Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 1135 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This proposed rule is not an 

economically significant rule and does 

not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it does not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards is inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is not likely to have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. A preliminary 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’

supporting this preliminary 

determination is available in the docket 

where indicated under ADDRESSES. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. A new § 165.1411 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.1411 Security zone; waters 

surrounding U.S. Forces vessel SBX–1, HI. 

(a) Location. The following area, in 

U.S. navigable waters within the 

Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone (see 

33 CFR 3.70–10), from the surface of the 

water to the ocean floor, is a security 

zone: All waters extending 500 yards in 

all directions from U.S. Forces vessel 

SBX–1. The security zone moves with 

the SBX–1 while it is in transit and 

becomes fixed when the SBX–1 is 

anchored, position-keeping, or moored. 

(b) Regulations. The general 

regulations governing security zones 

contained in 33 CFR 165.33 apply. Entry 

into, transit through, or anchoring 

within, this zone while it is activated, 

and thus subject to enforcement, is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port or a designated 

representative thereof. 

(c) Suspension of Enforcement. The 

Coast Guard will suspend enforcement 

of the security zone described in this 

section whenever the SBX–1 is within 

the Honolulu Defensive Sea Area (see 6 

FR 6675). 

(d) Informational notice. The Captain 

of the Port of Honolulu will cause notice 

of the enforcement of the security zone 

described in this section to be made by 

broadcast notice to mariners. The SBX–

1 is easy to recognize because it 

contains a large white object shaped like 

an egg supported by a platform that is 

larger than a football field. The platform 

in turn is supported by six pillars 

similar to those on large oil-drilling 

platforms. 

(e) Authority to enforce. Any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty 

officer, and any other Captain of the 

Port representative permitted by law, 

may enforce the security zone described 

in this section. 

(f) Waiver. The Captain of the Port 

may waive any of the requirements of 

this rule for any person, vessel, or class 

of vessel upon finding that application 

of the security zone is unnecessary or 

impractical for the purpose of maritime 

security. 

(g) Penalties. Vessels or persons 

violating this rule are subject to the 

penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 

50 U.S.C. 192. 

Dated: December 6, 2007. 

V.B. Atkins 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Honolulu. 

[FR Doc. E8–19 Filed 1–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
1136 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

of common variety minerals and 

discretionary mineral leasing 

appropriate; and will the proposed 

mechanism for administrative 

corrections and modifications be 

sufficient to accommodate future 

adjustments necessary due to changed 

circumstances or public need? 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by April 7, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent via 

email to IDcomments@fsroadless.org. 

Comments also may be submitted via 

the world wide web/Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Written comments 

concerning this notice should be 

addressed to Roadless Area 

Conservation-Idaho, P.O. Box 162909, 

Sacramento, CA 95816–2909, or via 

facsimile to 916–456–6724. 

All comments, including names and 

addresses, when provided, are placed in 

the record and are available for public 

inspection and copying. The public may 

inspect comments received at http:// 

roadless.fs.fed.us. 

A copy of the draft environmental 

impact statement (DEIS), the DEIS 

summary, and other information related 

to this rulemaking is available at the 

national roadless Web site (http:// 

www.roadless.fs.fed.us) as well as by 

calling the number listed below, under 

the ‘‘for further information’’ heading. 

Reviewers may request printed copies or 

compact disks of the DEIS and the 

summary by writing to the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Publication 

and Distribution, 240 West Prospect 

Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526–2098. Fax 

orders will be accepted at 970–498–

1122. Order by e-mail from 

rschneider@fs.fed.us. When ordering, 

requesters must specify if they wish to 

receive the summary or full set of 

documents and if the material should be 

provided in print or on disk. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad 

Gilbert, Idaho Roadless Rule Team 

Leader, at (208) 765–7438. Individuals 

using telecommunication devices for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 

p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday 

through Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

As a leader in natural resource 

conservation, the Forest Service 

provides direction for the management 

and use of the Nation’s forests, 

rangelands, and aquatic ecosystems. The 

Forest Service is charged to collaborate 

cooperatively with states, Tribes, and 

other interested parties regarding the 

use and management of the National 

Forest System (NFS). 

