255). Like the 2001 rule, the Forest
Service and State do not intend this change in language to be construed
as giving permission to build roads in areas designated as backcountry
for the purpose of engaging in routine forest management activities as
shown by the use of the words ``significant risk.'' This addition is
intended to provide additional flexibility where site-specific
conditions pose a significant risk of wildland fire.
Although the principal objective for this adjustment is to protect
at-risk communities and municipal water supply systems from adverse
effects of wildland fire, this provision also contemplates access for
(1) areas where wind throw, blowdown, ice storm damage, or the
existence or imminent threat of an insect or disease epidemic is
significantly threatening ecosystem components or resource values that
may contribute to significant risk of wildland fire; or (2) areas where
wildland fire poses a threat to, and where the natural fire regimes are
important for, threatened and endangered species or their habitat
consistent with HFRA.
[[Page 1140]]
The proposed rule is programmatic in nature, establishing the types
of prohibitions and conditions where future projects may occur under
the appropriate theme. As stated by Governor Risch, this proposed rule
``does not cut one tree or plow one road.'' Further, not every acre
experiencing significant risk is expected to receive treatment because
of funding limitations and mitigation measures needed for other
resource protection. After the rule becomes effective, site-specific
proposed projects must still undergo project planning procedures before
they can be implemented. This includes compliance with HFRA (if
applicable), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest
Management Act (NFMA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other
environmental laws and regulations. Public involvement under NEPA will
be undertaken for these site-specific proposals.
The Idaho Roadless Rule DEIS discloses the effects of roads and
projections of the types and amounts of possible treatments over the
next 15 years. Treatments will be designed based on site-specific needs
to reduce any significant risks, or to maintain or restore the
characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure. Determination
of a significant risk would be guided by the interagency Healthy
Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act: Interim Field
Guide (2004).
Mineral Activities
The laws governing disposal of Federal minerals on NFS lands are
complex. Responsibility for management of these resources is often
shared between USDA and the Department of the Interior (DOI). Generally
speaking, Federal minerals are divided into three categories with
different legal authorities, responsibilities, and controls applying in
each instance. The three basic systems are: locatable, saleable, and
leasable minerals.
Locatable minerals are generally metals (like gold and silver) but
also include rare earth elements such as uranium and special uncommon
varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, and cinders.
Development of such minerals is subject to the General Mining Law of
1872. Like the 2001 rule, this proposed rule does not seek to impose
any limits regarding activities undertaken regarding locatable
minerals. In the long term, it is reasonable to assume that future
exploration, mining, and mineral processing activities would continue
to occur in Idaho Roadless Areas where valuable deposits exist. When
necessary, construction or reconstruction of roads for locatable
mineral exploration or development is part of the reasonable right of
access provided under the General Mining Law. Therefore, this rule does
not propose to affect rights of reasonable access to prospect and
explore lands open to mineral entry and develop valid claims. All
proposals for locatable mineral exploration or development are subject
to the planning and design requirements governing locatable minerals in
36 CFR part 228, subpart A and the appropriate level of environmental
analysis. The plan of operations would be approved subject to
modifications identified in the environmental analysis and would be
binding on the operator.
Saleable minerals, also known as common variety mineral materials,
are common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, cinders,
and clay. The Secretary of Agriculture is solely responsible for
disposal of saleable minerals on NFS lands. The Forest Service has
complete discretion to refrain from authorizing the disposal of
saleable minerals.
The proposed rule would prohibit the sale of common variety mineral
materials in Idaho Roadless Areas that are designated to be managed
pursuant to WLR, SAHTS, or primitive themes. This prohibition would be
more restrictive than the 2001 rule for these three themes. However,
under the proposed Sec. 294.23(b)(1)(vii), the Forest Service would be
allowed to build roads associated with the sale or administrative use
of common variety mineral materials in areas designated as backcountry
``if the use of these mineral materials is incidental to an activity
otherwise allowed under the rule'' (Sec. 294.24(e)). Road construction
and reconstruction associated with the sale or administrative use of
common variety mineral materials is allowed in GFRG.
Leasable minerals include oil, gas, coal, phosphate, potassium,
sodium, sulphur, gilsonite, oil shale, geothermal resources, and
hardrock minerals. There are two general umbrella authorities governing
the leasing of these minerals, except for sulphur, geothermal
resources, and hardrock minerals, on NFS lands. One of these umbrella
authorities, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, applies exclusively, and
by its terms applies comprehensively, to NFS lands reserved from the
public domain. The other, the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands,
applies exclusively, and by its terms applies comprehensively, to
acquired NFS lands. The leasing of geothermal resources is governed by
free standing statutory authority which applies to all NFS lands.
Collectively, these authorities are known as the mineral leasing laws.
Despite the many authorities governing mineral leasing on NFS
lands, there are basic commonalties among the mineral leasing laws. The
most fundamental is that the Secretary of the Interior is statutorily
charged with the administration of the mineral leasing laws.
Consequently, the Department of the Interior (DOI) issues all mineral
leases for NFS lands. The Secretary of the Interior also has complete
discretion to refrain from leasing any leasable mineral.
This is not to say that the Forest Service lacks a role with
respect to mineral leasing on NFS lands. DOI is statutorily required to
obtain the Forest Service's consent before it issues leases for many
leasable minerals. The Forest Service also has the right to regulate
operations conducted for certain leasable minerals.
The proposed rule would not seek to restrict retroactively any
existing authorizations. The proposed rule would establish limitations
on the future exercise of discretion available to Forest Service line
officers. It does not impose restrictions on decisions that Congress
has allocated to DOI. Nor does the proposed rule effect or seek a
withdrawal of the mineral estate as such matters are subject to a
separate statutory process established under the Federal Land Policy
Management Act. Instead, the proposed rule would instruct Forest
Service line officers when exercising their discretionary authority
concerning disposal of different mineral materials.
The Forest Service and State see an opportunity to clarify and
remove confusion regarding expectations for mineral leasing and
associated road construction activities across the management themes
set out in this proposed rule. This is a refinement of the 2001 rule
which permitted the leasing and the surface use or occupancy across all
roadless areas, but did not allow new roads to be constructed pursuant
to new leases. Using the management spectrum associated with the
proposed themes, the Forest Service and the State are seeking a balance
between the protection of roadless values and the responsible
development of mineral resources.
If promulgated, in designated WLR, SAHTS, or primitive areas, the
Forest Service would not recommend, authorize or consent to road
[[Page 1141]]
construction or reconstruction or surface use and occupancy associated
with mineral leases. This leasing restriction is more restrictive than
the 2001 rule.
In backcountry areas, road construction or reconstruction is
prohibited except for the leasing of phosphate materials. Surface use
or occupancy without road construction or reconstruction is permissible
for all mineral leasing.
In areas designated as GFRG, leasing approvals, including road
construction, reconstruction, surface use and occupancy, and associated
road access requests are permissible.
Where authorized, all road construction or reconstruction
associated with mining activities allowed under this management theme
must be conducted in a way that minimizes effects on surface resources,
prevents unnecessary or unreasonable surface disturbance, and complies
with all applicable lease requirements, land and resource management
plan direction, regulations, and laws. Roads constructed or
reconstructed pursuant to this management theme must be decommissioned
when no longer needed or when the lease, contract, or permit expires,
whichever is sooner.
There has been considerable debate among various parties offering
competing interpretations of the 2001 rule provisions about whether or
not ongoing leasing activities can be geographically expanded beyond
current lease boundaries; particularly phosphate leasing in the
Caribou-Targhee National Forest. The proposed rule contains text at
Sec. 294.24(d) that resolves this question in the affirmative. At the
effective date of a final rule, existing operations could expand beyond
their current boundaries, including such lands as are necessary for
access. The DEIS estimates an additional 12,100 acres above the acres
under existing lease will potentially be affected. The DEIS also
discusses the importance and value of this phosphate leasing to the
local communities, the State, and the Nation.
Accommodating Change
The Forest Service, State of Idaho, and members of the public have
expressed confusion over how boundary or other changes were expected to
be made under the 2001 rule. The State of Colorado in its roadless area
rulemaking petition similarly identified the need for a process to
allow future modifications of the management direction to be
established in that rulemaking. Based on Forest Service experience with
the 2001 rule, as well as other land and resource management and
classification systems, the Agency has included in the proposed rule a
system to address future corrections and modifications of the
allocations made through this rulemaking. The Forest Service is
proposing a system that parallels the National Forest Management Act
forest plan amendment process, allowing for technical corrections as
well as minor or even significant changes. All changes are noticed to
the public and public involvement requirements vary depending on the
magnitude of the change being made.
