[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1135-1158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6305]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f3bab7909c9e9e969d8780b39580819c92979f968080dd9c8194"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="baf3fed9d5d7d7dfd4cec9fadcc9c8d5dbded6dfc9c994d5c8dd">[email protected]</span></a>. 
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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#097b7a6a61676c606d6c7b496f7a276f6c6d277c7a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a1d3d2c2c9cfc4c8c5c4d3e1c7d28fc7c4c58fd4d2">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 
(<greek-i>849), Nez Perce National Forest; (2) Nimiipuu and Lewis and 
Clark National Historic Trials, which includes portions of Bighorn-
Weitas (<greek-i>306), Eldorado Creek (<greek-i>312), Hoodoo 
(<greek-i>301), North Lochsa Slope (<greek-i>307), Weir-Post Office 
(<greek-i>308), Clearwater National Forest; and (3) Pioneer Area--
Mallard-Larkins (<greek-i>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    <bullet> 190,000 acres    <bullet> 26,000 acres
                                    will remain untreated.     of high risk (9) forest   of high risk (9) forest
                                                               assigned to GFRG.         assigned to GFRG.
                                                               <bullet> 730,000 acres    <bullet> 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.
                                                               <bullet> 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      <greek-i>  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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>