State of Idaho Petition 

On June 23, 2005, the State of Idaho 

(hereafter referred to as State) 

announced it would submit a petition 

pursuant to the State Petitions Rule (70 

FR 25654), requesting specific 

regulatory protections and certain 

management flexibility for the 

approximately 9.3 million acres of NFS 

inventoried roadless areas in Idaho. As 

part of that announcement, the State 

invited affected county commissioners, 

Tribes, and members of the public to 

develop specific recommendations for 

the NFS inventoried roadless areas in 

their respective areas. Additionally, 

over 50 public meetings were held and 

the public was encouraged to send 

individual comments directly to the 

Governor’s office for consideration. 

Idaho’s petition, under the State 

Petition Rule, was submitted to the 

Secretary of Agriculture for 

consideration on September 20, 2006. 

Subsequently, Idaho submitted a new 

petition on October 5, 2006, under 

section 553(e) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act and Department 

regulations at 7 CFR § 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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
1138 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 294.28 for 

the sake of completeness; however, the 

proposed rule does not recommend 

management direction for those lands. 

The following describes the current 

and desired conditions for each 

management theme. While the ability of 

the Forest Service to conduct certain 

activities (road building, activities 

associated with mineral development, 

and timber cutting) typically varies from 

theme-to-theme, other activities 

(motorized travel, grazing activities, or 

use of motorized equipment and 

mechanical transport) are not changed 

by this proposed rule. While these other 

activities are not regulated by this 

proposed rule, such activities would be 

subject to future planning and 

decisionmaking processes of the Forest 

Service. Furthermore, when 

appropriate, wildland fire and 

prescribed fire are tools which would be 

available across all themes. 

Additionally, like the 2001 rule, timber 

cutting, sale, or removal in inventoried 

roadless areas is permitted when 

incidental to implementation of a 

management activity not otherwise 

prohibited by this proposed rule. 

Examples of these activities include, but 

are not limited to, trail construction or 

maintenance; removal of hazard trees 

adjacent to forest roads for public health 

and safety reasons; fire line construction 

for wildland fire suppression or control 

of prescribed fire; survey and 

maintenance of property boundaries; 

other authorized activities such as ski 

runs and utility corridors; or for road 

construction and reconstruction where 

allowed by this proposed rule. 

Management Theme 1: Wild Land 

Recreation (WLR) 

Current Condition: WLR areas were 

generally identified during the forest 

planning process as recommended for 

wilderness designation. These areas 

show little evidence of historic or 

human use. Natural conditions and 

processes are predominant. People 

visiting these areas can find outstanding 

opportunities for solitude and 

challenge. 

Desired Condition: WLR areas show 

little evidence of human-caused 

disturbance and natural conditions and 

processes are predominant. 

Management Theme 2: Special Areas of 

Historic or Tribal Significance (SAHTS) 

Current Condition: SAHTS are 

relatively undisturbed by human 

management activities, and natural 

conditions and processes are 

predominant. This theme consists of 

three areas: (1) Pilot Knob (#849), Nez 

Perce National Forest; (2) Nimiipuu and 

Lewis and Clark National Historic 

Trials, which includes portions of 

Bighorn-Weitas (#306), Eldorado Creek 

(#312), Hoodoo (#301), North Lochsa 

Slope (#307), Weir-Post Office (#308), 

Clearwater National Forest; and (3) 

Pioneer Area—Mallard-Larkins (#300), 

Idaho Panhandle National Forest. The 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALSEP07JA08.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 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, sitespecific 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
1140 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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, sitespecific 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 sitespecific 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 § 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’’

(§ 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 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 CaribouTarghee National Forest. The proposed 

rule contains text at § 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, 

§ 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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
1142 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 Statespecific 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 sitespecific 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
1144 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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, singlepurpose). 

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. Mineralbased 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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 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 acres currently at risk of 25% mortality 

or significant growth loss will 

remain untreated.

Opportunities for treatment under 

GFRG and backcountry 

themes: 

• 190,000 acres of high risk (9) 

forest assigned to GFRG.

• 730,000 acres of high risk 

forest assigned to backcountry.

Opportunities for treatment under 

GFRG and backcountry 

themes: 

• 26,000 acres of high risk (9) 

forest assigned to GFRG. 

• 940,000 acres of high risk 

forest assigned to backcountry. 

Projected treatments on 42,000 

acres likely to be effective over 

15 years.

Backcountry treatments must be 

for forest health and/or hazardous fuels reductions, and retain roadless characteristics. 