The proposed rule applies a two tiered approach. Like the 2001
rule, Sec. 294.27(e)(1) expressly provides that technical errors, such
as clerical mistakes, errant maps, and so on, can be corrected by the
Chief and are effective upon public notice. This provision could also
be applied when changes are necessitated by events beyond the scope of
this proposed rule, such as Congressional legislation or a conveyance
of land by sale, exchange or interchange.
The second tier of the approach involves a mechanism for modifying
boundaries or management direction in other circumstances. The
Department believes the proposed rule should allow for changes in
management direction due to changed conditions or circumstances. Any
modification would be effective only after the Chief provides public
notice in the Federal Register. Modifications would be subject to a 30-
day notice requirement in all instances; and if the change is
determined to be significant by the Chief, notice and comment
rulemaking must be undertaken.
The proposed rule provides factors to assess whether a proposed
change is of sufficient magnitude to warrant additional rulemaking or
so limited as to not merit such a procedure. This is an admittedly
subjective assessment and the expectation is that the Agency will keep
foremost in its mind the implications of the change to the roadless
character of the area(s). Again, the Forest Service has implemented a
similar sliding scale approach for amendment of forest plans for three
decades and is confident such a system is workable.
Examples of when rulemaking would not be expected: (1)
Establishment by the Forest Service of a research natural area in a
roadless area designated as primitive; (2) changing the designation of
a small portion of backcountry adjacent to a large block of GFRG into
the GFRG designation; (3) changing the designation of a small portion
of backcountry adjacent to a large block of primitive into the
primitive designation.
Examples where rulemaking would be expected: (1) Approving the use
of lands designated as primitive to construct and operate an all-season
recreation resort complex; (2) geothermal exploration has discovered a
significant energy field in an area designated as primitive and the
Forest Service proposes that a portion of the roadless area be
designated as GFRG to allow development and transmission line
corridors; (3) during a forest plan revision the Forest Service
recommends two primitive areas for wilderness designation; therefore,
the Agency proposes their designations be changed to WLR.
The Department does not anticipate extensive adjustments will occur
under this provision. The provision would provide public confidence
that if adjustments need to be considered, the process will be both
open to and understood by all interested parties.
Conclusion
The USDA, Forest Service, and the State of Idaho are committed to
conserving and managing Idaho Roadless Areas under the context of the
Agency's multiple-use mandate and consider roadless areas an important
component of the NFS. The Department, Agency, and State believe that
establishing a state-specific rule, based on the petition submitted by
the State, allows state-specific consideration of the needs of these
areas and is an appropriate solution to address the challenges of
managing Idaho Roadless Areas.
Collaborating with the State on the long-term strategy for the
management of Idaho Roadless Areas allows for the recognition of
national values and local situations and resolution of unique resource
management challenges. Collaboration with others who have a strong
interest in the conservation and management of inventoried roadless
areas will also help to ensure balanced management decisions that
maintain the most important characteristics and values of those areas.
The proposed rule envisions a sliding scale of designating themes
for the management of Idaho Roadless Areas. From most restrictive to
least restrictive, the themes are Wild Land Recreation; Special Areas
of Historic or Tribal Significance; Primitive; Backcountry/Restoration;
and General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland. Prohibitions with
exceptions or permissions with conditions for road construction,
discretionary mineral development, and timber cutting are proposed for
each theme.
[[Page 1142]]
USDA invites written comments on both the proposed rule and the
draft environmental impact statement and will consider those comments
in developing the final rule and final environmental impact statement.
The final rule will be published in the Federal Register.
Regulatory Certifications
Regulatory Planning and Review
This proposed rule was reviewed under USDA procedures, Executive
Order 12866 issued September 30, 1993 (E.O. 12866), as amended by 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). It has been determined that this proposed rule is not an
economically significant rule. This proposed rule will not have an
annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy nor adversely
affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health
or safety, nor state or local governments. This proposed rule is not
expected to interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency
nor raise new legal or policy issues. This proposed 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 inventoried roadless areas
management, this proposed rule has been designated as significant and
is therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget review under
E.O. 13422.
A regulatory impact analysis has been prepared for this proposed
rule. The benefits, costs, and distributional effects of three
alternatives referred to as follows: 2001 Roadless Rule (2001 rule),
existing forest plans (existing plans), and the Idaho State Petition
(proposed rule) are analyzed over a 15-year time period. As of the
printing of this proposed rule, the 2001 rule is in operation by court
order and represents the legal status quo. In absence of the 2001 rule,
management would be governed by existing plans and agency interim
direction. As such, for the purpose of regulatory impact analysis, the
2001 rule and existing forest plans are assumed to represent a range of
baseline conditions or goods and services provided by national forests
and grasslands in the near future in the absence of the proposed rule.
The proposed rule is programmatic in nature, consisting of
direction for road construction, road reconstruction, timber cutting,
and discretionary mineral activities, which would be applied to future
management activities in Idaho Roadless Areas. The purpose of the
proposed rule is to provide State-specific direction for the
conservation and management of inventoried roadless areas within the
State. The proposed rule integrates local management concerns with the
national objectives for protecting roadless area values and
characteristics.
The proposed rule would establish five management themes to clarify
direction within Idaho Roadless Areas in contrast to the single
management strategy assigned to all Idaho Roadless Areas under the 2001
rule. The five themes are Wild Land Recreation (WLR), Primitive,
Special Areas of Heritage and Tribal Significance (SAHTS), Backcountry/
Restoration (backcountry), and General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland
(GFRG). Management direction under the 2001 rule is most similar to the
backcountry/ restoration theme under the proposed rule. The proposed
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.
In general, the proposed rule does not affect the efficiency of
individual operations or activities (such as, an individual timber
sale) associated with forest resources and/or services, but may instead
affect the number or extent of opportunities as a function of
activities permitted within Idaho Roadless Areas on NFS lands. Because
the proposed rule does not prescribe site-specific activities, it is
difficult to quantify the benefits 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 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 manner. Benefits and costs are organized
and discussed in the context of `local resource concerns' and `roadless
characteristics' in an effort to remain consistent with overall purpose
of the proposed rule, recognizing that benefits associated with local
concerns may trigger indirect benefits in roadless characteristics in
some cases (such as, forest health). Table 1 summarizes the potential
benefits and costs of the proposed rule, the 2001 roadless rule, and
existing plan alternatives.
Distributional effects or economic impacts, in terms of jobs and
labor income, are quantified for five economic areas (EAs) for the
State using regional impact models (IMPLAN). Economic impacts are
evaluated only for changes in activities directly affected by the
proposed 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 proposed rule. Table 2 summarizes distributional effects and
economic impacts of the proposed rule and alternatives.
Details about the environmental effects of the proposed rule can be
found in the Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands
in Idaho Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Effects on
opportunities for small entities under the proposed rule are discussed
in the context of Executive Order 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.).
Local Resource Concerns
Local resource concerns include ensuring access, protecting
communities, property, and resources from risk of wildfire; as well as
protecting forests from the adverse effects of wildfire, insects, and
disease.
Approximately 1.4 million acres within Idaho Roadless Areas are
estimated to be at risk of 25% or more tree mortality (that is, high
risk) over the next 15 years. Of the 1.4 million acres at risk,
approximately 26,000 acres are within the GFRG and 939,000 acres in the
backcountry theme under the proposed rule. The areas identified within
the GFRG theme would have the most potential to be treated given their
treatment flexibility. Timber cutting in the backcountry theme would be
done on a limited basis and would be done to retain roadless
characteristics. Under existing plans, the high-risk acreage assigned
to the GRFG theme increases to 190,000 acres while 730,000 acres are
assigned to backcountry. Existing plans provide flexible opportunities
to treat high-risk acres through timber cutting on lands assigned to
both of these themes without constraints associated with roadless
characteristic retention. Projected levels of treatment, involving
timber cutting, are greatest under
[[Page 1143]]
existing plans (2,800 acres per year; 42,000 acres over 15 years)
followed by the proposed rule (800 acres per year; 12,000 acres over 15
years). Treatments associated with projected harvests over the next 15
years are likely to be effective in reducing the risks from insects and
disease in areas treated.