Projected treatments on 12,000 

acres likely to be effective over 

15 years. 

Noxious Weeds ............................... Spreading is unlikely given limited 

potential for soil disturbance. 

28,000 acres of weeds currently found in Idaho Roadless 

Areas.

Some potential for spreading 

based on acreage assigned to 

GFRG (1.262 million); the limited degree of projected road 

construction, timber cutting, 

and mineral activity will minimize the potential for spreading. 8,300 acres of weeds currently found in GFRG.

Some potential for spreading 

based on acreage assigned to 

GFRG (609,500 acres); the limited degree of projected construction, harvest and mineral 

activity would minimize the potential for spreading. 2,600 

acres of noxious weeds currently found in GFRG. 

Fuel Management ........................... Road construction not permitted 

in conjunction with treatments 

on 100% of wildland urban 

interface (WUI).

Treatments more expensive; insignificant acreage treated relative to acres at risk. Limited 

capacity to treat high priority 

condition class 2 and 3 areas.

Does not directly permit timber 

cutting to reduce risk of unwanted wildland fire.

Road construction permitted in 

conjunction with treatments on 

69% of the WUI.

Mechanical treatments without 

road construction may be permitted on 22% of the WUI.

Mechanical treatments not permitted on 9% of the WUI (7).

Projected harvests could treat 

14% of high priority areas (i.e., 

fire regimes I, II, and III, condition class 2 and 3) within WUIs 

or 1% of high priority areas 

overall.

May permit timber cutting to reduce risk of unwanted wildland 

fire.

Road construction permitted in 

conjunction with treatments on 

71% of the wildland urban 

interface (WUI). 

Mechanical treatments, without 

road construction may be permitted on 19% of the WUI. 

Mechanical treatments not permitted on 10% of the WUI (7). 

Projected harvests could treat 5% 

of high priority areas (Fire Regimes I, II and III, Condition 

Class 2 and 3) within WUIs or 

less than half a percent of high 

priority areas overall. 

Directly permits timber 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 .............................

(0.5% of annual average)(1) ........

14 MMBF/year ..............................

(11.5% of annual average)(1) ......

4 MMBF/year. 

(3% of annual average)(1). 

Vegetation and Fuels Treatments ... 100 acres/year .............................

1,500 acres over 15 years ...........

2,800 acres/year ..........................

42,000 acres over 15 years .........

800 acres/year. 

12,000 acres over 15 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 ................................................

(15 miles over 15 years) ..............

12 .................................................

(180 miles over 15 years) ............

4.0 

(60 miles over 15 years). 

Decommissioned ............................. 1 ................................................... 4 ................................................... 3. 

Net Road Miles ............................... 0 ................................................... 8 ................................................... 1. 

(120 miles over 15 years) ............ (15 miles over 15 years). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
1146 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE AND ALTERNATIVES—Continued 

Category 2001 Roadless rule Existing plans Proposed rule 

Leasable Minerals 

Leasable Resources: Phosphate 

(existing leases).

Projected output is equal across all alternatives because (i) none of the 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 

(future leases).

Opportunities to recover phosphate from unleased known 

phosphate areas within Idaho 

Roadless Areas are negligible.

Estimated 603 million tons of 

phosphate deposits from 

13,400 unleased acres available for development. Development projected to occur only 

over extended period, over 50+ 

years. Development could reduce Idaho Roadless Areas 

acreage on Caribou-Targhee 

by 1.8%.

Estimated 545 million tons of 

phosphate deposits from 

12,100 unleased acres available for development (road 

construction prohibited on 

primitive theme acres). Development projected to occur only 

over extended period, over 50+ 

years. Development could reduce Idaho Roadless Areas 

acreage on Caribou-Targhee 

by 1.7%. 

Leasable Resources: Geothermal 

Development.

Trend data not available to speculate about reasonably foreseeable geothermal development across alternatives. Current lease applications could affect approximately 7,000 acres within Idaho Roadless Areas. 

Negligible opportunities for development.No opportunities on 40% of acreage.

Limited opportunities on 46% of 

acreage.

Open or unrestricted opportunities 

on 14% of acreage (i.e., 1.262 

million GFRG acres).

249,500 acres of high geothermal 

potential located within GFRG 

acreage with slopes less than 

40% (4).

457,700 acres of medium geothermal potential located within 

GFRG acreage with slopes less 

than 40% (4).