Timber cutting associated with treatments are estimated to be 0.5
million board feet (MMBF), 14 MMBF, and 4 MMBF per year for the 2001
rule, existing plans, and the proposed rule respectively and account
for 0.5%, 11.5%, and 3% of average annual harvests from National Forest
land in Idaho. A majority of the volume under the proposed rule is
projected to occur within the northern economic area (EA).
Approximately 1 million acres of Idaho Roadless Areas are within
the wildland urban interface (WUI), and about 40% of those acres
(450,000) are in high priority fire risk areas as defined by fire
regime and condition class. Opportunities to use a full range of
treatment methods to address severe wildfire risk, particularly within
the WUI, are substantially greater under the proposed rule relative to
the 2001 rule. Treatment flexibility expands only slightly under the
proposed rule compared to existing plans. Approximately 71% of WUI
acreage within Idaho Roadless Areas is assigned to management themes
that permit flexible treatment methods that include road construction
under the proposed rule, compared to 69% under existing plans. However,
fewer overall acres are projected for treatment under the proposed rule
due to other constraints (such as, maintenance of roadless
characteristics). Projected harvests could treat the equivalent of
approximately 5% of high priority areas within the WUI under the
proposed rule over a 15-year period. In contrast, approximately 14% of
high priority WUI areas could be treated under existing plans. An
insignificant amount of high priority WUI acreage would be treated
under the 2001 rule.
Phosphate mining activity on existing leases will be similar across
the alternatives over the next 15 years. However, 12,100 acres of
unleased known phosphate reserves within Idaho Roadless Areas will be
made available for future leasing or lease expansion under the proposed
rule that would not be accessible under the 2001 rule. Mining in these
areas could generate an estimated 545 million tons of phosphate ore,
but development of these areas is expected to occur over an extended
period (50+ years). All unleased areas with known phosphate reserves
(approximately 13,400 acres; estimated 603 million tons) will be
available for leasing over an extended period under existing plans.
There are negligible opportunities for geothermal development under
the 2001 rule. Geothermal opportunities increase under the proposed
rule where 233,600 acres of high geothermal potential, on land with
feasible slopes, are made available because of GFRG theme assignments.
These opportunities increase slightly under existing plans to 249,500
acres. The existing plans provide for greater development opportunities
in areas of medium geothermal potential with feasible slopes (457,700
acres) compared to the proposed rule (140,800 acres). There are
currently no existing geothermal leases on National Forest land in
Idaho.
The proposed 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, or energy corridors.
Roadless Characteristics
Roadless characteristics include high quality soil, water
(including drinking water), and 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. Shifts in the
number of roadless area 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 levels of road construction/
reconstruction, timber cutting, and leasable minerals activity actually
projected to occur during that time.
Based on the relative acreage assigned to different management
themes, the proposed rule creates greater potential for reductions in
scenic integrity compared to the 2001 rule but lower potential relative
to existing plans. The proposed rule assigns 5.5 million acres to
management themes (GFRG, backcountry) that permit activities that could
trigger moderate reductions in scenic integrity. Theme assignments
under existing plans create potential for triggering similar integrity
reductions on 5.9 million acres. Potential reductions would be
moderated under the backcountry theme due to more restrictive
management requirements relative to GFRG. There is little potential for
reductions in scenic integrity under the 2001 rule. Reasonably
foreseeable reductions in scenic integrity from timber cutting are
limited to those resulting from projected harvest levels. Foreseeable
reductions in scenic integrity from high to low levels from long-term
development (50+ years) of unleased phosphate reserves are similar for
the proposed rule (12,100 acres) and existing plans (13,400 acres) and
confined to the Caribou Targhee National Forest. Reductions in scenic
integrity associated with development of existing phosphate leases are
similar across the three alternatives.
The proposed rule does not directly affect wilderness designations
in the context of the National Wilderness Preservation System, but the
changes in activities permitted within Idaho Roadless Areas under the
proposed rule have the potential to affect the degree to which Idaho
Roadless Areas are considered for future wilderness designation.
Reductions in wilderness characteristics are most likely to occur in
areas assigned to the GFRG theme (1.262 million acres under existing
plans; 609,500 acres under the proposed rule). Activities may not
change wilderness characteristics if the effects of prior activities
are still evident within GFRG areas. Acreage recommended for wilderness
increases from 1,320,900 under existing plans (that is, current
wilderness recommendations) to 1,378,600 under the proposed rule,
primarily through assignment of areas to the wild land recreation
theme. A vast majority of acreage is likely to retain existing
wilderness characteristics under the 2001 rule, and no changes occur
regarding recommended wilderness under the 2001 rule.
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; development of future leases will affect opportunities
but not within 15 years (that is, >50 years). Perceptions of remoteness
and solitude may be affected in dispersed recreation areas where timber
cutting and road construction occur, but effects are constrained by
projected levels of these activities.
Opportunities for developed recreation are limited under the
proposed rule but increase to some extent under existing plans, though
reasonably foreseeable development is minimal. Opportunities for
maintaining dispersed recreation opportunities are high under the 2001
rule, with little potential for increases in developed recreation
opportunities. Concerns about access and designations for motorized
versus non-motorized recreation were raised in comments
[[Page 1144]]
during scoping, however, the proposed 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.
The potential for adverse effects to plant, wildlife, and aquatic
species and habitat is lower under the proposed rule, compared to
existing plans due to fewer acres assigned to more permissive themes.
However, reasonably foreseeable effects are constrained by projected
levels of road construction/reconstruction, timber cutting, and
leasable minerals activity over the next 15 years. Acreage assigned to
wild land, primitive, and SAHTS themes should have a beneficial effect
on sensitive species and habitat. Acreage under these themes contains
289 occurrences of known sensitive plant populations (out of a total of
666) compared to 293 occurrences on similar themes under existing
plans. The management prescriptions under the 2001 rule are likely to
have beneficial effects on sensitive species, as well as biodiversity.
Road building associated with timber cutting will have a negligible
effect on high hazard soils under all alternatives. 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 (future leases are not feasible under the 2001 rule).
The proposed rule is expected to have negligible adverse effects on
other resources associated with roadless characteristics including
cultural resources, air, water, climate change, non-timber products,
and outfitter and guide opportunities based on reasonably foreseeable
activity projections. Any adverse impacts to these resources and
services would be addressed through analysis conducted in accordance
with NEPA and minimized through compliance with forest plan guidelines.
Agency Costs and Revenues
Agency costs and revenues are summarized in Table 1. Aggregate
timber program costs under the proposed rule are expected to be greater
than costs under the 2001 rule and lower than costs under existing
plans when considering projected levels of timber cutting. Treatment
costs per acre are expected to be lower under the proposed rule and
existing plans compared to the 2001 rule due to greater flexibility
regarding treatment methods under the GFRG theme. Greater acreage
assigned to GFRG under existing plans implies potential for some gains
in treatment cost effectiveness relative to the proposed rule. Lower
costs imply greater capacity for generating viable sales and positive
net revenues for a given project. Net revenues may increase under the
proposed rule relative to the 2001 rule, primarily for the Idaho
Panhandle NF and the Northern economic area (EA) based on projected
levels of timber cutting. However, net revenues may decrease under the
proposed rule when compared to revenues generated by projected timber
cutting under existing plans for the Idaho Panhandle, Clearwater, and
Nez Perce National Forests.
Projected total miles of new roads (constructed and reconstructed)
are 15, 180, and 60 miles over the next 15 years under the 2001 rule,
existing plans, and the proposed rule respectively. Today,
approximately 1,800 miles of roads (include forest, other public,
private, and unauthorized roads) exist on 5% of the land within Idaho
Roadless Areas. Agency costs related to roads (e.g., administration,
planning, maintenance) are not likely to change significantly under the
proposed rule based on projected construction/reconstruction levels,
and due to the types of roads constructed (such as, temporary, single-
purpose).
Distributional Effects
The distributional effects of the proposed rule are quantified for
reasonably foreseeable levels of timber cutting and road construction
projected to occur over the next 15 years (see Table 2). The majority
of employment and income impacts are projected to occur in the
southeastern EA (due to leasable minerals), the northern EA (due to
timber cutting), and to some extent in the central EA. Predicted
amounts of phosphate output from Idaho Roadless Areas are not expected
to differ across alternatives over the next 15 years, implying that
jobs and labor income contributed by phosphate activities are constant
across alternatives.