No opportunities on 93% of Idaho 

Roadless Areas acreage. 

Open or unrestricted opportunities 

on 7% of acreage (i.e., 609,500 

GFRG acres). 

233,600 acres of high geothermal 

potential located within GFRG 

acreage with slopes less than 

40% (4). 

140,800 acres of medium geothermal potential located within 

GFRG acreage with slopes 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, 

gravel, pumice, etc.).

Differences in production of saleable minerals are projected to be minimal across alternatives due to the 

relative inefficiencies of providing saleable minerals from Idaho Roadless Areas. 

Leasable Resources: Oil, Gas, and 

Coal.

Differences in activity and revenue associated with oil, gas, and coal development are expected to be 

minimal based on existing trends and inventories. 

Locatable minerals (gold, silver, 

lead, etc.).

None of the alternatives affect rights of reasonable access to prospect and 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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 1147 

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE AND ALTERNATIVES—Continued 

Category 2001 Roadless rule Existing plans Proposed rule 

High or very high scenic integrity 

retained on most Idaho 

Roadless Areas.

Potential for lower scenic quality 

on 5.5 million acres due to permissions in management prescriptions for timber cutting, 

road construction/reconstruction 

and discretionary mineral activities, but reasonably foreseeable losses are small given 

projections of activities in Idaho 

Roadless Areas (8).

Management prescriptions on remaining 3.8 million acres expected to protect high to very 

high scenic integrity.

Long-term reductions on 13,400 

acres are possible from new 

phosphate leasing within Idaho 

Roadless Areas (5).

Potential for lower scenic quality 

on 5.9 million acres due to 

management theme assignments and associated permissions for timber cutting, road 

construction/reconstruction and 

discretionary mineral activities, 

but reasonably foreseeable 

losses are small given projections of activities in Idaho 

Roadless Areas (8). 

Management prescriptions on remaining 3.4 million acres expected to protect high to very 

high scenic integrity. 

Long-term reductions on 12,100 

acres are possible from new 

phosphate leasing within Idaho 

Roadless Areas (5). 

Wilderness 

Existing Wilderness Areas and Experience.1,726,000 acres of roadless 

areas located adjacent to existing wilderness.

Limited to no indirect effect to wilderness from activities in 

roadless areas.

158,000 acres of GFRG and 

842,000 acres of backcountry 

located adjacent to existing wilderness.

Limited potential for impacts to 

wilderness experience.

9,000 acres of GFRG and 

954,000 acres of backcountry 

located adjacent to existing wilderness. 

Limited potential for impacts to 

wilderness experience. 

Recommended Wilderness ............. No change or effect to recommended wilderness in existing plans.Existing plans recommend 

1,320,900 as wilderness 

1,378,600 acres in wild land 

recreation.

• 57,700 acres of additional 

protection.

Some recommended wilderness 

areas in the Boulder-White 

Clouds and Winegar roadless 

areas would be managed as 

primitive.

6,900 acres in Mallard Larkins 

would be managed as 

backcountry.

Wilderness Characteristics .............. Majority of roadless areas retain 

their existing character.

Areas developed could have reduced wilderness character. 

Activities in GFRG may not 

change wilderness character if 

prior activities are still evident.

Areas developed could have reduced wilderness character. 

Activities in GFRG may not 

change wilderness character if 

prior activities are still evident. 

Sensitive Species 

Botanical Resources (Biodiversity), 

Wildlife, and Aquatic Species and 

Habitat.

Reasonably foreseeable effects to all species from activities on acreage associated with existing phosphate leases apply across all alternatives. All 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 expected .......... Beneficial effects expected in wild 

land recreation, primitive, or 

SAHTS; Some potential risk of 

adverse effects in management 

prescriptions similar to 

backcountry and GFRG.

Beneficial effects expected in wild 

land recreation, primitive, or 

SAHTS; Limited potential risk 

of adverse effects in 

backcountry; some potential 

risk in 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
1148 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE AND ALTERNATIVES—Continued 

Category 2001 Roadless rule Existing plans Proposed rule 

Recreation 

Recreation (3) ................................. Relatively high potential for maintaining existing dispersed recreation opportunities; little potential for increasing developed 

recreation.

No measurable change to dispersed recreation opportunities. 

Feeling of remoteness or solitude may change if timber cutting or road construction/reconstruction occurs (projected 

1,500 acres timber cutting and 

15 miles of road construction/ 

reconstruction over 15 years.

No road construction/reconstruction permitted to access new 

developed recreations sites 

(9.3 million acres).

Greatest opportunity for developed and road-based recreation to occur and expand, but 

magnitude of shift is tempered 

by limited amount of construction projected to occur.

No measurable change to dispersed recreation opportunities, 

except if unleased phosphate 

deposits (13,400 acres) are developed. Feeling of remoteness 

or solitude may change if timber cutting or road construction/ 

reconstruction occurs (projected 42,000 acres timber cutting and 180 miles of road construction/reconstruction over 15 

years.

Road construction/reconstruction 

generally permitted to access 

new developed recreations 

sites on management prescriptions similar to backcountry and 

GFRG (5.5 million acres), but 

there are no foreseeable developments.

Potentially the greatest level of 

protection for dispersed recreation, foreseeable threats from 

construction and development 

are remote. 

No measurable change to dispersed recreation opportunities, 

except if unleased phosphate 

deposits (12,100 acres) are developed. Feeling of remoteness 

or solitude may change if timber cutting or road construction/ 

reconstruction occurs (projected 12,000 acres timber cutting and 60 miles of road construction/reconstruction over 15 

years). 

Road construction/reconstruction 

permitted to access new developed recreations sites management in GFRG (.6 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 ............. Opportunities could be affected in 

locations of phosphate leasing 

and geothermal development. 

No effect from timber cutting 

and limited road construction.

Opportunities could be affected in 

locations of phosphate leasing 

and geothermal development. 

No effect from timber cutting 

and limited road 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 disturbance and 

vandalism.

Low to moderate potential for disturbance and vandalism.Low potential for disturbance and 

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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 1149 

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE AND ALTERNATIVES—Continued 

Category 2001 Roadless rule Existing plans Proposed rule 

Timber Program: Vegetation and 

Fuels Treatments.

Lowest total acreage projected for 

treatment, implying low aggregate timber program costs. 

However, per unit treatment 

costs are expected to be highest, implying lower probability 

of viable sales.

Potential loss in net revenue for 

Idaho Panhandle NF relative to 

the proposed rule (2).

Highest total acreage projected 

for treatment, implying higher 

aggregate timber program 

costs. Per unit treatment costs 

are expected to be lower, implying higher probability for 

positive net revenue and viable 

sales.

Potential gain in net revenue for 

Idaho Panhandle, Clearwater, 

and Nez Perce NFs, relative to 

the proposed rule (2).

Intermediate amount of acreage 

projected for treatment, implying moderate aggregate timber 

program costs, relative to the 

2001 rule and existing plans. 

Per unit treatment costs are expected to be lower, implying 

higher probability for positive 

net revenue and viable sales. 

Potential gain in net revenue for 

the Idaho 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 ....................

Economic Areas (EA) ......................

Northern EA (Idaho Panhandle 

NF).

Northern (Idaho Panhandle), 

southeastern (Caribou/Targhee 

NF), and central (Clearwater 

and Nez Perce NF) EAs.

Northern (Idaho Panhandle), and 

southeastern (Caribou/Targhee 

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 

Roadless Area likely to be feasible.

Jobs and income from new 

leases on unleased phosphate 

reserve areas within Idaho 

Roadless Areas in the southeastern EA are expected to 

occur over an extended period 

(>50 yrs).

Jobs and income from new 

leases on unleased phosphate 

reserve areas within Idaho 

Roadless Areas in the southeastern EA are expected to 

occur over an extended period 

(>50 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 ....................

Economic Areas (EA) ......................

Northern and southeastern EAs .. Northern, southeastern, and central EAs.Northern and 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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
1150 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE AND

ALTERNATIVES—Continued 

Category 2001 Roadless rule Existing plans Proposed rule 

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 

Opportunities.

Greatest potential, given restrictions associated with the 

backcountry theme.

Least potential, given fewest 

management theme restrictions.

Lower potential relative to the 

2001 rule, and potential for 

some 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. § 553(e) and 

pursuant to Department of Agriculture 

regulations at 7 CFR § 1.28. The State’s 

petition was developed with 

involvement of local governments. The 

State has been a cooperating agency for 

the development of 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-toGovernment Relationship with Tribal 

Governments recommitting the Federal 

government to work with federally 

recognized Native American Tribal 

governments on a government-togovernment 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-togovernment dialog with Tribes is 

typically conducted. Tribal 

representatives remained engaged 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 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 ShoshonePaiute 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 riskcommunity’’ 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
1152 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(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 nonmotorized, 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 humancaused disturbance, and natural 

conditions and processes are 

predominant. 