Phosphate mining on existing leases is estimated to contribute the
greatest number of jobs and income, but jobs from this sector will not
differ by alternative. Timber cutting is primarily responsible for
differences in jobs and income across alternatives. Projected harvest
and accompanying road construction under the proposed rule is estimated
to contribute an additional 80 jobs and $1.6 million in income per
year, relative to conditions under the 2001 rule. These changes are
expected to occur in the northern (Idaho Panhandle NF) and southeastern
(Caribou/Targhee NF) economic areas. In contrast, annual employment and
income are estimated to be lower under the proposed rule compared to
existing plans by 221 jobs and $6 million in labor income. These
effects are likely to occur within the northern, southeastern, and
central (Clearwater NF) economic areas.
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 economic area. 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. Little or no
potential for adverse impacts to the local economy is predicted for
these counties under the proposed rule relative to the 2001 rule, but
some potential for adverse impacts exists compared to existing plans.
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. If SRSA is allowed to
lapse, the timber-dependent counties noted above are likely to
experience the greatest loss. 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.
[[Page 1145]]
Table 1.--Summary of Net Benefits of the Proposed Rule and Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 2001 Roadless rule Existing plans Proposed rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOCAL RESOURCE CONCERNS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Health
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insects and Disease.............. Most of the 1.4 million Opportunities for Opportunities for
acres currently at risk treatment under GFRG treatment under GFRG
of 25% mortality or and backcountry themes: and backcountry themes:
significant growth loss 190,000 acres 26,000 acres
will remain untreated. of high risk (9) forest of high risk (9) forest
assigned to GFRG. assigned to GFRG.
730,000 acres 940,000 acres
of high risk forest of high risk forest
assigned to backcountry. assigned to
backcountry.
Projected treatments on Backcountry treatments
42,000 acres likely to must be for forest
be effective over 15 health and/or hazardous
years. fuels reductions, and
retain roadless
characteristics.
Projected treatments on
12,000 acres likely to
be effective over 15
years.
Noxious Weeds.................... Spreading is unlikely Some potential for Some potential for
given limited potential spreading based on spreading based on
for soil disturbance. acreage assigned to acreage assigned to
28,000 acres of weeds GFRG (1.262 million); GFRG (609,500 acres);
currently found in Idaho the limited degree of the limited degree of
Roadless Areas. projected road projected construction,
construction, timber harvest and mineral
cutting, and mineral activity would minimize
activity will minimize the potential for
the potential for spreading. 2,600 acres
spreading. 8,300 acres of noxious weeds
of weeds currently currently found in
found in GFRG. GFRG.
Fuel Management.................. Road construction not Road construction Road construction
permitted in conjunction permitted in permitted in
with treatments on 100% conjunction with conjunction with
of wildland urban treatments on 69% of treatments on 71% of
interface (WUI). the WUI. the wildland urban
Treatments more Mechanical treatments interface (WUI).
expensive; insignificant without road Mechanical treatments,
acreage treated relative construction may be without road
to acres at risk. permitted on 22% of the construction may be
Limited capacity to WUI. permitted on 19% of the
treat high priority Mechanical treatments WUI.
condition class 2 and 3 not permitted on 9% of Mechanical treatments
areas. the WUI (7). not permitted on 10% of
Does not directly permit Projected harvests could the WUI (7).
timber cutting to reduce treat 14% of high Projected harvests could
risk of unwanted priority areas (i.e., treat 5% of high
wildland fire. fire regimes I, II, and priority areas (Fire
III, condition class 2 Regimes I, II and III,
and 3) within WUIs or Condition Class 2 and
1% of high priority 3) within WUIs or less
areas overall. than half a percent of
May permit timber high priority areas
cutting to reduce risk overall.
of unwanted wildland Directly permits timber
fire. cutting to reduce risk
of unwanted wildland
fires in the primitive,
backcountry, and GFRG
themes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timber Cutting--Projected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected timber cutting......... 0.5 MMBF/year............ 14 MMBF/year............ 4 MMBF/year.
(0.5% of annual (11.5% of annual (3% of annual
average)(1). average)(1). average)(1).
Vegetation and Fuels Treatments.. 100 acres/year........... 2,800 acres/year........ 800 acres/year.
1,500 acres over 15 years 42,000 acres over 15 12,000 acres over 15
years. years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roads--Projected (miles per year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent--Constructed........... 0.8...................... 4.8..................... 0.8.
Temporary--Constructed........... 0.2...................... 2.2..................... 1.7.
Reconstructed.................... 0........................ 5....................... 1.5.
Total New Roads.................. 1.0...................... 12...................... 4.0
(15 miles over 15 years). (180 miles over 15 (60 miles over 15
years). years).
Decommissioned................... 1........................ 4....................... 3.
Net Road Miles................... 0........................ 8....................... 1.
(120 miles over 15 (15 miles over 15
years). years).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1146]]
Leasable Minerals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leasable Resources: Phosphate Projected output is equal across all alternatives because (i) none of the
(existing leases). alternatives prohibit road construction and reconstruction associated with
existing leases and (ii) existing leases are expected to meet demand in
reasonably foreseeable future. Approximately 2 million tons per year of
phosphate ore projected to be mined from approximately 8,100 Idaho Roadless
Area acres under existing leases under all alternatives over an extended
period of 15 years or more (6).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leasable Resources: Phosphate Opportunities to recover Estimated 603 million Estimated 545 million
(future leases). phosphate from unleased tons of phosphate tons of phosphate
known phosphate areas deposits from 13,400 deposits from 12,100
within Idaho Roadless unleased acres unleased acres
Areas are negligible. available for available for
development. development (road
Development projected construction prohibited
to occur only over on primitive theme
extended period, over acres). Development
50+ years. Development projected to occur only
could reduce Idaho over extended period,
Roadless Areas acreage over 50+ years.
on Caribou-Targhee by Development could
1.8%. reduce Idaho Roadless
Areas acreage on
Caribou-Targhee by
1.7%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leasable Resources: Geothermal Trend data not available to speculate about reasonably foreseeable geothermal
Development. development across alternatives. Current lease applications could affect
approximately 7,000 acres within Idaho Roadless Areas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Negligible opportunities No opportunities on 40% No opportunities on 93%
for development. of acreage. of Idaho Roadless Areas
Limited opportunities on acreage.
46% of acreage. Open or unrestricted
Open or unrestricted opportunities on 7% of
opportunities on 14% of acreage (i.e., 609,500
acreage (i.e., 1.262 GFRG acres).
million GFRG acres). 233,600 acres of high
249,500 acres of high geothermal potential
geothermal potential located within GFRG
located within GFRG acreage with slopes
acreage with slopes less than 40% (4).
less than 40% (4). 140,800 acres of medium
457,700 acres of medium geothermal potential
geothermal potential located within GFRG
located within GFRG acreage with slopes
acreage with slopes less than 40% (4).
less than 40% (4).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Resource and Service Areas where Relative Impacts are Insignificant or Negligible Across Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
Saleable minerals (sand, stone, Differences in production of saleable minerals are projected to be minimal
gravel, pumice, etc.). across alternatives due to the relative inefficiencies of providing saleable
minerals from Idaho Roadless Areas.
Leasable Resources: 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, silver, None of the alternatives affect rights of reasonable access to prospect and
lead, etc.). explore lands open to mineral entry and develop valid claims under the
General Mining Act of 1872.
Special-Uses: Energy Corridors... None of the proposed corridors designated for oil, gas, and/or electricity
under Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act are within Idaho Roadless Areas.
Opportunities for non-Section 368 corridors within Idaho Roadless Areas are
a function of the themes assigned to the areas proposed for corridor
development; differences in opportunities across alternatives cannot be
discerned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROADLESS CHARACTERISTICS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenic Integrity................. Potential reductions from high to low quality on 8,100 acres due to existing
phosphate leases, across all alternatives.
[[Page 1147]]
High or very high scenic Potential for lower Potential for lower
integrity retained on scenic quality on 5.5 scenic quality on 5.9
most Idaho Roadless million acres due to million acres due to
Areas. permissions in management theme
management assignments and
prescriptions for associated permissions
timber cutting, road for timber cutting,
construction/ road construction/
reconstruction and reconstruction and
discretionary mineral discretionary mineral
activities, but activities, but
reasonably foreseeable reasonably foreseeable
losses are small given losses are small given
projections of projections of
activities in Idaho activities in Idaho
Roadless Areas (8). Roadless Areas (8).
Management prescriptions Management prescriptions
on remaining 3.8 on remaining 3.4
million acres expected million acres expected
to protect high to very to protect high to very
high scenic integrity. high scenic integrity.
Long-term reductions on Long-term reductions on
13,400 acres are 12,100 acres are
possible from new possible from new
phosphate leasing phosphate leasing
within Idaho Roadless within Idaho Roadless
Areas (5). Areas (5).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilderness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Wilderness Areas and 1,726,000 acres of 158,000 acres of GFRG 9,000 acres of GFRG and
Experience. roadless areas located and 842,000 acres of 954,000 acres of
adjacent to existing backcountry located backcountry located
wilderness. adjacent to existing adjacent to existing
Limited to no indirect wilderness. wilderness.
effect to wilderness Limited potential for Limited potential for
from activities in impacts to wilderness impacts to wilderness
roadless areas. experience. experience.
Recommended Wilderness........... No change or effect to Existing plans recommend
recommended wilderness 1,320,900 as wilderness
in existing plans. 1,378,600 acres in wild
land recreation.
57,700 acres
of additional
protection.
Some recommended
wilderness areas in the
Boulder-White Clouds
and Winegar roadless
areas would be managed
as primitive.
6,900 acres in Mallard
Larkins would be
managed as backcountry.
Wilderness Characteristics....... Majority of roadless Areas developed could Areas developed could
areas retain their have reduced wilderness have reduced wilderness
existing character. character. Activities character. Activities
in GFRG may not change in GFRG may not change
wilderness character if wilderness character if
prior activities are prior activities are
still evident. still evident.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sensitive Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Botanical Resources Reasonably foreseeable effects to all species from activities on acreage
(Biodiversity), Wildlife, and associated with existing phosphate leases apply across all alternatives. All
Aquatic Species and Habitat. projects and development associated with predicted activities would be
subject to NEPA and other regulatory requirements related to monitoring and
mitigation for sensitive species.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beneficial effects Beneficial effects Beneficial effects
expected. expected in wild land expected in wild land
recreation, primitive, recreation, primitive,
or SAHTS; Some or SAHTS; Limited
potential risk of potential risk of
adverse effects in adverse effects in
management backcountry; some
prescriptions similar potential risk in GFRG.
to backcountry and GFRG.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Occurrences of Known Sensitive Plant Populations, by Theme
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wild Land........................ 0........................ 127..................... 141
Primitive........................ 0........................ 166..................... 147
SAHTS............................ 0........................ 0....................... 1
Backcountry...................... 1,165.................... 523..................... 601
GFRG............................. 0........................ 84...................... 10
Forest Plan Special Areas........ 0........................ 265..................... 265
[[Page 1148]]
Recreation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreation (3)................... Relatively high potential Greatest opportunity for Potentially the greatest
for maintaining existing developed and road- level of protection for
dispersed recreation based recreation to dispersed recreation,
opportunities; little occur and expand, but foreseeable threats
potential for increasing magnitude of shift is from construction and
developed recreation. tempered by limited development are remote.
No measurable change to amount of construction No measurable change to
dispersed recreation projected to occur. dispersed recreation
opportunities. Feeling No measurable change to opportunities, except
of remoteness or dispersed recreation if unleased phosphate
solitude may change if opportunities, except deposits (12,100 acres)
timber cutting or road if unleased phosphate are developed. Feeling
construction/ deposits (13,400 acres) of remoteness or
reconstruction occurs are developed. Feeling solitude may change if
(projected 1,500 acres of remoteness or timber cutting or road
timber cutting and 15 solitude may change if construction/
miles of road timber cutting or road reconstruction occurs
construction/ construction/ (projected 12,000 acres
reconstruction over 15 reconstruction occurs timber cutting and 60
years. (projected 42,000 acres miles of road
No road construction/ timber cutting and 180 construction/
reconstruction permitted miles of road reconstruction over 15
to access new developed construction/ years).
recreations sites (9.3 reconstruction over 15 Road construction/
million acres). years. reconstruction
Road construction/ permitted to access new
reconstruction developed recreations
generally permitted to sites management in
access new developed GFRG (.6 million
recreations sites on acres), but there are
management no foreseeable
prescriptions similar developments.
to backcountry and GFRG
(5.5 million acres),
but there are no
foreseeable
developments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Uses..................... Reasonably foreseeable differences in effects across alternatives are
expected to be minimal given projected levels of road construction and
timber cutting. Existing permits unaffected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunting and Fishing.............. No effect to Opportunities could be Opportunities could be
opportunities. affected in locations affected in locations
of phosphate leasing of phosphate leasing
and geothermal and geothermal
development. No effect development. No effect
from timber cutting and from timber cutting and
limited road limited road
construction. construction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Resource and Service Areas where Relative Impacts are Negligible or Minimal Across Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cultural Resources............... Before 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
significant across alternatives due to projected levels of road construction
and short-term use and fate of new roads.
Low potential for Low to moderate Low potential for
disturbance and potential for disturbance and
vandalism. disturbance and vandalism.
vandalism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air, Soils, and Water............ Projected levels of road construction and timber cutting across alternatives
expected to have minimal effect. Levels of prescribed burning will vary to
slight extent but subject to strict guidelines for minimizing air impacts.
Minimal differences in effects on impaired surface waters (303(d) listed
waters) and surface sources of drinking water. Negligible differences in
effects on soils from road construction associated with timber cutting.
Effects on high hazard soils from road construction associated with
phosphate mining are likely, but effects are equivalent across alternatives
for existing leases and projected to occur well in the future (>50 years) on
the Caribou Targhee NF for unleased areas.
Climate Change................... The magnitude and rapidity of climate change is uncertain, particularly at
the finer scales such as Idaho Roadless Areas within forests. Variable
impacts across alternatives are therefore not quantified.
Non-timber products.............. Current access for the harvest of non-timber products is not expected to
change under the proposed rule. Assignment of Idaho Roadless Area acres to
themes that restrict road construction may limit access opportunities for
some individuals, but construction may also reduce availability of some
species. Projected changes in road miles are minimal across alternatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGENCY COSTS AND REVENUES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roads............................ Reasonably foreseeable differences in agency costs (planning, design, and
maintenance) are expected to be small given low road mile construction
projections, as well as the fact that new roads will often be temporary and/
or single-purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1149]]
Timber Program: Vegetation and Lowest total acreage Highest total acreage Intermediate amount of
Fuels Treatments. projected for treatment, projected for acreage projected for
implying low aggregate treatment, implying treatment, implying
timber program costs. higher aggregate timber moderate aggregate
However, per unit program costs. Per unit timber program costs,
treatment costs are treatment costs are relative to the 2001
expected to be highest, expected to be lower, rule and existing
implying lower implying higher plans. Per unit
probability of viable probability for treatment costs are
sales. positive net revenue expected to be lower,
Potential loss in net and viable sales. implying higher
revenue for Idaho Potential gain in net probability for
Panhandle NF relative to revenue for Idaho positive net revenue
the proposed rule (2). Panhandle, Clearwater, and viable sales.
and Nez Perce NFs, Potential gain in net
relative to the revenue for the Idaho
proposed rule (2). Panhandle NF relative
to the 2001 rule, and
potential loss in net
revenue for the Idaho
Panhandle, Clearwater,
and Nez Perce NFs,
relative to existing
plans (2).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Percentage of average harvest on all National Forest System land within Idaho that occurred between 2002 and
2006. Harvest primarily attributable to stewardship and treatments for forest health and fuels management.
(2) Projections based on average historic net revenue per unit of harvest and projected harvests. It is
recognized that an individual sale within any given forest unit may be below or above cost.
(3) The proposed rule does not provide direction on where and when OHV use would be permissible.
(4) Lease approvals subject to NEPA and other regulatory requirements. Acceptable slopes for leasing likely to
be < 4%.
(5) Upon completion of mining, scenic levels would be upgraded to a level commensurate with reclamation
implemented.
(6) 1,100 acres under existing leases are likely to be mined in 15 years in Sage Creek and Meadow Peak Idaho
Roadless Areas, with the remaining acres (7,000) expected to be mined over a more extended period.
(7) Includes land in forest plan special use areas.
(8) Reductions from high/very high to moderate scenic integrity.
(9) 25% or more tree mortality can be expected over the next 15 years.
Table 2.--Summary of Distributional Effects and Economic Impacts of the Proposed Rule and Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 2001 Roadless rule Existing plans Proposed rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timber Cutting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jobs (1)......................... 13/yr.................... 304/yr.................. 91/yr.
Labor income (1)................. $343,000/yr.............. $7,651,000/yr........... $1,935,000/yr.
Location of Jobs: BEA............ Northern EA (Idaho Northern (Idaho Northern (Idaho
Economic Areas (EA).............. Panhandle NF). Panhandle), Panhandle), and
southeastern (Caribou/ southeastern (Caribou/
Targhee NF), and Targhee NF) EAs.
central (Clearwater and
Nez Perce NF) EAs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leasable Minerals Phosphate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jobs and labor income (1)........ No changes in jobs (582/year) or labor income ($23.5 million/yr) contributed
by phosphate extraction on existing leases within Idaho Roadless Areas,
because none of the alternatives affect existing leases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No new leases on Idaho Jobs and income from new Jobs and income from new
Roadless Area likely to leases on unleased leases on unleased
be feasible. phosphate reserve areas phosphate reserve areas
within Idaho Roadless within Idaho Roadless
Areas in the Areas in the
southeastern EA are southeastern EA are
expected to occur over expected to occur over
an extended period (>50 an extended period (>50
yrs). yrs).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Road Construction and Reconstruction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jobs (1)......................... 2/yr..................... 12/yr................... 4/yr.
Labor income (1)................. $100,000/yr.............. $467,000/yr............. $150,000/yr.
Location of Jobs: BEA............ Northern and southeastern Northern, southeastern, Northern and
Economic Areas (EA).............. EAs. and central EAs. southeastern EAs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue Sharing and Resource Dependent Communities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timber-Dependent Counties (2).... Northern EA: Boundary, Bonner, Kootenai, Benewah, Latah, Ferry (WA), Pend
Oreille (WA), Shoshone, and Stevens (WA).
Central EA: Clearwater, Idaho, Lewis, Nez Perce, and Asotin (WA).
Southeastern EA: Bear Lake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1150]]
Revenue Sharing.................. Payments to counties are expected to remain the same under all alternatives
as long as the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act
remains in effect. If SRSA is allowed to lapse, timber-dependent counties
are likely to experience the greatest loss. Mineral-based payments to states
are a function of leasable receipts, but no differences in phosphate
production are projected across alternatives over the next 15 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adverse Impacts to Small Entity Greatest potential, given Least potential, given Lower potential relative
Opportunities. restrictions associated fewest management theme to the 2001 rule, and
with the backcountry restrictions. potential for some
theme. isolated impacts (e.g.,
northern and central
EAs) relative to
existing plans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Jobs and income contributed annually (2007$). Based on projected levels of timber cutting, road
construction, and phosphate mining output per year, conversion of physical output to final demand $) using
FEAST (citation), and application of IMPLAN multipliers (Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2003).
Counties where 10% of total labor income is attributable to timber-related sectors. Little or no potential for
adverse impacts to the local economy is predicted for these counties under the proposed rule relative to the
2001 rule but some potential for adverse impacts exists compared to existing plans. Changes in jobs and income
are not projected for phosphate mining, but counties dependent on phosphate mining include Caribou, Oneida,
Power, and Bannock in the southeastern EA.
Proper Consideration of Small Entities
This proposed rule has also been considered in light of Executive
Order 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 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. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required
for this proposed rule.
For many activities and/or program areas, small entity
opportunities under the proposed rule are projected to increase,
relative to the 2001 rule because of easing of restrictions on selected
activities under the backcountry management theme and adoption of the
less-restrictive GFRG management theme for a number of Idaho Roadless
Areas under the proposed rule. Exceptions include the potential for
losses in small entity opportunities associated with timber cutting in
the northern and central EAs, relative to existing plans. However,
recent harvests from Idaho Roadless Areas, as represented by projected
harvests under the 2001 rule, have been equal to or less than the
volumes projected under the proposed rule, and small business shares
are being met for the most part for forest units in these EAs. It is
unlikely that opportunities for small entities associated with
phosphate mining will decrease under the proposed rule given the size
of corporations currently operating mines in Idaho and flexibility
offered by management theme assignments.
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
This proposed rule does not call for any additional recordkeeping
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 (OMB 0596-0178) 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 proposed rule under the
requirements of Executive Order 13132 issued August 4, 1999 (E.O.
13132), Federalism. The Department has made an assessment that the
proposed rule conforms with the Federalism principles set out in E.O.
13132; 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 proposed rule does not
have Federalism implications. This proposed rule is based on a petition
submitted by the State of Idaho under the Administrative Procedure Act
at 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(e) and pursuant to Department of Agriculture
regulations at 7 CFR Sec. 1.28. The State's petition was developed
with involvement of local governments. The State has been a cooperating
agency for the development of this proposed rule. State and local
governments are encouraged to comment on this proposed rule, in the
course of this rulemaking process.
Consultation With Indian Tribal Governments
The United States has a unique relationship with Indian Tribes as
provided in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, and
federal statutes. These relationships extend to the Federal
government's management of public lands and the Forest Service strives
to assure that its consultation with Native American Tribes is
meaningful, in good faith, and entered into on a government-to-
government basis.
On September 23, 2004, President George W. Bush issued Executive
Memorandum Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribal
Governments recommitting the Federal government to work with federally
recognized Native American Tribal governments on a government-to-
government basis and strongly supporting and respecting Tribal
sovereignty and self-determination.
Management of roadless areas has been a topic of interest and
importance to Tribal governments. During promulgation of the 2001
Roadless Rule, Forest Service line officers in the field were asked to
make contact with Tribes to ensure awareness of the initiative and of
the rulemaking process. Outreach to Tribes was conducted at the
national forest and grassland level, which is how Forest Service
government-to-government dialog with Tribes is typically conducted.
Tribal representatives remained engaged
[[Page 1151]]
concerning these issues during the subsequent litigation and rulemaking
efforts.
The State's petition identifies that a vital part of its public
process in developing its petition were the recommendations and
comments received from Native American Tribes. The Governor's office
was keenly aware of the spiritual and cultural significance some of
these areas hold for the Tribes. The State solicited input from the
Coeur D'Alene, Kootenai, Nez Perce, Shoshone-Bannock, and Shoshone-
Paiute Tribes. The State and Forest Service have endeavored to reflect
those interests and concerns in the proposed rule. Based on that input,
the State and Forest Service developed a special theme to recognize and
address certain roadless areas with special areas of historic or Tribal
significance, including Pilot Knob, the Nimiipuu, and Lewis and Clark
Historic Trails.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000,
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,'' the
Department has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian
Tribal governments and has determined that the proposed rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect Indian Tribal government communities.
The proposed rule would establish direction governing the management
and protection of Idaho Roadless Areas, however, the proposed rule
respects prior existing rights, and it addresses discretionary Forest
Service management decisions involving road construction, timber
harvest, and some mineral activities. The Department has also
determined that this proposed rule does not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments. This proposed rule does
not mandate Tribal participation in roadless management of the planning
of activities in Idaho Roadless Areas. Rather, the Forest Service
officials are obligated by other agency policies to consult early with
Tribal governments and to work cooperatively with them where planning
issues affect Tribal interests.
No Takings Implications
This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630 issued March
15, 1988. It has been determined that the proposed rule does not pose
the risk of a taking of private property.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. After adoption of this proposed rule, (1) all
State and local laws and regulations that conflict with this proposed
rule or that would impede full implementation of this proposed rule
will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect would be given to this
proposed rule; and (3) this proposed rule 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), the Department has assessed the effects of this
proposed rule on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private
sector. This proposed rule does not compel the expenditure of $100
million or more by State, local, or Tribal governments or anyone in the
private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is
not required.
Energy Effects
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13211 of
May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that this
proposed rule does not constitute a significant energy action as
defined in the Executive order. As explained above and in greater
detail in the DEIS, this proposed rule is not expected to significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. The proposed 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 proposed rule also provides
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.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 294
National Forests, Recreation areas, Navigation (air), State
petitions for inventoried roadless area management.
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 Mineral activities in Idaho Roadless Areas.
294.25 Timber cutting, sale, or removal in Idaho Roadless Areas.
294.26 Other activities in Idaho Roadless Areas.
294.27 Scope and applicability.
294.28 List of designated Idaho Roadless Areas.
Subpart C--Idaho Roadless Area Management
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 472, 529, 551, 1608, 1613; 23 U.S.C. 201,
205.
Sec. 294.20 Purpose.
(a) The purpose of this subpart is to provide, in the context of
multiple-use management, lasting protection for designated inventoried
roadless areas in the national forests in Idaho. These rules set forth
the procedures for management of Idaho Roadless Areas notwithstanding
any other regulatory provision set forth in part 294.
(b) Consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960
(16 U.S.C. 528-531), the goal of managing the National Forest System is
to sustain in perpetuity the productivity of the land and the multiple
uses of its renewable resources. These renewable resources are to be
managed so that they are used in the combination that will best meet
the needs of the American people.
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 the term ``at risk-community'' means an area:
(1) That is comprised of:
(i) An interface community as defined in the notice entitled
``Wildland Urban Interface Communities Within the Vicinity of Federal
Lands That Are at High Risk From Wildfire'' issued by the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with Title
IV of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106-291); or
(ii) A group of homes and other structures with basic
infrastructure and services (such as utilities and collectively
maintained transportation routes) within or adjacent to Federal land;
(2) In which conditions are conducive to a large-scale wildland
fire disturbance event; and
[[Page 1152]]
(3) For which a significant threat to human life or property exists
as a result of a wildland fire disturbance event.
Backcountry/restoration theme: An Idaho Roadless Area
classification intended to retain undeveloped character, while
providing a variety of recreation opportunities and allowing for
limited forest health activities including preserving biological
strongholds for a variety of species and maintaining or restoring the
characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure.
Forest road: As defined at 36 CFR 212.1, a ``forest road'' 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 utilization of the National Forest
System and the use and development of its resources.
General forest, rangeland, and grassland theme: An Idaho Roadless
Area classification intended to provide a variety of goods and services
as well as a broad range of recreational opportunities and conservation
of 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 ``municipal water supply
system'' 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.
Primitive theme: An Idaho Roadless Area classification intended to
remain relatively undisturbed by human management activities while
allowing for limited forest health activities including preserving
biological strongholds for a variety of species and protecting
ecological integrity.
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, a ``road'' 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,
``road construction or reconstruction'' means supervising, inspecting,
actual building, and incurrence of all costs incidental to the
construction or reconstruction of a road.
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;
(8) Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and
(9) Other locally identified unique characteristics.
Significant risk: A natural resource condition threatening an at-
risk community or municipal water supply system.
Special area of historic or tribal significance theme: An Idaho
Roadless Area classification intended to be relatively undisturbed by
human management activities in order to maintain unique Tribal or
historic 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, a ``temporary road'' is
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.
Wild land recreation theme: An Idaho Roadless Area classification
intended to areas show little evidence of human-caused disturbance, and
natural conditions and processes are predominant.
Sec. 294.22 Idaho Roadless Areas.
(a) Designations. All National Forest System lands within the State
of Idaho listed in Sec. 294.28 are hereby designated as Idaho Roadless
Areas.
(b) 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(e).
(c) Management classifications. Management classifications for
Idaho Roadless Areas express a management 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 forest, rangeland, and grassland
management. 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
(d) Activities in Idaho Roadless Areas shall be consistent with the
applicable management classification listed for each area under Sec.
294.28.
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 listed under Sec. 294.28; however,
a road may be constructed or reconstructed in an area listed as wild
land recreation, special area of historic or Tribal significance, or
primitive when provided by statute, treaty, pursuant to reserved or
outstanding rights, or other legal duty of the United States.
(b) Backcountry/restoration. (1) Road construction and
reconstruction are allowed in Idaho Roadless Areas listed under Sec.
294.28 only if the responsible official determines that it meets one or
more of the following criteria:
(i) A road is needed to protect public health and safety in cases
of significant risk or imminent threat of flood, wildland fire, or
other catastrophic event that, without intervention, would cause the
loss of life or property; or to facilitate forest health activities
permitted under Sec. 294.25(c)(1);
(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
[[Page 1153]]
rights, or other legal duty of the United States;
(iv) Road realignment is needed to prevent resource damage that
arises from the design, location, use, or deterioration of a forest
road and cannot be mitigated by road maintenance. Road realignment may
occur under this paragraph only if the road is deemed essential for
public or private access, natural resource management, or public health
and safety;
(v) Road construction 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.
(vii) A road is needed in conjunction with activities permissible
under the limited mineral activity exceptions set forth in Sec.
294.24.
(2) Any road constructed pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this
section must be a temporary road unless the responsible official
determines that a forest road meets a criterion set forth in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section and the addition of a forest
road will not substantially alter roadless characteristics as defined
in this proposed rule.
(3) Maintenance of forest or temporary roads is permissible in
areas listed as backcountry/restoration in Sec. 294.28.
(c) General forest, rangeland, and grassland. (1) A forest or
temporary road may be constructed or reconstructed in Idaho Roadless
Areas listed in Sec. 294.28 after the necessary environmental analysis
is completed.
(2) Maintenance of forest and temporary roads is permissible as
provided in Sec. 294.28.
Sec. 294.24 Mineral activities in Idaho Roadless Areas.
(a) Nothing in this subpart shall be construed as expressly or
implicitly restricting mineral leases, contracts, permits, and
associated activities (including, but not limited to, access and road
construction or reconstruction, surface use, and occupancy) authorized
prior to the effective date of the final rule; including any subsequent
renewal, reissuance, continuation, extension, or modification, or new
legal instruments, for mineral and associated activities on these or
adjacent lands. Nothing in this subpart shall affect mining activities
conducted pursuant to the General Mining Law of 1872.
(b) After [final rule effective date], the Forest Service will not
authorize sale of common variety mineral materials in Idaho Roadless
Areas that are listed to be managed pursuant to wild land recreation,
special areas of historic or Tribal significance, or primitive themes.
(c) After [final rule effective date], 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 that are listed to be managed pursuant to wild
land recreation, special areas of historic or Tribal significance, and
primitive themes.
(d) After [final rule effective date], the Forest Service will not
recommend, authorize, or consent to road construction or reconstruction
associated with mineral leases in Idaho Roadless Areas that are listed
as backcountry/restoration; except such road construction or
reconstruction may be authorized in association with phosphates
leasing. Surface use or occupancy without road construction or
reconstruction is permissible for all mineral leasing.
(e) After [final rule effective date], 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 that are listed as backcountry/
restoration only if the use of these mineral materials is incidental to
an activity otherwise allowed under this proposed rule.
(f) After [final rule effective date], the Forest Service may
recommend, authorize, or consent to activities associated with mineral
leases in Idaho Roadless Areas that are designated to be managed
pursuant to general forest, rangeland, and grassland theme.
(g) Road construction or reconstruction associated with mining
activities allowed under this subsection must be conducted in a manner
that minimizes effects on surface resources, prevents unnecessary or
unreasonable surface disturbances, and complies with all applicable
lease requirements, land and resource management plans except as
provided in Sec. 294.27(b), regulations, and laws. Roads constructed
or reconstructed pursuant to this subsection must be decommissioned
when no longer needed or upon expiration of the lease, contract, or
permit, whichever is sooner.
Sec. 294.25 Timber cutting, sale, or removal in Idaho Roadless Areas.
(a) Wild land recreation. The cutting, sale, or removal of timber
is prohibited unless the responsible official determines:
(1) It is for personal or administrative use, as provided for in 36
CFR part 223; or
(2) It is incidental to the implementation of a management activity
not otherwise prohibited by this subpart.
(b) Special areas of historic or tribal significance, or primitive.
The cutting, sale, or removal of timber is prohibited unless existing
roads or aerial harvest systems are used and the responsible official
determines that:
(1) The cutting, sale, or removal of timber will maintain or
improve one or more of the roadless characteristics as defined in this
proposed rule and is needed for one of the following purposes:
(i) To improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive
species habitat; or
(ii) To maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem
composition and structure or to reduce the significant risk of wildland
fire effects.
(2) The cutting, sale, or removal of timber is:
(i) For personal or administrative use, as provided for in 36 CFR
part 223; or
(ii) Incidental to the implementation of a management activity not
otherwise prohibited by this subpart.
(c) Backcountry/restoration. Timber may be cut, sold, or removed if
the responsible official determines that one of the following
circumstances exists.
(1) The cutting, sale, or removal of timber will maintain or
improve one or more of the roadless characteristics as defined in this
proposed rule and is needed for one of the following purposes:
(i) To improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive
species habitat; or
(ii) To maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem
composition and structure or to reduce the significant risk of wildland
fire effects.
(2) The cutting, sale, or removal of timber is:
(i) For personal or administrative use, as provided for in 36 CFR
part 223;
(ii) Incidental to the implementation of a management activity not
otherwise prohibited by this subpart; or
(iii) In a substantially altered portion of an Idaho Roadless Area
designated as backcountry/restoration, which has been altered due to
the construction of
[[Page 1154]]
a forest road and subsequent timber cutting. Both the road construction
and subsequent timber cutting must have occurred prior to the effective
date of this rule.
(d) General forest, rangeland, and grassland. Timber may be cut,
sold, or removed upon the discretion of the responsible official
consistent with the applicable forest plan except as provided in Sec.
294.27(b) after the required site-specific environmental analysis,
including public involvement, is completed.
Sec. 294.26 Other Activities in Idaho Roadless Areas.
(a) Motorized travel. Nothing in this subpart shall be construed as
expressly or implicitly affecting the current or future management
status of existing roads or trails in Idaho Roadless Areas. Decisions
concerning the future management and/or status of existing roads or
trails in Idaho Roadless Areas under this rule shall be made during the
applicable travel management processes.
(b) Grazing. Nothing in this subpart shall be construed as
expressly or implicitly affecting the current management status of
existing grazing allotments in Idaho Roadless Areas. Future road
construction or reconstruction associated with grazing operations shall
conform to this rule.
(c) Motorized equipment and mechanical transport. Nothing in this
subpart shall be construed as expressly or impliedly affecting the
current or future management status of the existing use of motorized
equipment and mechanical transport in Idaho Roadless Areas. Decisions
concerning the future management and/or use of motorized equipment and
mechanical transport in Idaho Roadless Areas under this rule shall be
made during the applicable forest planning processes.
Sec. 294.27 Scope and applicability.
(a) 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 [final rule effective
date].
(b) The provisions set forth in this subpart shall take precedence
over any inconsistent regulatory provision (including, to the extent it
has any current legal effect, the regulations contained in subpart B of
this part) or land and resource management plan. This subpart does not
compel the amendment or revision of any land and resource management
plan.
(c) This subpart does not revoke, suspend, or modify any project or
activity decision made prior to [final rule effective date].
(d) This subpart is 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.
(e) Correction or modification may occur under the following
circumstances:
(1) Administrative corrections. The Chief of the Forest Service may
issue administrative corrections to the maps of lands identified in
Sec. 294.22(b) at any time. Corrections are effective upon public
notice. Administrative corrections include, but are not limited to,
adjustments that remedy clerical, typographical, mapping errors, or
improvements in mapping technology.
(2) Modifications. The Chief may add to, remove from, or modify the
designations and management classifications listed in Sec. 294.28
based on changed circumstances or public need. If such modification
would result in a significant change, public involvement comparable to
that required for the promulgation of this rule shall be conducted;
that is, notice and comment rulemaking. Factors to be considered in
assessing the significance of the modifications include location and
size, degree of change, and the purpose of the modification. At least
30 days public notice shall be given prior to any non-significant
modification of the classifications of lands listed in Sec. 294.28.
(f) 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. 294.28 List of Designated Idaho Roadless Areas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest
Wild land Backcountry plan
Forest Idaho roadless area recreation Primitive restoration GFRG SAHTS special
areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ........... ......... ......... .........
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 ......... ......... .........
[[Page 1155]]
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 Ten Mile/Black 027 .......... X X ......... ......... .........
Boise..................................... 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 ......... 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 ......... .........
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 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 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 ......... ......... .........
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 ......... ......... .........
Challis................................... Railroad Ridge.............. 922 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Challis................................... Red Hill.................... 027 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Challis................................... Red Mountain................ 916 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
[[Page 1156]]
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
Clearwater................................ Lolo Creek (LNF)............ 805 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Clearwater................................ Mallard-Larkins............. 300 X ......... X ......... ......... .........
Clearwater................................ Meadow Creek--Upper North 302 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Fork.
Clearwater................................ Moose Mountain.............. 305 .......... ......... 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 ......... ......... .........
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 ......... 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
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 X ......... X
Idaho Panhandle........................... Mallard-Larkins............. 300 X ......... X 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 ......... X
Idaho Panhandle........................... Selkirk..................... 125 X 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 ......... ......... 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 ......... X
Idaho Panhandle........................... White Mountain.............. 127 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Idaho Panhandle........................... Wonderful Peak.............. 152 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Kootenai.................................. Mt. Willard-Lake Estelle.... 173 .......... ......... X ......... ......... X
[[Page 1157]]
Kootenai.................................. Roberts..................... 691 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Kootenai.................................. Scotchman Peaks............. 662 .......... ......... X X ......... .........
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 (new)..... ......... .......... X ........... ......... ......... .........
Nez Perce................................. Silver Creek--Pilot Knob.... 849 .......... ......... ........... ......... X .........
Nez Perce................................. West Fork Crooked River ......... .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
(new).
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 Hells Canyon/7 026 .......... X X X ......... X
Devils.
Payette................................... Scenic...................... 001 .......... X ........... ......... ......... X
Payette................................... Horse Heaven................ 925 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Payette................................... Indian Creek................ 019 .......... X ........... ......... ......... .........
Payette................................... Meadow Creek................ 913 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Payette................................... Needles..................... 911 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 ......... ......... .........
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 ......... ......... .........
Salmon.................................... Italian Peak................ 945 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Salmon.................................... Jesse Creek................. 510 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Salmon.................................... Jureano..................... 506 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Salmon.................................... Lemhi Range................. 903 .......... ......... X ......... ......... X
Salmon.................................... Little Horse................ 514 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Salmon.................................... Long Tom.................... 521 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Salmon.................................... McEleny..................... 505 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Salmon.................................... Musgrove.................... 517 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Salmon.................................... Napias...................... 515 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Salmon.................................... Napoleon Ridge.............. 501 .......... ......... ........... X ......... X
Salmon.................................... Oreana...................... 516 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Salmon.................................... Perreau Creek............... 511 .......... ......... ........... X ......... .........
Salmon.................................... Phelan...................... 508 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Salmon.................................... Sal Mountain................ 513 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
[[Page 1158]]
Salmon.................................... Sheepeater.................. 520 .......... ......... X ......... ......... X
Salmon.................................... South Deep Creek............ 509 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Salmon.................................... South Panther............... 504 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Salmon.................................... Taylor Mountain............. 902 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Salmon.................................... West Big Hole............... 943 .......... X X ......... ......... X
Salmon.................................... West Panther Creek.......... 504 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Sawtooth.................................. Black Pine.................. 003 .......... ......... X ......... ......... X
Sawtooth.................................. Blackhorse Creek............ 039 .......... X ........... ......... ......... .........
Sawtooth.................................. Boulder-White Clouds........ 920 X 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
Sawtooth.................................. Pettit...................... 017 .......... ......... X ......... ......... X
Sawtooth.................................. Pioneer Mountains........... 921 X 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 ......... ......... .........
Targhee................................... Diamond Peak................ 601 X X X X ......... X
Targhee................................... Garfield Mountain........... 961 .......... X X X ......... X
Targhee................................... Garns Mountain.............. 611 .......... ......... X ......... ......... X
Targhee................................... Italian Peak................ 945 X ......... X X ......... X
Targhee................................... Lionhead.................... 963 X ......... X ......... ......... X
Targhee................................... Mt. Jefferson............... 962 .......... X X ......... ......... X
Targhee................................... Palisades................... 613 X ......... X ......... ......... X
Targhee................................... Poker Peak.................. 616 .......... 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
Wallowa-Whitman........................... Big Canyon Id............... 853 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Wallowa-Whitman........................... Klopton Creek--Corral Creek 854 .......... ......... X ......... ......... .........
Id.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: December 17, 2007.
Abigail R. Kimbell,
Chief, Forest Service.
[FR Doc. 07-6305 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P