§ 294.22 Idaho Roadless Areas. 

(a) Designations. All National Forest 

System lands within the State of Idaho 

listed in § 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 

§ 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 § 294.28. 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 § 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 § 294.28 

after the necessary environmental 

analysis is completed. 

(2) Maintenance of forest and 

temporary roads is permissible as 

provided in § 294.28. 

§ 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 § 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. 

§ 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
1154 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 294.27(b) after the 

required site-specific environmental 

analysis, including public involvement, 

is completed. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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. 

§ 294.28 LIST OF DESIGNATED IDAHO ROADLESS AREAS. 

Forest Idaho roadless area # Wild land 

recreation Primitive Backcountry restoration GFRG SAHTS 

Forest 

plan 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 ................ ................ ................


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 1155 

§ 294.28 LIST OF DESIGNATED IDAHO ROADLESS AREAS.—Continued 

Forest Idaho roadless area # Wild land 

recreation Primitive Backcountry restoration GFRG SAHTS 

Forest 

plan special areas 

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 ................ ................ ................


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
1156 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

§ 294.28 LIST OF DESIGNATED IDAHO ROADLESS AREAS.—Continued 

Forest Idaho roadless area # Wild land 

recreation Primitive Backcountry restoration GFRG SAHTS 

Forest 

plan special areas 

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 

Fork.

302 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Clearwater ................... Moose Mountain ........................... 305 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Clearwater ................... North Fork Spruce—White Sand .. 309 X X X ................ ................ ................

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 1157 

§ 294.28 LIST OF DESIGNATED IDAHO ROADLESS AREAS.—Continued 

Forest Idaho roadless area # Wild land 

recreation Primitive Backcountry restoration GFRG SAHTS 

Forest 

plan special areas 

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 Wilderness........... ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

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 (new) ... .......... ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Nez Perce ................... West Meadow Creek .................... 845 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Payette ........................ Big Creek Fringe .......................... 009 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Payette ........................ Caton Lake ................................... 912 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Payette ........................ Chimney Rock .............................. 006 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Payette ........................ Cottontail Point/Pilot Peak ............ 004 ................ X X ................ ................ X

Payette ........................ Council Mountain .......................... 018 ................ X ................... ................ ................ X 

Payette ........................ Crystal Mountain ........................... 005 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Payette ........................ Cuddy Mountain ........................... 016 ................ X ................... X ................ X 

Payette ........................ French Creek Hells Canyon/7 

Devils.

026 ................ X X X ................ X 

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 ................ ................ ................


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
1158 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

§ 294.28 LIST OF DESIGNATED IDAHO ROADLESS AREAS.—Continued 

Forest Idaho roadless area # Wild land 

recreation Primitive Backcountry restoration GFRG SAHTS 

Forest 

plan special areas 

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 Id .. 854 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

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 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 111 

Implementation of Intelligent Mail

Barcodes 

AGENCY: Postal Service. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In January 2009, mailers will 

be required to meet one of two options 

using Intelligent Mail barcodes to 

access automation prices for letters and 

flats. Automation prices will no longer 

be available for the use of the POSTNET 

barcode. This Federal Register notice 

provides advance information to help 

mailers understand the mail preparation 

requirements that the Postal Service will 

propose when using Intelligent Mail

barcodes and offers insight into the 

additional information that will be 

available to mailers who comply with 

these requirements. 

DATES: In order to transition to 

Intelligent Mail barcodes by January 

2009, it is important that we receive 

comments to this advance notice 

February 21, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written 

comments to the Manager, Mailing 

Standards, U.S. Postal Service, 475 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 3436, 

Washington, DC 20260–3436. Written 

comments may be inspected and 

photocopied at USPS Headquarters 

Library, 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 11th 

Floor N, Washington DC between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m. EST, Monday through 

Friday. Comments and questions can 

also be e-mailed to imb@usps.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Chatfield, e-mail: 

william.a.chatfield@usps.gov phone: 

202–268–7278; Karen Zachok, e-mail: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS