61456 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

36 CFR Part 294 

RIN 0596–AC62 

Special Areas; Roadless Area 

Conservation; Applicability to the 

National Forests in Idaho 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule and record of 

decision. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA or Department) is 

adopting a state-specific, final rule 

establishing management direction for 

designated roadless areas in the State of 

Idaho. The final rule designates 250 

Idaho Roadless Areas (IRAs) and 

establishes five management themes 

that provide prohibitions with 

exceptions or conditioned permissions 

governing road construction, timber 

cutting, and discretionary mineral 

development. 

The final rule takes a balanced 

approach recognizing both local and 

national interests for the management of 

these lands. The Department and Forest 

Service are committed to the important 

challenge of protecting roadless areas 

and their important characteristics. The 

final rule achieves this through five land 

classifications that assign various 

permissions and prohibitions regarding 

road building, timber cutting, and 

discretionary mineral activities. The 

final rule also allows the Forest Service 

to continue to be a good neighbor and 

reduce the risk of wildland fires to atrisk communities and municipal water 

supply systems. The rule does not 

authorize the building of a single road 

or the cutting of a single tree; instead it 

establishes permissions and 

prohibitions that will govern what types 

of activities may occur in IRAs. Any 

decision to build a road, allow mineral 

activities, harvest a tree, or conduct any 

other activity permissible under this 

final rule will require appropriate sitespecific analysis under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

other applicable laws. Projects will also 

be consistent with the applicable land 

management plan (LMP) components. 

This final rule supersedes the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 

roadless rule) for National Forest 

System (NFS) lands in the State of 

Idaho. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective October 16, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Idaho Roadless Rule Team Leader Brad 

Gilbert at (208) 765–7438. Individuals 

using telecommunication devices for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

1–800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 

p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday 

through Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document serves as both notice of final 

rule and record of decision. 

Decision 

For the reasons set out below, the 

Department hereby promulgates a 

regulation establishing IRAs as 

described in Alternative 4 of the 

‘‘Roadless Area Conservation National 

Forest System Lands in Idaho Final 

Environmental Impact Statement,’’ 

USDA Forest Service, 2008, and the 

supporting record. This decision is not 

subject to Forest Service appeal 

regulations. 

Outline 

The following section outlines the 

contents of the preamble. 

Introduction and Background 

Roadless Area Inventories in Idaho 

Purpose and Need for the Idaho Roadless 

Rule 

Public Involvement on the Proposed Rule 

• How Was Public Involvement Used in 

the Rulemaking Process? 

• How Did the RACNAC Participate in the 

Rulemaking Process? 

Alternatives Considered 

• Alternatives Considered by the 

Department 

• The Environmentally Preferred 

Alternative 

Comments on the Proposed Rule and 

Changes Made in Response 

• General Comments Not Related to 

Particular Rule Provisions 

• Summary of Changes and Comments 

Related to Particular Rule Provisions 

Regulatory Certifications 

Introduction and Background 

On October 5, 2006, Idaho Governor 

James Risch submitted a petition to the 

Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) to 

establish new management for Idaho’s 

inventoried roadless areas on NFS 

lands. Idaho’s petition divided roadless 

areas into five broad management 

themes: Wild Land Recreation (WLR); 

Special Areas of Historic or Tribal 

Significance (SAHTS); Primitive; 

Backcountry/Restoration (BCR); and 

General Forest, Rangeland, and 

Grassland (GFRG). The petition was 

submitted under section 553(e) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act and 

Department regulations at 7 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 1.28. The 

Roadless Area Conservation National 

Advisory Committee (RACNAC) (72 FR 

13469) reviewed the Idaho petition on 

November 29 and 30, 2006, in 

Washington, DC. The committee issued 

a unanimous, consensus-based 

recommendation on December 19, 2006, 

that the Secretary direct the Forest 

Service, with the State of Idaho as a 

cooperating agency, to proceed with 

rulemaking. The Committee’s report 

provided specific advice and suggested 

clarifications regarding particular 

issues. After considering the advisory 

committee’s review and report, the 

Secretary accepted the petition and 

directed the Forest Service to initiate 

rulemaking on December 22, 2006. 

A notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

was published in the Federal Register 

April 10, 2007, (72 FR 17816). A notice 

of availability for the draft 

environmental impact statement (DEIS) 

was published on December 21, 2007, 

(72 FR 72708). The Forest Service 

published a proposed rule for 

conservation of NFS inventoried 

roadless areas within Idaho on January 

7, 2008, (73 FR 1135). The notice of 

availability for the final environmental 

impact statement (FEIS) was published 

on September 5, 2008, (73 FR 51815). 

Additional information, maps, and other 

materials concerning the FEIS, IRAs, 

and roadless areas nationally, can be 

found at http://roadless.fs.fed.us/. 

The Department is committed to 

conserving and managing inventoried 

roadless areas. The Department 

considers the final rule as the most 

appropriate solution to address the 

challenges of inventoried roadless area 

management on NFS lands in the State 

of Idaho. Collaborating and cooperating 

with states and other interested parties 

regarding the long-term strategy for the 

conservation and management of 

inventoried roadless areas allows 

recognition of both national values and 

local situations. 

The Department believes that the final 

Idaho Roadless Rule collaboratively 

resolves an issue of great importance to 

the people of Idaho and the nation. The 

management of large tracts of 

undeveloped land has been a 

contentious issue since the founding of 

the Forest Service in 1905. The Forest 

Service has engaged in numerous 

approaches and periodic reviews to 

address how to best manage these lands. 

The Idaho Roadless Rule represents a 

unique effort to address these difficult 

questions. How can the Agency best 

conserve open space? How can the 

Agency protect some of the most 

magnificent areas in Idaho and the 

nation? How much active management, 

including reducing fuel levels through 

timber harvest, should the Agency 

consider allowing to reduce the risk of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61457 

unwanted wildland fire effects on 

adjacent private and other public lands? 

The State of Idaho petition included 

specific information and 

recommendations for the management 

of individual inventoried roadless areas 

in the State. Additionally, the State of 

Idaho examined roadless areas sharing 

boundaries or overlapping with all 

neighboring states and determined 

coordination with Montana and Utah 

was necessary to ensure consistency of 

management themes assigned to these 

inventoried roadless areas. 

The unique perspectives and 

knowledge provided by the State and its 

citizens was of great assistance 

throughout this rulemaking. Many of 

these roadless areas form the backdrop 

for Idaho communities and have become 

part of their identity. They are used for 

hiking, camping, hunting, and 

motorized recreation on backcountry 

trails. Local communities are also 

sensitive to the economic consequences 

of Federal land management, whether 

for recreation or other multiple-use 

purposes. Although this rule does not 

provide management direction for 

recreation and access management, its 

emphasis on retaining the roadless 

characteristics over the vast majority of 

IRA acres will address recreation and 

scenery concerns from both national 

and local perspectives. 

Recently, there have been several 

attempts to resolve the roadless issue 

nationally and in the State of Idaho. 

Since the Forest Service Roadless Area 

Review and Evaluation (RARE II), the 

Agency has used locally driven forest 

plans to manage inventoried roadless 

areas. While these plans accounted for 

the comments of local communities by 

considering the characteristics of each 

individual roadless area, some felt these 

plans lacked a national perspective and 

allowed too much modification of 

roadless characteristics. 

The 2001 roadless rule sought to 

answer these questions from a national 

perspective, but many felt that the rule’s 

approach would cause undue harm to 

local communities. Some states and 

communities felt disenfranchised by the 

process. 

The State of Idaho indicated that its 

decision to petition was precipitated by 

the State’s belief that it was not 

provided an adequate opportunity to 

participate in the development of the 

2001 roadless rule. The State expressed 

concern that the rule could be 

interpreted as not allowing adequate 

protection for communities and 

municipal water supplies from the 

threat of unwanted wildland fire effects. 

Additionally, the State indicated its 

belief that the 2001 roadless rule could 

negatively affect some local 

communities that are dependent on use 

of resources from NFS lands. 

On August 12, 2008, the Federal 

District Court for the District of 

Wyoming declared that the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 

roadless rule) was promulgated in 

violation of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and the Wilderness 

Act. The court held ‘‘the roadless rule 

must be set aside’’ and that ‘‘[t]herefore, 

the Court ORDERS that the Roadless 

Rule, 36 CFR 294.10 to 294.14, be 

permanently enjoined, for the second 

time.’’ Previously, another Federal 

district court in California had issued an 

order that reinstated the 2001 roadless 

rule, including the Tongass-specific 

amendment, and specified that ‘‘federal 

defendants are enjoined from taking any 

further action contrary to the [2001] 

Roadless Rule * * *.’’ Both these orders 

have been appealed and the Forest 

Service has sought relief in both Federal 

district courts. For purposes of this 

rulemaking, however, nothing in the 

pending litigation limits the Secretary 

from conducting state-specific 

rulemaking regarding roadless area 

management or from evaluating the 

2001 roadless rule as one alternative in 

the FEIS. 

The Department has continued to seek 

a middle ground to resolve this issue by 

using forest plans, the locally driven 

state petition process, and integrating 

the national perspective provided by 

RACNAC. While the proposed rule 

made strides in accomplishing this 

objective, several respondents and 

RACNAC expressed concern whether 

some provisions could be read to allow 

portions of the BCR areas to be managed 

in a way that varied from the Governor’s 

stated intent to manage the BCR similar 

to the way the area would be managed 

under the 2001 roadless rule while 

providing for limited stewardship 

activities. This was not the intent. 

This final rule refines provisions and 

represents a compromise that balances 

the nationally recognized need for 

conservation of IRAs with being more 

responsive to local communities and 

citizens. Specifically, the final rule 

conserves the undeveloped/unroaded 

character for the vast majority of the 

IRAs; allows limited fuel treatment 

activities to reduce the risk of wildland 

fire effects to private and public 

property and municipal water supply 

systems; and accommodates limited 

exceptions for some communities highly 

dependent on the natural resources 

found on NFS lands. 

These undeveloped lands will become 

increasingly important as sources of 

public drinking water, plant and animal 

diversity, natural appearing landscapes, 

and other unique resources as the nation 

continues to grow in population and 

faces increasing demands for the various 

multiple-use resources available from 

NFS lands. 

Roadless Area Inventories in Idaho 

This rulemaking relies on the most 

recent inventory available for roadless 

areas within each national forest in the 

State of Idaho. Land management plans 

were used, as well as other assessments 

and the inventories associated with the 

2000 Roadless Area Conservation Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Using 

these inventories, the Forest Service has 

identified approximately 9.3 million 

acres of inventoried roadless areas that 

are the subject of this rule. 

The Agency has sought to be 

particularly sensitive to concerns over 

the accuracy of the inventories. The 

2001 roadless rule used the inventories 

of record from late 1999 as their basis 

for boundaries. This final rule uses 

these inventories as a starting point but 

also looked at updates identified 

through land management plan (LMP) 

revisions, most notably on the CaribouTarghee National Forest (NF) in 1998 

and the southwest Idaho forests (Boise, 

Payette and Sawtooth NFs) in 2003. 

New inventories for northern Idaho 

forests (Idaho Panhandle, Clearwater, 

and Nez Perce NFs) currently in LMP 

revision were also used. These 

inventories are based on agency 

direction in Forest Service Handbook 

(FSH) 1909.12, section 70. The oldest 

inventory used is from the SalmonChallis NF, which dates to their LMP 

from mid-1980. 

Changes to the roadless inventory 

reflect improvements in mapping and 

elimination of some areas that had been 

developed since the last inventory of 

record and inclusion of some areas after 

review. Inventories used for this final 

rule have all received review and 

comment by the public during the LMP 

revision process prior to this 

rulemaking. 

Purpose and Need for the Idaho 

Roadless Rule 

The purpose of the Idaho Roadless 

Rule is to respond to the State’s petition 

to recommend State-specific direction 

for the conservation and management of 

inventoried roadless areas within the 

State of Idaho. The final Idaho Roadless 

Rule integrates local management 

concerns and the need to protect these 

areas with the national objectives for 

protecting roadless area values and 

characteristics. 

Collaborating with the State of Idaho 

on the long-term strategy for the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61458 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

management of IRAs recognizes national 

values and local situations and resolves 

unique resource management 

challenges. Collaboration with others 

who have a strong interest in the 

conservation and management of 

inventoried roadless areas also helps 

ensure balanced management decisions 

that maintain the most important 

characteristics and values of those areas. 

The management direction 

established by the rule is based on 

individual roadless characteristics for 

lands containing outstanding or unique 

features where there is minimal or no 

evidence of human use; culturally 

significant areas; general roadless 

characteristics where human uses may 

or may not be apparent; as well as some 

areas displaying high levels of human 

use. The Department also recognizes 

there is compelling interest in— 

• Reducing the threat to 

communities, homes, and property from 

the risk of severe wildfire or other risks 

associated with adjacent Federal lands; 

• Reducing the threat to forests from 

the negative effects of severe wildfire 

and insect and disease outbreaks; and 

• Assuring access to property, for the 

State, Tribes, and citizens that own 

property within roadless areas. 

Between 2001 and 2007, wildland 

fires burned about 3.1 million acres in 

Idaho, of which about 1 million acres 

were in IRAs. Wildland fire is a natural 

component of these roadless areas; 

however, actions to reduce the risk of 

wildland fire effects to communities and 

municipal water supply systems may be 

needed in some situations. In 2003, 

Congress recognized the need to 

improve the capacities of the 

Departments of Agriculture and Interior 

to conduct hazardous fuel reduction 

projects, by passing the Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act (HFRA) (Pub. L. 108– 

148). 

Aware of all of these concerns and the 

long unresolved debates over conserving 

and managing inventoried roadless 

areas in the absence of wilderness 

legislation for the State of Idaho and 

after considering the State’s petition, the 

advice and recommendations of the 

RACNAC, Tribes, and public; the 

Secretary determined that regulatory 

direction for managing Idaho’s roadless 

areas was needed. 

Public Involvement on the Proposed 

Rule 

• How Was Public Involvement Used 

in the Rulemaking Process? 

A notice of intent to prepare an EIS 

on ‘‘Roadless Area Conservation; 

National Forest System Lands in Idaho’’ 

was published in the Federal Register, 

April 10, 2007, (68 FR 17816). The 

public comment period ended on May 

10, 2007. The Forest Service received 

about 38,000 comments, of which 

32,000 were form letters. The remaining 

letters consisted of original comments or 

form letters with additional original 

text. 

A notice of availability for the DEIS 

was published in the Federal Register 

on December 21, 2007, (72 FR 72708). 

The Forest Service published a 

proposed rule for conservation of 

national forests inventoried roadless 

areas in Idaho on January 7, 2008, (73 

FR 1135). A copy of the proposed rule 

and the DEIS has been available on the 

World Wide Web/Internet at http:// 

roadless.fs.fed.us/ since January 7, 2008. 

A public meeting on the proposed rule 

was held in Washington, DC on January 

14, 2008. Sixteen public meetings were 

held in Idaho between January 22 and 

February 28, 2008. 

In addition to the suggestions from 

the RACNAC, the Department received 

approximately 140,000 responses. 

Responses included advocacy for a 

particular outcome or regulatory 

language, as well as suggestions for 

analyses to conduct, issues to consider, 

alternatives to the proposed action, and 

calls for compliance with laws and 

regulations. Response to comments on 

the DEIS are in Appendix R of the FEIS. 

These comments played a key role in 

the development of modifications to the 

proposed rule and the decision made in 

this record of decision. 

It is noteworthy that many of the 

improvements between draft and final 

were made in response to requests made 

by Idaho Indian Tribes. Some of the 

theme changes were made in direct 

response to Tribal requests (see FEIS 

Appendix P). Chapters 3.15 (Cultural 

Resources) and 3.16 (Idaho and Affected 

Indian Tribes) were modified in the 

FEIS based on Tribal input. Section 

294.28(h) was added to Scope and 

Applicability assuring Tribes this rule 

would not affect any of their rights or 

Federal Government responsibilities to 

consult on projects in roadless areas. 

The Department and Forest Service are 

grateful for the insights and serious 

attention the Tribes have provided 

during this rulemaking. 

• How Did the RACNAC Participate 

in the Rulemaking Process? 

The RACNAC held open meetings in 

various locations across the country. 

The meetings helped the RACNAC 

develop recommendations to the 

Secretary to be considered in the 

development of the final rule. The 

RACNAC submitted their final 

recommendations to the Secretary in a 

letter dated May 30, 2008. 

Through the public meetings as well 

as Tribal and public comments, the 

Agency and State repeatedly heard that 

any exception to the 2001 roadless 

rule’s road building prohibitions must 

be based on an actual on-the-ground 

need. Most notable among those needs 

was the protection of property and 

municipal water supply systems for atrisk communities, and phosphate 

development. 

The Agency and State sought the 

RACNAC’s advice concerning a 

framework for better achieving the 

objectives laid out in the proposed rule. 

The RACNAC recognized that a onesize-fits-all management regime for the 

BCR theme was unrealistic. The 

committee provided advice on a 

framework for protecting at-risk 

communities and their water systems 

after several public meetings and careful 

deliberation. The Department adopted 

most of these recommendations in the 

final rule. The Department carefully 

considered all input before making a 

decision in areas where the RACNAC 

could not reach consensus; for example, 

building new roads for forest health 

activities. 

The RACNAC served a critical role in 

advising the Department regarding the 

critical need to go beyond past 

differences and focus on the on-theground management issues for these 

lands. This focus led to important 

adjustments including: (1) Reducing 

GFGR acres by 200,000; (2) increasing 

BCR acres by 280,000, primarily in 

recognition of high fish and wildlife 

values; (3) lowering the determination 

threshold for temporary roads and 

timber cutting within the community 

protection zone (CPZ), which increases 

opportunities for the Forest Service to 

address local communities’ concerns 

with wildfire risks; (4) defining more 

clearly the permissions for hazardous 

fuel treatments outside CPZ to clarify 

that the vast majority of these acres will 

be subject to management direction that 

is similar to the 2001 roadless rule; and 

(5) defining with greater precision 

where phosphate mining, a nationally 

strategic mineral, may occur. 

The Department recognizes the 

invaluable work and advice provided by 

the RACNAC throughout the rulemaking 

process. 

Alternatives Considered 

Alternatives Considered by the 

Department 

The FEIS examines four fully 

developed alternatives based on public 

comments: No Action, Existing Plans, 

Proposed Idaho Roadless Rule, and 

Modified Idaho Roadless Rule. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61459 

Additional alternatives were considered 

but were eliminated from detailed 

analysis because they did not meet some 

aspect of the purpose and need or for 

other reasons in response to public 

comments including: Alternative 

allocations of management themes; 

additional conservation measures for 

the GFRG theme; additional limitations 

on management activities in the various 

themes; motorized access; and 

expansion of the scope of the proposal. 

Chapter 2 of the FEIS provides a more 

complete discussion of the disposition 

of these alternatives. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) (2001 Rule) 

The 2001 roadless rule was the 

product of a national process and 

established management direction at the 

national level with limited focus on 

state or local issues. The 2001 roadless 

rule (66 FR 3244, Jan. 12, 2001) 

proposed to ensure that inventoried 

roadless areas sustain their values for 

this generation and for future 

generations. By sustaining these values, 

a continuous flow of benefits associated 

with healthy watersheds and 

ecosystems was expected. 

The Forest Service identified timber 

cutting and road construction or 

reconstruction as having the greatest 

likelihood of altering and fragmenting 

landscapes and the greatest likelihood 

of resulting in an immediate, long-term 

loss of roadless area values and 

characteristics. Therefore, the 2001 Rule 

prohibited these activities with certain 

exceptions in each roadless area. 

The 2001 Rule alternative identified a 

list of exceptions to the prohibitions on 

road construction (sec. 294.12) that 

respond to circumstances where the 

prohibitions might conflict with legal 

responsibilities to provide for public 

health and safety or environmental 

protection. The Department noted that 

while in some cases, the exceptions 

could result in effects contrary to the 

purpose of the rule; the Department 

determined that they were necessary to 

honor existing law or address social or 

economic concerns (66 FR 3255). 

The 2001 Rule alternative also allows 

for timber cutting for activities such as 

improving threatened, endangered, 

proposed, or sensitive species habitat; 

maintaining or restoring the 

characteristics of ecosystem 

composition and structure to reduce the 

risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects; 

selling or removing timber incidental to 

other authorized activities; cutting, 

selling, or removing timber needed for 

personal or administrative uses; or 

improving roadless characteristics that 

have been substantially altered in a 

portion of an inventoried roadless area 

due to the construction of a classified 

road and subsequent timber harvest. 

These exceptions, with some 

modifications, are carried forward as 

part of Alternatives 3 and 4. 

Alternative 2 (Existing Plans) 

Management direction in this 

alternative represents a roadless area 

management regime based on each 

forest’s land management plan (LMP). 

Each forest’s plan is unique to its 

planning area. Collectively the LMPs 

provide a broad range of management 

opportunities from wilderness to 

intensive management. When revising a 

LMP, each forest or group of forests 

collaborates with the public to develop 

management direction for their roadless 

areas. Overall, as national forests in 

Idaho have revised the LMPs, the trend 

has been to move more roadless areas 

into management prescriptions that 

emphasize the conservation of roadless 

characteristics. Under this alternative, 

management of roadless areas would be 

governed by the specific management 

allocations assigned in each LMP. 

Management direction would be 

periodically reviewed as plans are 

revised. 

Alternative 3 (Proposed Idaho Roadless 

Rule) (Proposed Rule) 

Alternative 3 considers establishment 

of regulatory direction based on the 

State’s petition, as presented to the 

RACNAC and set forth in the Proposed 

Rule. This alternative represents a 

strategy for the conservation and 

management of Idaho Roadless Areas 

(IRAs) that takes into account State and 

local situations and unique resource 

management challenges, while 

recognizing and integrating the national 

interest in maintaining roadless 

characteristics for future generations. 

Building from the petition’s 

examination of the management 

direction assigned in each forest’s 

existing or proposed LMPs, the 

Proposed Rule assigned the lands 

within each roadless area to one or more 

of five broad management themes: Wild 

Land Recreation (WLR); Special Areas 

of Historic or Tribal Significance 

(SAHTS); Primitive; Backcountry/ 

Restoration (BCR); and General Forest, 

Rangeland, and Grassland (GFRG). 

These themes span a continuum that 

includes at one end, a restrictive 

approach emphasizing passive 

management and natural restoration 

approaches, and on the other end, active 

management designed to accomplish 

sustainable protection of roadless 

characteristics. The continuum accounts 

for stewardship of the uniqueness of 

each roadless area’s landscape and the 

quality of roadless characteristics in that 

area. 

The Proposed Rule did not apply to 

other special areas referred to as forest 

plan special areas such as research 

natural areas; wild and scenic rivers 

(designated, eligible, and suitable); 

special interest areas; and visual 

corridors. Table S–1 in the FEIS shows 

334,500 acres as forest plan special 

areas. These areas would be managed 

according to applicable current and 

future LMP direction. However, if the 

current special status designations for 

an area are changed in the future, these 

lands would be subject to the terms of 

the rule and a modification would be 

undertaken. 

The Proposed Rule presented a 

continuum of prohibitions and 

permissions for each roadless area 

through the allocation of themes. 

Allocation to a specific theme does not 

mandate or direct the Forest Service to 

propose or implement any action; 

rather, the themes provide an array of 

permitted and prohibited activities 

related to cutting, selling or removing 

timber; road construction or 

reconstruction; and discretionary 

mineral activities. 

The Proposed Rule would have 

established prohibitions and 

permissions for discretionary mineral 

activities that vary according to an 

area’s classification theme. However, 

like the 2001 Rule alternative, the 

Proposed Rule allowed for road 

construction or reconstruction in the 

case of reserved or outstanding rights or 

as provided for by statute or treaty, 

including roads associated with 

locatable mineral activities pursuant to 

the General Mining Law of 1872. The 

Proposed Rule provided additional 

direction regarding common variety 

minerals. 

Alternative 4 (Modified Idaho Roadless 

Rule) (Final Rule) 

Alternative 4 considers establishment 

of regulatory direction based on 

modifications to the Proposed Rule 

(Alternative 3). Public comment 

identified the need for modifications to 

the Proposed Rule and DEIS. The 

Department and Forest Service officials, 

in consultation with the State, reviewed 

and considered the public comment, 

Tribal recommendations, and the advice 

of the RACNAC and concluded the rule 

could be improved. Many of the 

suggested modifications contributed to 

the development of the final rule and 

FEIS. 

Alternative 4 (Final Rule) uses the 

thematic approach of Alternative 3 but 

adds refinements to address five 

principle concerns: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61460 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) The amount and type of roadless 

areas placed in the various themes; 

(2) The permissions and restrictions 

for road construction and 

reconstruction, and timber cutting, sale, 

and removal in the BCR theme; 

(3) Management of lands containing 

phosphate deposits in BCR areas; 

(4) Tribal interests regarding activities 

in roadless areas and future 

consultations; and 

(5) Public comment requirements for 

corrections and modifications. 

The Final Rule alternative reflects 

consideration of other adjustments 

beyond these principal issues as well. 

Overall, Alternative 4 provides more 

protections from development than the 

2001 Rule alternative on 3.25 million 

acres of IRAs. These lands are in the 

WLR, Primitive, and SAHTS themes. All 

road construction and reconstruction is 

prohibited, except when provided by 

statute or treaty, or pursuant to valid 

existing rights or other legal duty of the 

United States. In addition, Alternative 4 

prohibits surface use and occupancy 

and road construction or reconstruction 

to access new mineral leases. Similarly, 

Alternative 4 provides the same or more 

restrictions than the 2001 Rule 

alternative for cutting, selling, or 

removing timber for lands in the 

Primitive and SAHTS themes. By 

reassigning acres to the WLR, Primitive, 

or SAHTS themes, Alternative 4 

provides greater protection from 

development for 76,400 acres more than 

the Existing Plans alternative and 

199,500 acres more than the Proposed 

Rule alternative. 

As to lands managed under the BCR 

theme, Alternative 4 provides similar 

management direction as the 2001 Rule 

alternative for 5.26 million acres, 

although an estimated 442,000 acres 

would be subject to special 

consideration of specific situations 

involving reducing the risk of wildland 

fire to at-risk communities within the 

CPZ. Outside the CPZ, temporary roads 

could be constructed only where, in the 

regional forester’s judgment, such roads 

are the only reasonable way to meet the 

objectives of reducing the significant 

risk of wildland fire effects to an at-risk 

community or municipal water supply 

system, and the activity is developed in 

a way that maintains or improves one or 

more roadless characteristics over the 

long-term. Infrequent use of this 

provision, with its conditions, is 

anticipated due to resource conditions, 

agency budgets, and regional forester 

approval and oversight. CPZ status will 

be confirmed at the project level, based 

on the definition of CPZ provided in 

section 294.21. 

Alternative 4 reduces the lands 

managed under the GFRG theme to 

405,900 acres. These areas are mainly 

managed according to forest plan 

direction except that roads may not be 

constructed to access new mineral or 

energy leases other than to access 

specific areas of phosphate deposits. 

Design of projects in these areas will 

consider roadless characteristics and 

will meet all environmental laws, and 

the area will remain on the roadless 

inventory. 

In sum, Alternative 4 assures 

retention of the roadless characteristics 

of approximately 8.5 million acres of 

roadless lands. On the remaining 0.8 

million acres (community protection 

zones in the BCR theme and GFRG 

acres), the Agency’s best estimates 

indicate only about 0.1 percent of IRAs 

would likely see any changes in 

roadless characteristics over the next 15 

years. 

The Environmentally Preferred 

Alternative 

Under NEPA, the Department is 

required to identify the environmentally 

preferred alternative (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). 

This is interpreted to mean the 

alternative that will promote the 

national environmental policy as 

expressed in NEPA’s section 101 and 

that would cause the least damage to the 

biological and physical components of 

the environment. This alternative best 

protects, preserves, and enhances 

historic, cultural, and natural resources 

(Council on Environmental Quality, 

Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning 

CEQ’s National Environmental Policy 

Act Regulations (46 FR 18026). 

The Department believes the 

alternative that best meets these criteria 

is Alternative 1 (No Action, 2001 Rule). 

Alternative 1 generally protects all 

inventoried roadless areas from adverse 

environmental impacts associated with 

limited exceptions for road 

construction, reconstruction, and tree 

cutting for commodity purposes and 

discretionary mineral activities and is 

projected to result in the least road 

construction (15 miles) and fewest 

harvested acres (9,000 acres) over the 

next 15 years. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 allow for an 

array of vegetation management 

activities potentially needed to maintain 

or improve roadless characteristics or 

restore ecological structure, function, 

composition, or processes; including 

reducing the risks of uncharacteristic or 

unwanted wildland fire effects. In 

addition, these alternatives provide 

additional protections to certain lands 

with outstanding roadless 

characteristics. However, these 

alternatives provide varying levels of 

road construction and reconstruction to 

facilitate timber cutting and also 

provide differing levels of limited tree 

cutting for commodity purposes and 

mineral resource development. The total 

projected road construction or 

reconstruction over the next 15 years is 

15 miles (Alternative 1, 2001 Rule), 180 

miles (Alternative 2, Existing Plans), 61 

miles (Alternative 3, Proposed Rule), 

and 50 miles (Alternative 4, Modified 

Rule). Alternative 1 projects the fewest 

ground disturbing activities and is 

deemed the environmentally preferred 

alternative. 

Comments on the Proposed Rule and 

Changes Made in Response 

The Department received 

approximately 140,000 comments in 

response to the proposed rule and DEIS. 

A detailed analysis and response to 

public comment is set out in Appendix 

R of the FEIS. The Forest Service 

considered all comments as part of the 

rulemaking. The discussion of public 

comment below is divided between 

general comments and those that 

involve particular regulatory provisions, 

as well as providing a summary of 

changes made in the final rule. 

General Comments Not Related to 

Particular Rule Provisions 

Comment: State role in rulemaking. 

Some respondents expressed concerns 

over the legality of the State of Idaho’s 

efforts to submit a petition to change 

current Federal land management or 

that the State would have undue 

influence on the outcome of the rule. 

Response: This is a Federal rule and 

the Department has, in no way, 

abdicated or delegated its authority or 

responsibility for management of these 

NFS lands. The Governor of Idaho, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and 7 CFR 

1.28 filed a petition to conduct 

rulemaking for these immensely 

valuable lands. The Forest Service has 

worked cooperatively with the State of 

Idaho during consideration of the 

petition and during the development of 

this final rule as is expected under 

numerous statutes, regulations, and 

Executive orders. 

Pursuant to NEPA’s implementing 

regulations, State, local, and Tribal 

governments are frequently granted 

cooperating agency status. State 

governments are especially important 

partners in management of the nation’s 

land and natural resources. States, 

particularly in the West, own and 

manage large tracts of land with 

tremendous social and biological value. 

State governments frequently pioneer 

innovative land management programs 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61461 

and policies. State governments exert 

considerable influence over statewide 

economic development and private land 

use, both of which significantly affect 

natural resource management. In 

addition, State conservation agencies’ 

relationships with others offer 

additional partnership opportunities. 

Strong State and Federal cooperation 

regarding management of inventoried 

roadless areas can facilitate long-term, 

community-oriented solutions. 

Collaborating with the State of Idaho 

on the long-term strategy for the 

management of IRAs recognizes national 

values and local situations and resolves 

unique resource management 

challenges. Collaboration with the State, 

Tribes and others who have a strong 

interest in conserving and managing 

inventoried roadless areas also helps to 

ensure balanced management decisions 

that maintain the most important 

characteristics and values of those areas. 

Comment: Idaho’s Roadless Rule 

Implementation Commission. Some 

respondents questioned the role and 

authority of the Governor’s Roadless 

Rule Implementation Commission 

(Idaho Executive Order No. 2006–43 of 

December 21, 2006). Other respondents 

thought the structure of the commission 

should be better defined, that there 

should be a time frame for the 

commission to respond to a proposed 

project, and that county commissioners 

and rural communities should be 

involved in designing and 

implementing projects. Some 

respondents raised concern over the 

legality of the commission. The 

RACNAC recommended additional 

procedural requirements in the rule, 

which includes collaborative review of 

projects, especially in the BCR theme, 

by a State Implementation Commission 

with a regional advisory committee-like 

structure. 

Response: Although it is the 

Department’s position that it cannot 

mandate the creation of or the scope of 

the commission’s responsibilities to the 

State, the Department supports this 

collaborative concept and feels it would 

be an essential part of the overall 

collaborative process with the public, 

Tribes, and local and state governments. 

The Forest Service shared public 

comments and the RACNAC 

recommendations on the composition 

and function of the implementation 

commission received during this 

rulemaking with the State of Idaho. The 

State of Idaho has already committed to 

having the implementation commission 

as its way of providing a collaborative 

approach pursuant to State of Idaho 

Executive Order 2006–34 and may 

continue to determine its own course for 

providing input and cooperation during 

the NEPA process for a proposal 

affecting an IRA. It is the Department 

intent that the State of Idaho can request 

cooperating agency status for proposals 

affecting IRAs like it has done for this 

rulemaking. It is important to note that 

although the recommendations 

provided by the commission will be 

non-binding on the Agency, the 

Department encourages the responsible 

Forest Service officials to give priority 

to those projects recommended by the 

commission. 

Comment: Compliance with Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments. Some Tribal officials 

requested more government-togovernment consultation on the 

proposed rule. One Tribe expressed 

concern that the change clause builds in 

categorical exclusions that will exclude 

public input and Tribal government-togovernment consultation on individual 

projects. One Tribe questioned the use 

of the theme approach suggesting that 

maintaining all roadless areas should 

provide the same or similar values and 

opportunities. Another Tribe stated the 

themes do not incorporate the holistic 

nature of Tribal rights and interests that 

include areas outside those identified as 

SAHTS, and clarification was needed so 

areas of Tribal interest would still have 

project-by-project consultation with 

affected Tribes. 

Response: On September 20, 2007, the 

State of Idaho and the Forest Service 

met with the Idaho Council on Indian 

Affairs and presented a joint overview 

of the history of the Idaho Roadless 

Petition and the DEIS associated with 

development of the proposed rule. The 

Forest Service and the State of Idaho 

committed to meeting with each Tribe 

to discuss in more detail the Idaho 

Roadless Rule prior to the release of the 

DEIS. These meetings took place 

between October 2007 and January 2008 

and were tailored to meet each Tribe’s 

preference. After the release of the DEIS 

and the proposed rule, several staff-tostaff and government-to-government 

meetings were held between January 

and August 2008 with each Tribe. Many 

of the Tribes’ ideas and suggestions 

resulted in improvements to the final 

rule. 

Nothing in the final rule should be 

construed as eliminating public input or 

Tribal consultation requirements for 

future projects conducted in accordance 

with this rule. The final rule clarifies 

that it does not modify the unique 

relationship between the United States 

and Indian Tribes. The final rule 

requires the Federal government to work 

with federally recognized Indian Tribes, 

government-to-government, as provided 

for in treaties, laws, or Executive orders. 

Nor does the final rule limit or modify 

prior existing Tribal rights, including 

those involving hunting, fishing, 

gathering, and protecting cultural and 

spiritual sites. Finally, the Department 

listened carefully and understood Tribal 

concerns that the Tribe’s holistic 

interests are in no way limited to one 

particular theme or management 

classification. The SAHTS designation 

highlights and protects certain areas that 

possess historically and culturally 

important attributes, but is not the 

exclusive indicator of areas that possess 

such values. The final rule allows 

continued recognition of Tribal rights 

and interests in IRAs outside of the 

SAHTS theme. 

Comment: NEPA requirements for 

projects. Some respondents felt an EIS 

should be required for all projects 

proposed in IRAs and the use of an 

environmental assessment (EA) should 

be disallowed. 

Response: The Idaho Roadless Rule 

focuses on general land classifications 

rather than project-level analysis and 

documentation requirements. However, 

since 1992, the Forest Service has 

routinely required the use of EISs for 

proposals that ‘‘would substantially 

alter the undeveloped character of an 

inventoried roadless area or a potential 

wilderness area.’’ This requirement, 

originally in its implementing 

procedures in Forest Service Handbook 

1909.15 at section 20.6, is now in the 

Agency’s regulations at 36 CFR 220.5(a) 

(73 FR 43095). The Department has 

determined that a general prohibition on 

the use of EAs is not warranted as some 

proposed actions will not have 

significant environmental effects and 

will not harm roadless characteristics. 

Public response to scoping for a 

proposed action in an IRA will help the 

responsible Forest Service official 

determine the appropriate level of 

documentation for compliance with 

NEPA. 

Comment: Endangered species 

consultation. Several respondents 

expressed concern regarding the 

proposed rules effects to threatened and 

endangered species and sought 

clarifications regarding consultation 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). 

Response: Idaho Roadless Areas have 

been identified as an important habitat 

for a variety of terrestrial and aquatic 

wildlife and plants, including some 

threatened and endangered species. The 

large, relatively undisturbed areas 

provide biological strongholds and play 

a key role in proving for diversity of 

plant and animal communities. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61462 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Fisheries and the U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS), have oversight 

responsibilities for implementation of 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

Informal consultation and conferencing 

on the proposed rule began with 

frequent discussions among Forest 

Service, FWS, and NOAA Fisheries 

biologists. The Agency has prepared a 

biological assessment on the final rule 

and formally consulted with the FWS 

and NOAA. The biological opinions can 

be found at http://roadless.fs.fed.us/ 

idaho.shtml and effects are discussed in 

the FEIS at sections 3.7 Botanical 

Resources, 3.8 Aquatic Species, and 3.9 

Terrestrial Animal Habitat and Species. 

Summary of Changes and Comments 

Related to Particular Rule Provisions 

Proposed Section 294.20 Purpose 

Summary of Changes in Proposed 

Section 294.20 (Final Rule Section 

294.20). Text about the relationship 

between this rule and other roadless 

rulemakings was removed from 

paragraph (a) and is now addressed in 

section 294.28(a). Paragraph (b) was 

removed as unnecessary because the 

multiple-use mission of the Forest 

Service is well understood and is 

provided for elsewhere in statute and 

regulation. 

Comment: Purpose and need. A 

respondent suggested the same 

statement of purpose and need as 

described in the DEIS should be 

included in the rule. 

Response: The regulatory purpose set 

out in the final rule has been slightly 

revised and is now a more accurate 

statement of purpose of the Idaho 

Roadless Rule as providing Statespecific direction for management of 

roadless areas. The purpose and need 

statement included with the DEIS 

served a related but distinct function 

under NEPA. 

Proposed Section 294.21 Definitions 

Summary of Changes in Proposed 

Section 294.21 (Final Rule Section 

294.21). Definitions of the following 

terms have been included in response to 

public comment: community protection 

zone, fire hazard and risk, fire 

occurrence, Forest Plan Special Area, 

forest type, hazardous fuels, road 

decommissioning, and uncharacteristic 

wildland fire effects. Most of these 

definitions were added to improve 

clarity on the use of the exemptions 

allowed for road construction and 

reconstruction, timber cutting, and 

mineral activities. Rational for their 

inclusion is discussed in the 

appropriate sections below. Definitions 

for significant risk and the individual 

management classification themes have 

been removed. Significant risk is now 

addressed at section 294.24(c)(1)(ii). The 

Department believes the themes are best 

understood in terms of the specific 

permissions and restrictions established 

by the rule for each land classification 

rather than a generalized description of 

desired conditions. 

Comment: Definition of road. A 

respondent stated it was unclear if usercreated roads or unclassified roads 

under the 2001 roadless rule are roads 

for purposes of this rule and whether 

deciding officers can designate an 

unclassified road as a forest road. 

Response: First, the definition of 

forest road used in the proposed and 

final rule is drawn from the Agency’s 

definition of that term in the travel 

management regulations found at 36 

CFR part 212. Travel management 

decisions are not affected by this rule as 

noted in section 294.26(a). Adjustments 

to NFS road inventories are made 

pursuant to the Travel Management rule 

(70 FR 68264). 

Comment: Management theme 

definitions. Several respondents 

requested clarification of the 

management themes. Some suggested 

that specific references to recreation in 

the theme definitions should be 

dropped. 

Response: Definitions for individual 

themes are removed in the final rule. 

The Department believes the 

prohibitions and permissions 

established for each individual theme 

best defines the management intended 

and the redundant definitions in the 

proposed rule were unnecessary and led 

to confusion. 

Proposed Section 294.22 Idaho 

Roadless Areas 

Summary of Changes in Proposed 

Section 294.22 (Final Rule Section 

294.22). Paragraphs (b) and (c) have 

been reordered to improve continuity. 

Similarly, the narrative description of 

the management continuum that was set 

out in proposed paragraph (c) has been 

removed as unnecessary. 

The final rule remains structured 

around five themes: (1) Wild Land 

Recreation (WLR); (2) Special Areas of 

Historic or Tribal Significance (SAHTS); 

(3) Primitive; (4) Backcountry/ 

Restoration (BCR); and (5) General 

Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland 

(GFRG). These five themes were 

proposed following review of the 

allocations set out in the existing and 

proposed revisions to land management 

plans. The five themes and allocations 

for particular areas were refined in 

response to public comment on the 

proposed rule. The themes span a 

continuum from more restrictive to 

more permissive (see Figure 1). This 

continuum accounts for stewardship of 

each roadless area’s unique landscape 

and the quality of roadless 

characteristics in that area. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61463 

Allocation to a specific theme does 

not mandate or direct the Forest Service 

to propose or implement any action; 

rather, the themes provide an array of 

permitted and prohibited activities 

regarding road construction, timber 

cutting, and discretionary mineral 

activities. Although the ability of the 

Forest Service to conduct certain 

activities (road building, activities 

associated with mineral development, 

and timber cutting) typically varies from 

theme-to-theme, other activities 

(motorized travel, current grazing 

activities, or use of motorized 

equipment and mechanical transport) is 

not changed by this final rule. Although 

these other activities are not regulated 

by this rule, these activities and others 

not addressed by this rule are still 

subject to the allowances and 

restrictions of their current LMP and 

would be subject to future planning and 

decisionmaking processes of the Forest 

Service. For example, when allowed 

under the LMP, the use of prescribed 

fire as a management tool would be 

available across all themes as this rule 

does not require, limit or prohibit the 

use of prescribed fire. Similarly, some 

activities (e.g., locatable mineral access 

and operations) are governed under 

entirely separate regulations. 

Additionally, like the 2001 roadless 

rule, timber cutting, sale, or removal in 

inventoried roadless areas is permitted 

when incidental to implementation of a 

management activity not otherwise 

prohibited by the final rule. Examples of 

these activities include, but are not 

limited to, trail construction or 

maintenance; removal of hazard trees 

adjacent to forest roads for public health 

and safety reasons; fire line construction 

for wildland fire suppression or control 

of prescribed fire; survey and 

maintenance of property boundaries; 

other authorized activities such as ski 

runs and utility corridors; or for road 

construction and reconstruction where 

allowed by this rule. 

Comment: Eliminate the use of 

multiple themes. A respondent 

suggested the removal of the multiple 

theme approach from the rule and 

return to the single theme approach 

used for the 2001 roadless rule. 

Response: The Governor’s petition 

sought refinement of the 2001 roadless 

rule’s one-size-fits-all approach 

maintaining that some areas deserved 

higher protections, others similar, and 

others less protection then those granted 

in the 2001 roadless rule. Comments 

received by the various Idaho County 

commissioners and other members of 

the public were in accord. The widevariety of management regimes given 

these areas by individual Forest Service 

LMPs further demonstrates the value of 

a more measured approach. Therefore, 

the Department has elected to maintain 

the flexibility the multiple theme 

approach allows and has retained it in 

the final rule. 

Comment: Theme assignment. Some 

respondents requested changes in theme 

assignments for specific IRAs. 

Response: In response to these 

requests, some theme assignments were 

adjusted for the final rule. In general, 

public requests for changes in theme 

assignments for IRAs in section 294.29 

in this final rule were adopted when the 

Forest Service review, demonstrated 

that the theme change would better 

reflect the uniqueness of the roadless 

area and the appropriate level of 

conservation needed for the protection 

and management of the particular area. 

The FEIS, Appendix P describes each of 

the specific requests and the disposition 

of those requests. 

The following changes were made to 

theme assignments as a result of public 

and Tribal comments. 

(1) Approximately 279,800 acres were 

changed from GFRG to BCR. This 

includes important big game habitat and 

known phosphate lease areas on the 

Caribou portion of the Caribou-Targhee 

NF where development would be 

precluded because of aquatic concerns 

(portions of Deer Creek). 

(2) Approximately 75,900 acres were 

changed from BCR to GFRG. This 

includes lands that were already roaded 

on the Salmon and Targhee NFs and 

lands adjacent to Jesse Creek Watershed 

that are outside the CPZ but where the 

community wildfire protection plans 

(CWPPs) anticipate treatment is needed 

to protect the municipal water supply 

system. 

(3) Approximately 149,200 acres were 

changed from BCR to Primitive. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER16OC08.000</GPH>
61464 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(4) Approximately 68,400 acres of the 

Rapid River Roadless Area on the 

Payette and Nez Perce NFs were 

changed from Primitive to WLR. 

(5) Approximately 10,700 acres of the 

Selkirk Roadless Area on the Idaho 

Panhandle NF were changed from 

Primitive to WLR. 

(6) Approximately 21,000 acres of the 

Pioneer Area in the Mallard Larkins 

Roadless Area on the Idaho Panhandle 

NF was changed from SAHTS to WLR. 

Comment: Management under 

existing LMPs for certain areas. A 

respondent suggested areas not 

recommended for wilderness in the 

2001 roadless rule should be removed 

from this process and be managed under 

their existing plans. 

Response: The 2001 roadless rule 

made no wilderness recommendations. 

The Forest Service makes preliminary 

wilderness recommendations through 

the land management planning process. 

Recommendations to Congress 

concerning wilderness 

recommendations are an authority 

reserved to the Secretary. However, the 

suggested approach of directing that 

preliminarily recommended areas be 

managed in accordance with existing 

LMP direction would essentially be 

achieved through the approach 

described in FEIS Alternative 2. The 

Department believes that in the absence 

of Congressional action, it is appropriate 

to include such lands in the IRA system. 

Comment: Wild Land Recreation 

(WLR) theme. A respondent suggested 

the WLR theme should be eliminated as 

it unlawfully creates de facto 

wilderness. Another respondent felt the 

rule should maintain current wilderness 

recommendations, maintain the current 

type of recreation activities allowed in 

each individual WLR area, and 

recommend additional areas for 

wilderness designation. 

Response: It is important to note that 

IRAs are not de facto wilderness areas 

and the final rule does not make any 

recommendations for potential 

wilderness. The Department is mindful 

that only Congress can establish 

additions to the National Wilderness 

Preservation System and that Congress 

has not called for the creation of 

protective perimeters or buffer zones 

around wilderness areas. The 

Department maintains that the WLR 

theme provides appropriate protections 

for selected areas. 

It is correct that most lands in the 

WLR theme were identified and 

recommended for wilderness 

designation during the land 

management planning process. In the 

context of land management planning, 

the Forest Service Manual 1923.03 

states, ‘‘Any inventoried roadless area 

recommended for wilderness or 

designated wilderness study is not 

available for any use or activity that may 

reduce the wilderness potential of an 

area. Activities currently permitted may 

continue, pending designation, if the 

activities do not compromise wilderness 

values of the area.’’ Similarly, the final 

rule does not change current 

recreational opportunities in WLR areas, 

including motorized travel (see sections 

294.27(a) and 294.28). A wide-array of 

motorized and mechanical recreation 

and other multiple-use activities that are 

not allowed in designated wilderness 

areas will continue to be available and 

are unaffected by this rule. 

Comment: Primitive theme. A 

respondent suggested the Primitive 

theme should be avoided because areas 

designated as Primitive would fall short 

of the wilderness suitability criteria 

because of the proposed rule’s permitted 

activities. 

Response: This rule is not designed to 

address potential wilderness 

designations. However, agency 

wilderness evaluation criteria associated 

with LMPs provide that although a 

forest road or other permanently 

authorized road is one criteria for not 

considering an area for potential 

wilderness, Forest Service Handbook 

(FSH) 1909.12, section 71.11, paragraph 

9, provides for including areas where 

prior timber harvest and road 

construction is not evident. Road 

construction and reconstruction is 

prohibited in the Primitive theme 

except to access reserved or outstanding 

rights, or other legal duty of the United 

States. Any roads constructed for these 

purposes could affect consideration for 

wilderness. Timber cutting, sale, or 

removal is also prohibited except under 

limited conditions and only when done 

from an existing road or using aerial 

systems and is subject to numerous 

restrictions. The FEIS, section 3.14 

Roadless Characteristics, discloses that 

the existing character may be modified 

on the edges of a roadless area with the 

interior kept intact. Future activities in 

the Primitive theme could have 

potential effects on the undeveloped 

and natural qualities of a roadless area 

but these activities are expected to be 

limited, infrequent, and would not 

affect natural ecosystems processes or 

opportunities for primitive and 

unconfined recreation. 

Comment: Backcountry/Restoration 

theme (BCR). Several respondents felt 

the use of the BCR theme should be 

avoided because it would allow road 

construction, logging, and other 

development. 

Response: The BCR theme represents 

the largest amount of acreage across all 

of the theme designations in this rule, 

and it received the majority of the 

comments. During his original 

presentation to the RACNAC, Governor 

Risch expressed a desire to have the 

areas designated under this theme 

managed similar to the 2001 roadless 

rule while also providing for certain 

stewardship activities. The proposed 

rule sought to provide this balance by 

only allowing new road construction or 

reconstruction facilitating timber cutting 

where necessary to address significant 

risks and to facilitate permitted forest 

health activities. 

Many respondents felt that the criteria 

by which new roads could be 

constructed were left undefined and 

potentially could vary from the purpose 

of the 2001 roadless rule. Specifically, 

several respondents felt that new road 

construction to facilitate timber cutting 

should only be done in cases of 

imminent threat to people and property, 

although others felt significant risk was 

too restrictive and did not have enough 

flexibility to address forest health issues 

in IRAs. Based on public comments and 

advice from the RACNAC, the 

Department saw a need to refine the 

scope and conditions by which 

temporary roads could be constructed in 

the BCR theme. 

The RACNAC spent a considerable 

amount of time discussing this theme 

and recognized that the theme did not 

lend itself to a one-size-fits-all 

management approach, particularly 

with regard to fuel treatments for 

protecting at-risk communities and 

municipal water supply systems, but 

also felt that the proposed rule was too 

expansive and needed further 

clarification and refinement. 

The Department agrees that the 

principles articulated by the RACNAC 

represented a good starting point. The 

final rule adopts the RACNAC’s advice 

of borrowing the CPZ concept from 

HFRA to focus timber cutting and 

temporary road construction where 

needed to protect at-risk communities. 

The definition of at-risk communities 

used in the proposed and final rule 

reflects the definition of that term as 

used in the HFRA. Within the CPZ, the 

Department believes the balance should 

tip in favor of community protection 

while ensuring that temporary road 

construction is not undertaken where in 

the responsible official’s judgment the 

project cannot reasonably achieve the 

community protection objectives 

without a temporary road. Additionally, 

the RACNAC recognized that the 

geographic definition from HFRA may 

not provide enough flexibility for some 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61465 

IRAs. Therefore, the Department is 

limiting the scope of temporary road 

building for fuels treatments outside the 

CPZ to projects that can demonstrate 

significant risk of wildland fire effects to 

an at-risk community or a municipal 

water supply system while positively 

determining that one or more roadless 

characteristics will be maintained or 

improved over the long-term. The longterm perspective is especially important 

because a temporary road may have the 

potential for immediate short-term 

effects to an area’s roadless 

characteristics, but stand thinning, 

strategic fuel breaks, and other activities 

accomplished by building a temporary 

road could have long-term beneficial 

effects. The final rule also emphasizes 

the importance of maximizing the 

retention of large trees, as appropriate 

for the forest type, to the extent the trees 

promote fire resilient stands and 

exercises restraint by permitting projects 

that cannot reasonably be accomplished 

without a temporary road. Notably, the 

final rule does not permit new road 

construction for the purpose of 

conducting limited forest health 

activities. Under the final rule, the vast 

majority of the BCR acres will be 

managed comparable to the 2001 

roadless rule with a small amount of 

additional timber cutting and temporary 

road construction to allow fuel 

treatments to better protect vital 

community interests. 

Comment: General Forest, Rangeland, 

and Grassland (GFRG) theme. A 

respondent suggested elimination of the 

GFRG theme. Another suggested any 

small strips of GFRG lands should go 

into adjacent BCR and felt that the 

GFRG theme should be eliminated to 

avoid the conflict of the rule allowing 

for activities not permissible in LMPs. A 

respondent thought the Agency should 

reconsider the roadless character for 

some of the GFRG designations based on 

the Idaho Conservation League maps. 

Response: The FEIS considered the 

request to eliminate the GFRG theme in, 

section 2.3, Consideration of Comments 

and determined that this request was 

effectively accomplished through 

examination of the 2001 Rule alternative 

(Alternative 1). Based on public 

comment, including Idaho Conservation 

League’s maps, some areas were 

changed from GFRG to BCR to better 

retain the roadless character in these 

areas to respond to Tribal interests and 

to provide important big game habitat. 

For example, several small strips 

adjacent to the outer boundaries of 

roadless areas were changed to BCR, 

including lands associated with the East 

Cathedral, Magee, Mallard Larkins, and 

Upper Priest Roadless Areas on the 

Idaho Panhandle NF and the 

Scotchmans Peak Roadless Area on the 

Idaho Panhandle and Kootenai NFs. 

Some developed lands, which are areas 

that have been previously roaded and 

harvested, were changed from the BCR 

theme to the GFRG theme. In total, the 

land area encompassing the GFRG 

theme was reduced by approximately 

203,700 acres. See Appendices E and P 

of the FEIS. 

Comment: Forest Plan Special Areas. 

Several respondents asked for 

clarification about whether wild and 

scenic river management areas and 

other LMP special areas have 

precedence over the rule. 

Response: Under section 294.28(f), 

Forest Plan Special Areas (FPSA), like 

wild and scenic river management 

areas, are managed in accordance with 

local LMP components. For 

clarification, a definition of FPSA has 

been added to the final rule. These 

lands include areas such as research 

natural areas, designated and eligible 

wild and scenic river corridors, 

developed recreation sites, or lands 

identified for other specified 

management purposes. A listing of all 

the FPSAs is set out in the FEIS, 

Appendix Q. The State’s petition 

identified that some roadless areas are 

already part of other land classification 

systems that are governed by specific 

agency directives and existing LMP 

direction. The petition did not request 

the Forest Service to impose additional 

or superseding management direction or 

restrictions for these FPSAs. Instead, the 

petition identified a preference that 

these lands be administered under the 

laws, regulations, and other 

management direction unique to the 

special purpose of the applicable land 

classification. The Department agrees, 

and although these lands are included 

in section 294.29 for the sake of 

completeness, the final rule does not 

establish any management direction for, 

or that applies to, any of these identified 

FPSAs. 

Proposed Section 294.23 Road 

Construction and Reconstruction in 

Idaho Roadless Areas 

Summary of Changes in Proposed 

Section 294.23 (Final Rule Section 

294.23). No substantive changes were 

made to paragraph (a). In response to 

advice from the RACNAC and public 

comment, the Department refined the 

road construction provisions concerning 

the BCR theme. The proposed rule 

allowed roads for classes of timber 

cutting activities per the 2001 roadless 

rule with the addition of a significant 

risk threshold determination and 

allowed for forest health activities 

consistent with the timber cutting 

provision. The final rule follows the list 

of excepted activities from the 2001 

roadless rule and adds two refined 

categories of actions. 

First, the final rule accepts advice 

from the RACNAC and public comment 

to retain the 2001 roadless rule’s general 

exceptions. All exceptions are retained 

except the minerals roads provision 

which is separately addressed in section 

294.25. Second, there was confusion 

regarding the expected level of 

treatment to address significant risk 

situations in BCR theme areas. RACNAC 

and many respondents wanted 

clarification for the situations in which 

road building would be permitted. Some 

respondents expressed concern that all 

5.3 million acres would be treated under 

these provisions. This was never the 

Department’s or the State’s intention. 

The State had noted, at the January 2008 

RACNAC meeting, that it desired such 

projects to focus mainly on protecting 

the wildland urban interface (WUI) and 

municipal water supply systems. The 

RACNAC agreed that such refinements 

were appropriate but were unable to 

reach consensus regarding road 

construction for forest health treatments 

outside CPZ. See the discussion under 

Summary of Changes in Proposed 

Section 294.25 (Final Rule Section 

294.24). 

In light of these considerations, the 

Department refined the final rule and 

will allow temporary roads in CPZ 

recognizing that in balancing public 

interests of community protection and 

roadless characteristics—the balance 

tips sharply in favor of communities 

within the CPZ. Further, the Department 

has found there is broad support for 

addressing instances where wildland 

fire can affect vital community interests 

and infrastructure even beyond CPZs. 

Local communities, the RACNAC, and 

various officials strongly supported 

providing limited opportunities for 

hazardous fuel reduction projects in a 

way that continues to recognize the 

importance of conserving roadless area 

characteristics. In contrast to treatments 

within the CPZ, the Department believes 

the balance tips in favor of maintaining 

or improving roadless characteristics 

over the long-term for projects 

conducted outside the CPZ. However, 

the Department will allow temporary 

roads outside CPZ to protect at-risk 

communities and municipal water 

supply systems under limited 

circumstances. To meet these goals, 

Forest Service officials will make a 

positive determination that the 

community or water supply system is 

facing a significant risk from a wildland 

fire disturbance event, and the project 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61466 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

will maintain or improve one or more 

roadless characteristics over the longterm. A significant risk exists where the 

history of fire occurrence and fire 

hazard and risk indicated a serious 

likelihood that a wildland fire 

disturbance event would present a high 

risk of threat to an at-risk community or 

municipal water supply system. 

Officials must also determine that the 

project cannot be reasonably 

accomplished without a temporary road. 

Clearly, temporary roads will not need 

to be constructed to address every 

significant risk situation inside or 

outside a CPZ. 

In paragraph (c), new wording has 

been added that specifically directs the 

minimizing of effects and clarifies the 

intent to conform to applicable LMP 

components. Existing LMPs for these 

areas set out forestwide and area 

specific direction and make general 

suitability determinations but do not 

generally authorize any particular 

projects. Under this framework the 

Forest Service examines site-specific 

environmental effects when projects or 

activities are actually proposed. See 

Ohio Forestry Ass’n v. Sierra Club, 118 

S. Ct. 1665, 1668, 1671 (1998). The 

RACNAC and some members of the 

public suggested that the requirements 

for roads under the proposed minerals 

section be carried forward and applied 

to all road construction. In response, the 

final rule at section 294.23(d) provides 

additional direction concerning 

temporary roads comparable to that 

provided for mineral activities. 

Additionally, a provision has been 

added that existing roads and those 

permitted under this final rule may be 

maintained. 

Comment: Significant risk. Several 

respondents requested the 

establishment of more guidelines to 

determine what constitutes a significant 

risk situation. Others suggested that the 

significant risk criteria should be 

confined to WUI areas and only apply 

the imminent threat criteria for the 

remaining areas. Some respondents felt 

vegetation activities outside CPZs 

should have more restrictions than 

those inside the zone. A respondent 

suggested inclusion of threats to 

irrigation and water rights as part of the 

significant risk exception. 

Response: The Department, based on 

public comment and advice from the 

RACNAC, concluded that the significant 

risk threshold should not be required for 

projects, including temporary road 

construction, in the CPZ as defined in 

this rule. See also the discussion below 

under Summary of Changes in Proposed 

Section 294.25 (Final Rule Section 

294.24.) However, the Department, 

based on the RACNAC’s advice, does 

not believe that all BCR theme areas 

outside the CPZ should have to 

demonstrate the imminent threat 

standard of the 2001 roadless rule. 

Instead, this rule provides the flexibility 

needed to implement Community 

Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) 

where consistent with this rule and 

allows for limited treatment of 

hazardous fuels that threaten at-risk 

communities and municipal water 

supply systems. Thus, the Department 

has determined an allowance will be 

made for individual projects that can 

demonstrate a significant risk that a 

wildland fire disturbance event could 

adversely affect an at-risk community or 

municipal water supply system and 

maintain or improve one or more 

roadless characteristics in the long-term. 

Notably, the responsible Forest Service 

official must determine that the activity 

cannot be reasonably accomplished 

without a temporary road. For further 

clarity, a definition taken from the 2006 

Interagency Protecting People and 

Natural Resources: A Cohesive Fuels 

Treatment Strategy (2006 Cohesive 

Strategy) for hazardous fuels has been 

added to the Final Rule. 

Furthermore, on advice from the 

RACNAC, the Department has limited 

the application of the term significant 

risk in geographic terms as well. First, 

a proposed project must demonstrate 

that its purpose is to treat hazardous 

fuels connected to an at-risk community 

or municipal water supply system. This 

greatly reduces the potential geographic 

scope of road building and treatments in 

the BCR theme from those in the 

proposed rule. Second, the Department 

refined the term significant risk to 

situations where the history of fire 

occurrence, and fire hazard and risk, 

indicated a serious likelihood that a 

wildland fire disturbance event would 

present a high risk of threat to an at-risk 

community or municipal water supply 

system. The final rule defines fire 

hazard and risk to mean the fuel 

conditions on the landscape. Fire 

occurrence is defined as the probability 

of wildfire ignition based on historic fire 

occurrence records and other 

information. Under these definitions, 

this significant risk determination 

focuses largely on landscape conditions, 

probability of ignition (serious 

likelihood), departure from historical 

fire frequencies, and the severity of the 

risk of adverse affects (significant) to an 

at-risk community or municipal water 

supply system. The Department’s 

experience indicates that much of this 

pertinent information may be in 

individual Idaho county CWPPs and 

encourages responsible officials to use 

these plans where appropriate in 

determining whether or not a project 

qualifies under this exception. The 

Department expects that responsible 

officials will give due consideration 

during the public comment process to 

input from the State’s Collaborative 

Implementation Commission. The 

Commission’s recommendations would 

be considered along with other public 

and Tribal comments. 

The Department believes it has 

appropriately considered roadless area 

characteristics and the interests in 

protecting at-risk communities or 

municipal water supply systems in 

defining the scope of the significant risk 

exception. Expansion of the significant 

risk determination to include irrigation 

and water rights is beyond the scope of 

the HFRA provision used as a model for 

this provision and therefore was not 

adopted. 

Comment: Temporary roads 

standards, reclamation, and alternatives. 

Several respondents suggested the rule 

should include plans and standards for 

temporary road design criteria, 

identification of the responsible party to 

close it, and timeframes for 

rehabilitation. They felt definitions for 

decommissioning, rehabilitation, and 

closure of roads should be included in 

the rule. One respondent suggested that 

the Agency should require monitoring 

and funding to occur for temporary 

roads prior to their construction thus 

ensuring the temporary road is 

reclaimed and re-vegetated to meet 

roadless characteristics. The RACNAC 

recommended further clarifications 

when temporary roads could be built, 

who could use them, and how they 

would be decommissioned. 

Response: The final rule now contains 

a definition of temporary road. Use of 

such roads is restricted, although use of 

these roads for Forest Service 

administrative purposes is permissible, 

as defined at 36 CFR 212.51(a)(5) 

(involving fire, military, emergency, or 

law enforcement vehicles for emergency 

purposes). In the final rule, the use of 

a discretionary temporary road outside 

the CPZ will be limited in scope and 

only occur if no other reasonable 

alternative for treating the fuels is 

available. If a temporary road is 

determined to be necessary to support 

allowed activities such as fuel 

treatments to reduce a significant risk 

situation, the Forest Service can ensure 

closure and rehabilitation through 

contract provisions for any associated 

timber sale or stewardship contract. 

Temporary roads are sometimes 

necessary to allow purchasers to access 

and transport timber. Specific timber 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61467 

and stewardship contract provisions 

govern the authorization, construction, 

operation, and restoration of these 

temporary roads. In the past, the Agency 

has sometimes waived the contract’s 

decommissioning requirement because 

the Agency intended to continue to use 

the road for other multiple-use 

purposes, such as post-sale reforestation 

projects, monitoring, or fire protection. 

However, closure of these roads then 

became dependent upon the Agency 

receiving funding. This led to many 

temporary roads remaining open 

without decommissioning. The final 

rule reinforces that new temporary fuel 

treatment roads must be 

decommissioned when the project is 

completed and will not be open for 

public use while the project is 

underway. Additional funding for road 

closures would not be necessary. A 

definition for road decommissioning is 

provided in the final rule. Definitions 

for rehabilitation and closure are not 

provided as these terms are not used in 

the final rule. Agency road definitions 

are found at 36 CFR 212.1, and the 

regulations found in 36 CFR part 212 are 

applied for all road construction and do 

not need to be repeated in this rule. See 

FEIS Appendix O for more details 

regarding road construction and 

decommissioning. 

Comment: Roads in the BCR theme. 

Several respondents felt that the 

proposed rule allowed too many 

opportunities to build roads in the BCR 

theme. They suggested that the 2001 

roadless rule language should be used to 

protect these areas. One respondent 

suggested no roads be built in the BCR 

theme. Another respondent suggested 

limiting all roads in BCR to temporary 

roads and using them only for fire 

protection needs, not habitat 

improvement projects. If a permanent 

road is needed, the respondent wanted 

more justification requirements. Others 

suggested more roads should be allowed 

in the BCR theme without restrictions. 

Response: The Department agrees 

with respondents that the scope and 

conditions for building temporary roads 

in the BCR theme needed refinement. 

The Department has concluded that 

building new roads for fuels treatments 

should be limited to two circumstances: 

(1) To conduct fuel treatment activities 

within the CPZ; and (2) to conduct fuel 

treatment activities outside the CPZ 

only where a significant risk of wildfire 

effects to an at-risk community or 

municipal water supply system can be 

demonstrated and only when roadless 

values can be improved or maintained 

over the long-term. Other exceptions are 

made in the BCR theme for public 

health and safety reasons or for reserved 

or outstanding rights. The 2001 roadless 

rule lists the same exemptions. Like the 

2001 roadless rule, roads for habitat 

improvement projects are not allowed. It 

is anticipated that most roads will be 

temporary. However, the Department 

recognizes that a permanent road may 

need to be constructed in some 

situations, such as access for a private 

land inholding. Justification for a 

permanent road will need to be 

established for any proposed project. 

Comment: Roads for forest health 

activities. Several respondents 

recommended that no roads be allowed 

in the BCR and the GFRG themes for the 

purpose of forest health. Other 

respondents suggested that temporary 

roads should be permitted only for 

vegetation management for wildlife and 

forest health reasons. Another 

respondent suggested allowing 

temporary roads for only forest health 

activities but not habitat improvement 

projects in the BCR theme. 

Response: The RACNAC could not 

come to a consensus on whether new 

roads to facilitate forest health activities 

should be permitted outside the CPZ. 

After careful deliberation, the 

Department decided that no new roads 

(temporary or permanent) for forest 

health purposes should be built in the 

BCR theme, but such activities could be 

conducted from existing permanent 

roads, temporary roads allowed by this 

rule, or by aerial harvest systems. The 

final rule does permit road construction 

for forest health activities in the GFGR 

theme as long as the activity is 

consistent with applicable LMP 

components. 

Comment: Responsible official for 

authorizing construction of permanent 

roads. One respondent thought that 

decisions regarding whether or not a 

permanent road is needed should be 

made at a higher level than that of the 

local line officer. 

Response: The final rule identifies 

roles for responsible officials in 

connection with various activities 

across the different themes. Regional 

foresters will be responsible for certain 

determinations, for example road 

construction activities in BCR theme 

outside the CPZ. Standard delegation of 

decisionmaking authority found at 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1230 will 

operate unless specified otherwise in 

the final rule. 

Comment: Roads in GFRG. One 

respondent felt that no permanent roads 

should be built GFRG. Another 

respondent felt that the 2001 roadless 

rule approach should be the minimum 

protection for the GFRG theme. 

Response: Based on public comment, 

input from Tribal representatives, and 

RACNAC advice, the Department made 

a net reduction in the amount of the 

GFRG theme by approximately 203,700 

acres. In addition, roads may not be 

constructed or reconstructed to access 

new mineral leases except in association 

with specific phosphate deposits. The 

Agency has carefully reviewed existing 

management direction and potential 

uses of these lands to ensure that the 

appropriate management theme is being 

applied for each IRA. This specific 

review goes beyond what was 

undertaken during the 2001 rulemaking 

and these refinements reflect the best 

judgment and expertise of the Forest 

Service. 

Proposed Section 294.24 Mineral 

Activities in Idaho Roadless Areas 

Summary of Changes to Proposed 

Section 294.24 (Final Rule Section 

294.25). Mineral and energy potential 

within IRAs was given serious 

consideration. The minerals portion of 

the rule has been reorganized and now 

provides management direction for each 

theme. Paragraphs (a) and (b) separately 

identify that the rule provisions apply 

prospectively and only where the 

Department exercises discretionary 

authority. 

The final rule does not include the 

proposed rule’s (section 294.24(a)) 

language ‘‘including any subsequent 

renewal, reissuance, continuation, 

extension, or modification, or new legal 

instruments, for mineral and associated 

activities on these or adjacent land.’’ 

This provision, in particular, the 

adjacent land phrase allows new access 

and road building, mainly for phosphate 

mining, to occur where a post-rule 

modification to a pre-existing lease 

resulted in an enlargement of the 

original lease boundary regardless of 

theme. The RACNAC could not reach 

consensus on the issue of phosphate 

mining. However, there were 

discussions during committee 

deliberations expressing support for a 

recommendation that the final rule 

eliminate the exception for phosphate 

mining in the BCR theme lands and 

move appropriate acres of known 

phosphate lease areas (KPLAs) and a 

buffer zone into GFRG theme lands. 

Based on these comments, the 

Department is eliminating the adjacent 

lands provision. New access will only 

be permitted where the expansion falls 

within the GFRG theme. This change is 

not to be construed as limiting access or 

other related activities associated with 

mineral leasing, including lease 

renewals, reissuances, continuations, 

extensions, or modifications issued 

prior to the effective date of this rule 

regardless of the theme. The Forest 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61468 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Service in cooperation with the State, 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the 

RACNAC, and other interested parties 

identified the locations of phosphate 

mining activities most likely to occur in 

the future and adjusted the land 

classifications to focus on a smaller 

number of acres that could be available 

for mineral development and conserving 

the roadless character of the remaining 

areas. These adjustments allow the 

Agency to preserve the unroaded 

character of the vast majority of these 

lands, especially certain high quality 

fish and game habitat (e.g., portions of 

Deer Creek and Bear Creek), while 

recognizing long-standing interest in 

limited development of nationally 

critical phosphate mineral resources by 

industry and local communities. By 

adjusting the classifications for specific 

lands the Agency will provide better 

resource protection while making 

essentially the same number of acres 

available for phosphate development. 

Because of these adjustments, the 

proposed rule’s exceptions for new 

phosphate activities in the BCR theme 

were no longer necessary and have been 

removed. Thus, for leases obtained after 

the effective date of this rule, road 

construction and other associated 

activities can only occur in areas 

designated as GFRG theme to access 

specific phosphate deposits identified 

in Figure 3–20 in the FEIS. As a result, 

under the final rule road construction or 

reconstruction will only be permissible 

in specific areas (5,770 acres of KPLAs) 

where there is very high potential for 

development in the future. This 

refinement addresses concerns 

regarding unbounded geographic scope 

of these possible activities within IRAs. 

Road construction is not permitted after 

the effective date of the final rule for 

mineral leasing in BCR theme areas, but 

the final rule does not bar surface 

occupancy unless prohibited by the 

applicable LMP. 

The Forest Service will no longer 

recommend, authorize, or consent to 

road construction or reconstruction 

associated with post-rule mineral leases 

in GFRG theme areas, except for 

phosphates. Currently, the known oil 

and gas potential is low and some LMPs 

restrict or prohibit new exploration. 

Geothermal development is currently 

speculative in IRAs and a major part of 

the areas with potential for its 

development is outside IRAs. Therefore, 

an exception for oil and gas or 

geothermal leasing is not warranted. 

The final rule also clarifies that surface 

occupancy is permissible within GFRG 

theme areas unless prohibited by the 

applicable LMP. This is consistent with 

the approach taken by the 2001 roadless 

rule. The Agency will also require that 

permissible road construction or 

reconstruction associated with mining 

activities in the GFRG theme will only 

be approved after evaluating other 

access options. The use or sale of 

common variety mineral materials in 

the GFRG theme will only be permitted 

where it is incidental to an otherwise 

lawful activity. 

Comment: Mineral activities. One 

respondent asked for clarifying language 

concerning surface use and roading for 

mineral activities with respect to each of 

the themes. Others felt that the 

proposed regulations did not provide 

adequate environmental protection for 

mineral extraction operations. Some 

respondents felt there should not be any 

new roads allowed for mineral 

development. Others felt there should 

be no mineral development of any kind 

on national forests and suggested 

pursuing a formal statutory withdrawal 

of lands under the mining laws. 

Response: After consideration of these 

comments, the Department determined 

that surface use and occupancy for 

leasable minerals will only be permitted 

in the BCR and GFRG theme areas, and 

that any such operations may be further 

restricted or prohibited by the 

applicable LMP components. 

Comparatively, these limitations are 

more restrictive than the 2001 roadless 

rule, which permitted surface use and 

occupancy on any inventoried roadless 

area. However, the Department declines 

the request submitted by some 

respondents that USDA request the 

Secretary of Interior to initiate the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA) withdrawal process for all 

roadless areas or all NFS lands. Instead, 

the final rule establishes limitations on 

the future exercise of discretion 

available to Forest Service responsible 

officials. These limitations include: (1) 

No road construction or reconstruction 

or surface occupancy in the WLR, 

SAHTS, and Primitive theme areas; (2) 

no road construction or reconstruction 

for mineral leases in BCR theme areas; 

(3) no road construction or 

reconstruction for mineral leases in 

GFRG theme areas except for activities 

associated with phosphate deposits; and 

(4) in the BCR and GFRG theme areas, 

the use and sale of common variety 

mineral materials, and associated road 

construction access these mineral 

materials may occur only when the use 

of these mineral materials is incidental 

to an activity otherwise permissible by 

this rule. 

Comment: Saleable minerals. One 

respondent suggested that sale of 

common variety minerals should be 

restricted within BCR theme areas. 

Another respondent asked for 

clarification for why some saleable 

mineral activities are allowed when 

associated with other allowable 

activities, what these other allowable 

activities would be, how frequent, and 

what is the pubic benefit. Another 

suggestion was to provide an exception 

for the Forest Service to use of common 

variety minerals in support of its 

activities, like road or trail maintenance. 

Response: Commercial permitting of 

salable minerals in the BCR and GFRG 

themes is prohibited in the final rule. 

This addresses public concerns over this 

type of mineral development. 

Practically speaking, there is no 

independent commercial interest in 

development of these saleable minerals 

in IRAs. The total average production of 

mineral materials from NFS lands 

represents only about 1 percent of the 

total mineral materials production for 

all of Idaho (FEIS, section 3.5 Minerals 

and Energy). 

Saleable minerals will only be made 

available as incidental to an otherwise 

permissible activity. The majority of 

saleable mineral use has been gravel for 

road construction, reconstruction, and 

maintenance or for Agency facilities 

development including trails. For 

example, gravel may be necessary to 

reduce the sediment from a road 

permitted in the BCR theme by this rule 

and could be authorized where an 

appropriate gravel source is in 

proximity of the road. This exception is 

expected to be rarely used, but is 

important because it allows use of 

saleable minerals for protection of other 

resources in IRAs without the increased 

costs of hauling these materials long 

distances. It also allows the Agency to 

use these sources in support of 

permissible road, trail, or facilities 

construction or maintenance. 

Comment: Phosphate and leasable 

minerals. Several respondents expressed 

concern over allowing any expansion of 

phosphate mining in IRAs, especially 

Primitive and WLR themes, although 

phosphate is only known to occur on 

about 14,460 acres in IRAs. Many 

comments pertained to public concern 

for the phosphate mining-related effects 

of selenium on water quality. Some 

Tribes shared this concern and also 

expressed concern over the potential 

loss of trust resources. Respondents 

requested clarification about how far 

road construction and development 

would extend outside of existing leases 

into roadless areas. The BLM suggested 

the rule allow for a one-half mile 

expansion buffer around existing leases 

as there are some leases outside the 

known phosphate lease areas (KPLAs) 

and the rule should not restrict access 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61469 

to these deposits. The BLM sought other 

clarifications and urged the Department 

to provide flexibility to administer 

existing leases to ensure maximum 

recovery of the resource by allowing the 

building of roads, water wells, power 

lines, and other supporting facilities on 

off-lease sites. Other respondents stated 

that the rule should clarify whether 

modifications of existing leases in an 

IRA, which are part of the KPLA, are 

allowed and how existing lease rights 

are dealt with in the Primitive 

designation. One respondent felt that all 

KPLA and existing leases should be 

moved to the GFRG theme. Other 

respondents felt phosphate leases 

should be confined to KPLAs and not to 

the entire BCR theme. Another 

respondent suggested known and high 

potential KPLA areas should be moved 

to the GFRG theme, and all other KPLAs 

moved to BCR where their development 

should not be allowed. Another 

respondent felt the rule should include 

requirements for mine clean up and the 

prevention of any future selenium 

pollution before any expansion of 

phosphate mining areas. One 

respondent felt there should be no 

expansion of phosphate mines under 

any circumstances. 

Response: Mineral activities were one 

of the areas where the Department made 

a specific request for public comment in 

the preamble to the proposed rule (73 

FR 1139). The RACNAC could not come 

to consensus on the issue of phosphate 

mining within IRAs. However, during 

RACNAC’s deliberations, several 

committee members recommended that 

if the Agency were to allow road 

construction and reconstruction for 

leases obtained after the effective date of 

this final rule, that those activities be 

limited to areas managed pursuant to 

the GFRG theme. 

The Department agrees, and believes 

that with fine tuning of the allocations, 

all new road construction or 

reconstruction associated with post-rule 

phosphate leases can be limited to the 

GFRG theme. After careful review of 

KPLAs and the specific classifications 

in the proposed rule, the Agency 

changed the proposed designation of 

some BCR theme areas in the proposed 

rule to the GFRG theme in the final. Not 

all KPLAs with phosphate potential 

proposed as BCR theme were changed to 

the GFRG theme. Several areas 

including the Bear Creek IRA, retain 

their BCR theme designation because 

those areas exhibit other high resource 

values. Approximately 1,280 acres of 

unleased phosphate are retained in the 

Primitive theme and 6,500 acres in the 

BCR theme. In addition, about 910 acres 

are in the GFRG theme in the Bear Creek 

Roadless Area but are not specified on 

figure 3–20. Therefore, roads may not be 

constructed to access any of these areas. 

The Agency also agreed with the 

BLM’s recommendation that, consistent 

with local land management plan 

components, the KPLAs should have a 

one-half mile buffer to allow for any 

uncertainties about where the ore body 

is located. For leases obtained after the 

effective date of this rule, road 

construction and other associated 

activities can only occur in areas 

designated as GFRG theme to access 

phosphate deposits identified in Figure 

3–20 in the FEIS. This rule does not 

grant automatic access across the GFRG 

theme to ore bodies depicted in the 

map. However, it does allow 

consideration and review of the merits 

of individual applications which will 

undergo site-specific environmental 

analysis, including consideration of 

access options. 

The Department believes maintaining 

future options within the select GFRG 

theme areas are important to 

communities in Southeast Idaho and to 

the nation because of the increasing 

demand for phosphate. The Department 

believes these permissions and 

restrictions provide a balance between 

providing access to a limited portion of 

a significant national resource and 

protecting roadless area values. Of 

course, any future development 

proposals would themselves require 

site-specific environmental analysis. 

Additionally, the final rule directs the 

responsible official to review other 

access options and assure consistency 

with applicable LMP components before 

authorizing any new road construction 

associated with mineral activities in 

IRAs. Similar to the proposed rule, the 

final rule also directs that temporary 

road construction must be conducted in 

a way that minimizes effects on surface 

resources, is consistent with LMP 

components, and may only be used for 

specified purposes. Like the 2001 

roadless rule, this final rule honors 

valid existing leases. In this situation, 

the Forest Service will permit necessary 

road construction, road reconstruction, 

and surface occupancy for existing 

leases regardless of the theme. 

The issue of phosphate mining and 

selenium pollution is discussed in the 

FEIS at pp. 186, 187, 205, 208, 210, 211, 

216, 259, 262, 264, 267, 277, 291, and 

294. The Department has determined 

that requirements for mine clean up and 

the prevention of any future selenium 

pollution is best handled at the sitespecific project level. 

Comment: Locatable minerals. One 

respondent suggested language allowing 

access similar to the language proposed 

under leasable minerals should be 

included for locatable minerals. 

Response: The final rule is clear that 

it does not intend to regulate mining 

activities conducted pursuant to the 

General Mining Law of 1872. The 

Agency has separate requirements 

relating to road construction and 

maintenance for locatable minerals at 36 

CFR 228.8(f) that adequately provide for 

these protections. Recently, the Agency 

proposed a revision of its locatable 

mineral regulations; questions 

concerning access to locatable minerals 

will be governed by that final rule. 

Therefore, it was determined that no 

further adjustment of this regulation is 

necessary. 

Comment: Energy resources. Several 

respondents suggested that the rule 

should not include an exemption for oil 

and gas or geothermal development as 

there is currently no known potential 

for their development. These 

respondents further asserted that future 

energy exploration should be dealt with 

under the proposed change clause, and 

that there are sufficient places outside 

roadless areas where alternative energy 

sources like wind, biomass, and 

geothermal can be developed. 

Response: As identified in the FEIS, 

there is low potential for oil and gas 

development in Idaho but there is some 

potential for geothermal energy. Wind 

energy is more developed in southern 

Idaho and there appears to be ample 

opportunities for expansion outside 

roadless areas. The Western Energy 

Corridor study was also considered 

during development of this rule and no 

corridors have been identified in IRAs. 

There is currently one geothermal 

facility in Idaho generating electricity. 

Because the development of this 

resource is in its infancy and would be 

widely available on private and the 

roaded portion of NFS lands, the 

Department has determined there is not 

a need to allow roads for developing 

geothermal energy in IRAs at this time. 

If the State or other parties believe new 

information or circumstances warrant 

an adjustment, a change of the rule’s 

restrictions can be sought and 

considered though the rule’s 

modification process. For now, the final 

rule prohibits new road construction or 

reconstruction within any theme for 

post-rule oil and gas, and geothermal 

leasing. Surface use and occupancy 

would still be permitted in the BCR and 

GFRG themes so long as the LMP 

components do not expressly prohibit 

such activities. 

Comment: Consultation with mining 

and energy interests. A respondent 

suggested the Agency should consult 

with State of Idaho agencies and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61470 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

mining, energy, and geothermal 

industry representatives to assure the 

rule does not restrict or confuse 

development. 

Response: The Department 

highlighted its desire for public 

comment concerning mineral and 

energy issues in the proposed rule. With 

regard to phosphates, as noted above, 

the Agency and State have coordinated 

with BLM, representatives of the 

affected industry, Tribal representatives, 

environmental groups, and other 

interested parties to identify the IRAs 

that possess resource values other than 

phosphate development and placed 

those areas in themes that would 

preclude future development. The 

Forest Service also worked with the 

BLM to ensure that both agencies 

understood the extent of phosphate 

development that would be permissible 

in IRAs. 

Comment: Project-by project 

approach. One respondent 

recommended that decisions regarding 

mineral exploration and development 

should be made project-by-project rather 

than rule classifications for BCR and 

GFRG themes. 

Response: A project-level approach 

would effectively be the same as the 

system examined in Alternative 2— 

Existing Plans, which is analyzed in 

detail in the draft and final EISs. The 

Department believes that the final rule 

(Alternative 4) presents a better 

approach blending local understanding 

of these regional interests along with 

national interest in roadless area 

management, minerals management, 

and energy security. Additionally, the 

modification provision set out in section 

294.27 is available for adjustments as 

needed for individual projects. 

Proposed Section 294.25 Timber 

Cutting, Sale, or Removal in Idaho 

Roadless Areas 

Summary of Changes in Proposed 

Section 294.25 (Final Rule Section 

294.24). Paragraph (a) has been 

reworded for clarity but retains the same 

limitations on timber cutting in WLR 

presented in the proposed rule. The 

proposed rule’s use of significant risk in 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii) in the Primitive and 

SAHTS themes has been eliminated and 

has been revised with language that 

better describes a narrower exception 

focusing on protection for at-risk 

communities and municipal water 

supply systems from uncharacteristic 

wildland fire effects. As explained in 

the FEIS at section 3.3, Fuels 

Management, these fuel treatments are 

necessary to reduce potential direct and 

indirect effects of wildland fires to these 

communities. This aligns more closely 

to the Department’s, Forest Service’s, 

and State’s desire to provide protections 

similar or beyond those provided by the 

2001 roadless rule without sacrificing 

necessary flexibility for the protection of 

critical community interests. Instead of 

splitting limitations on these activities 

across multiple paragraphs as in the 

proposed rule, section 294.24(b)(2) lists 

all limitations. The final rule also 

clarifies that when assessing whether 

actions maintain or improve roadless 

characteristics, responsible official’s 

evaluations examine long term effects 

rather than only immediate 

consequences. 

Several refinements have been made 

to the provisions concerning timber 

cutting in the BCR theme. The final rule 

includes new provisions in section 

294.24(c)(1)(i–ii) to refine instances 

where timber cutting can be conducted 

to reduce hazardous fuel conditions. 

The rule now distinguishes between 

cutting for fuel reduction purposes 

inside and outside CPZs and requires 

additional protections and findings for 

actions taken outside a CPZ. The final 

rule clarifies that significant risk will be 

addressed in terms of landscape 

condition and fire event probability. 

Consistent with the concepts of the 2006 

Cohesive Strategy, the regulation now 

identifies and defines the factors that go 

into that determination—history of fire 

occurrence along with fire hazard and 

risk. These adjustments parallel changes 

made in the road construction provision 

in the final rule discussed above. 

The RACNAC and some respondents 

expressed concern regarding whether 

temporary roads should be constructed 

for facilitating forest health or other 

permissible timber cutting, sale, or 

removal activities in BCR theme areas. 

The Department agrees that new roads, 

even temporary roads, should not be 

developed to undertake these types of 

timber cutting activities because of their 

potential to diminish roadless 

characteristics. However, the final rule 

recognizes that with appropriate 

limitations, such as maximizing the 

retention of large trees, these activities 

could make use of roads that already 

exist and roads authorized under the 

various provisions of this rule 

(including temporary roads until 

decommissioned). By allowing the use 

of existing and permissible roads to 

support limited timber cutting activities, 

the ability to accomplish limited forest 

health objectives can be met without 

diminishing roadless characteristics 

over the long-term. Such roads would 

not be available to support further 

timber cutting operations once they are 

decommissioned. General instructions 

regarding temporary roads have been 

added in a new paragraph (d) based on 

input from RACNAC and the public. 

Comment: Limits on timber cutting. 

One respondent suggested limiting 

timber cutting, sale, or removal in the 

Primitive theme to only those timber 

activities that will improve one or more 

of the roadless characteristics. Several 

respondents suggested timber cutting 

should be limited in the Primitive 

theme to instances where it would 

improve one or more roadless 

characteristics and maintain the quality 

of game and fish habitat and recreation 

experience. Other respondents 

suggested that an exception be included 

for the Primitive theme allowing 

treatment for human health and safety 

near trails or other recreation sites. For 

the BCR theme, it was suggested the 

cutting, selling, or removing of timber 

be limited to where it will maintain all 

roadless characteristics or improve one 

or more of the roadless characteristics. 

Another respondent felt the rule should 

disclose the controversy over the use of 

logging as a fuels reduction method. 

Another felt that the proposed rule 

exceptions were ambiguous and that the 

DEIS underestimated potential effects. 

Other respondents wanted to know why 

language in the 2001 roadless rule 

concerning generally small diameter 

and the range of variability were are not 

carried forward into the proposed rule. 

Similarly, other respondents asked for 

clarification about whether large 

diameter trees can be logged and 

consideration of a limitation to small 

diameter trees and/or an old-growth, 

large tree retention requirements. 

Response: Based on these comments, 

the Department has elected to follow the 

approach used in the Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act (HFRA) with 

modifications recommended by the 

RACNAC. In the Primitive theme, 

timber cutting under the final rule 

would be prohibited unless existing 

roads or aerial systems are used and the 

cutting, selling, or removing of timber 

would: (1) Improve threatened, 

endangered, proposed, or sensitive 

species habitat; (2) maintain or restore 

ecosystem composition, structure, and 

processes; or (3) reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire to at-risk 

communities and municipal water 

supply systems. Such cutting, selling, or 

removing of timber would also have to 

maintain or improve one or more of the 

roadless characteristics over the longterm. Some additional requirements for 

timber cutting were added, including: 

(1) Timber cutting, selling, or removing 

must be approved by the regional 

forester; (2) retention of large trees as 

appropriate for the forest type to the 

extent the trees promote fire-resilient 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61471 

stands must be maximized; and (3) 

projects must be consistent with 

applicable plan components. With these 

limitations, timber cutting activities on 

these lands is expected to be limited 

and infrequent. The cutting of hazard 

trees near trails and recreation sites for 

human health and safety is allowed 

under section 294.24(b)(v) as it is 

incidental to a management activity not 

otherwise prohibited by this final rule. 

For the BCR theme, the final rule 

modifies the proposed rule’s timber 

cutting provisions (section 

294.25(c)(1)(ii)) to be more specific 

about where and under what conditions 

timber cutting is permissible. The final 

rule identifies that timber cutting would 

only be allowed as follows: (1) To 

reduce hazardous fuel conditions within 

the CPZ; (2) to reduce the significant 

risk of wildland fire effects to an at-risk 

community or municipal water supply 

system outside the CPZ; (3) to improve 

threatened, endangered, proposed, or 

sensitive species habitat; (4) to maintain 

or restore the characteristics of 

ecosystem composition, structure, and 

process; (5) to reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildland fire effects; (6) 

for personal or administrative use; (7) 

where incidental to implementation of a 

management activity not otherwise 

prohibited by this rule; or (8) in a 

substantially altered portion of an IRA. 

Additional conditions were added for 

actions undertaken to reduce significant 

risk of wildland fire effects outside of a 

CPZ; to maintain or restore 

characteristics of ecosystem 

composition, structure, and process; and 

to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic 

wildland fire. These actions must also 

maintain or improve one or more of the 

roadless characteristics over the longterm; maximize the retention of large 

trees as appropriate for the forest type, 

to the extent the trees promote fireresilient stands; are consistent with 

LMP components; and are approved by 

the regional forester. 

The 2001 roadless rule used the 

phrase generally small diameter. The 

requirement to retain large trees as 

appropriate for the forest type replaces 

that terminology. This language was 

recommended by the RACNAC and has 

been part of the Agency’s 

implementation of HFRA and the 

Agency believes the language will be 

better understood by field personnel. 

The new language reflects the sitespecific flexibility needed to treat 

certain forest types in Idaho (e.g., 

lodgepole pine). A definition of forest 

type has been added in the final rule 

that is drawn from the definition of that 

term in the Dictionary of Ecology. The 

Agency will continue to emphasize the 

use of stand thinning, strategic fuel 

breaks, and prescribed fire where 

possible to reduce the forest fuel 

loading. Similarly, the language ‘‘within 

the range of variability that would be 

expected to occur under natural 

disturbance regimes of the current 

climatic period’’ found in the 2001 

roadless rule is not used in this rule 

because it does not easily account for 

species like lodgepole pine that 

routinely experiences stand replacement 

fires, and although it may not be outside 

of its natural disturbance regimes, it 

could pose a significant risk to at-risk 

communities. 

Comment: Restrictions on logging 

methods. One respondent suggested that 

only selective logging by helicopter 

should be allowed in themes where 

timber cutting is allowed because it 

would allow for better quality wood 

without habitat destruction. Another 

respondent felt that the rule should 

clarify whether maintaining roadless 

character means that there will be no 

clear-cutting or seed tree harvest 

methods. 

Response: The Department believes 

selection of logging methods to meet 

silvicultural treatment objectives is best 

left to project-specific decisionmaking. 

A general prohibition on particular 

harvest systems, like clear-cutting or 

seed tree harvest methods, could 

preclude necessary and otherwise 

permissible activities for treating areas. 

Some areas with low commercial value, 

like lodgepole pine stands, may be in 

need of treatment to protect local 

communities and municipal water 

supplies. Restricting logging methods 

would unnecessarily endanger these atrisk communities and municipal water 

supplies. 

Comment: Timber cutting and 

vegetative treatments to improve 

roadless characteristics. Several 

respondents felt it was confusing to 

allow timber cutting under proposed 

section 294.25 if it will maintain or 

improve one or more of the roadless 

characteristics and suggested changing 

the standard to be an assurance that 

timber cutting does not degrade roadless 

character. One respondent suggested 

more rationale is needed before 

conducting vegetative treatments to 

reduce significant risks or for forest 

health activities in the Primitive and 

BCR themes. Other respondents felt 

language was needed that requires 

scientific documentation before 

activities for the maintenance and 

improvement of threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species can be authorized 

in roadless areas. 

Response: The final rule language has 

been modified and section 

294.24(c)(2)(i) now provides that actions 

should maintain or improve roadless 

characteristics over the long-term. The 

final rule includes additional 

definitions and clarifications addressing 

when and where actions undertaken for 

maintaining or restoring the 

characteristics of ecosystem 

composition, structure, and processes; 

or significant risk situations may occur. 

Agency procedures already require 

responsible officials to identify the 

reasons for their decisions and the 

scientific and other source material 

relied upon for agency conclusions. 

Therefore, additional requirements are 

not necessary. 

Comment: Wildland urban interface 

(WUI). Many respondents requested 

clarifications and definition concerning 

WUIs and communities. One 

respondent felt that a roadless area by 

definition is not part of the urban 

interface and should not be included in 

WUI areas. Some respondents suggested 

expanding the radius beyond one mile, 

while others suggested reducing the 

radius to 200 feet. Still others wanted 

more application of science when 

determining WUI boundaries. 

Response: The proposed rule did not 

specifically use WUI as a condition for 

road construction or timber cutting. The 

proposed rule permitted road 

construction or reconstruction and 

timber cutting, sale, or removal in the 

BCR theme to reduce the significant risk 

of wildland fire effects. Significant risk 

was defined as ‘‘a natural resource 

condition threatening an at-risk 

community or municipal water supply 

system.’’ WUI as defined by the HFRA 

includes an area within or adjacent to 

an at-risk community that is identified 

in a community wildfire protection plan 

(CWPP) or is based on default criteria if 

a CWPP does not exist. CWPPs are 

completed for all counties in Idaho. 

Based on public comment and 

RACNAC recommendations, the timber 

cutting section was modified to be more 

precise about where and under what 

conditions timber cutting could be 

done. Timber cutting, sale, or removal 

could be done in the CPZ as described 

as an at-risk community in HFRA. The 

CPZ is an area extending one-half mile 

from the boundary of an at-risk 

community; or an area within one and 

a half miles of the boundary of an at-risk 

community, where any land (1) has a 

sustained steep slope that creates the 

potential for wildfire behavior 

endangering the at-risk community; (2) 

has a geographic feature that aids in 

creating an effective fire break, such as 

a road or a ridge top; or (3) is in 

condition class 3 as defined by HFRA 

meaning areas where fire regimes on 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61472 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

land have been significantly altered 

from historical ranges; there exists a 

high risk of losing key ecosystem 

components from fire; fire frequencies 

have departed from historical 

frequencies by multiple return intervals, 

resulting in dramatic changes to: (1) The 

size, frequency, intensity, or severity of 

fires; and (2) landscape patterns; and 

vegetation attributes have been 

significantly altered from the historical 

range of the attributes. The final rule’s 

definition of an at-risk community 

comes from the HFRA. 

Comment: Use of community wildfire 

protection plans (CWPPs). Several 

respondents raised concerns over the 

legality of using CWPPs in the rule to 

define the WUI because the 

development of a CWPP is not solely in 

the control of the Federal Government. 

Some felt the Proposed Rule’s references 

to HFRA may unintentionally broaden 

forest fuels treatments in roadless areas 

beyond limited community protection 

needs. Others suggested adding 

language to cover any updates to the 

HFRA Interim Field Guide. They also 

noted the field guidance is not limited 

to community protection and includes 

municipal watersheds, ecosystem 

components, and forest/rangeland 

resources. 

Response: CWPPs were not 

specifically referenced in the proposed 

rule. However, consideration of CWPPs 

was implied in provisions regarding 

timber cutting and road construction to 

reduce significant risk. The CWPPS 

were considered when developing the 

final rule as a way to define a 

geographic area for projects that reduce 

significant risks to communities and 

municipal water supply systems. 

However, this concept was not 

considered in detail because it is too 

difficult to define. Each CWPP is 

developed based on a variety of 

information, some more scientific than 

others; and a set distance may not work 

in many cases. While CWPPs can 

provide helpful information, they are 

not developed and controlled solely by 

the Federal Government, and can vary 

widely. In some instances, the county’s 

CWPP indicates the entire county is a 

WUI including all IRAs within the 

county. Therefore, the Department 

decided that reliance exclusively on 

CWPPs was not appropriate. After 

consideration of public comments and 

the RACNAC’s recommendation for 

allowing road building in certain 

circumstance described above, the 

Department has decided to use a 

combination of specific geographic 

criteria (the CPZs) and added 

requirements for the situations when 

road construction and reconstruction 

could be used to facilitate timber cutting 

to reduce significant risk outside the 

CPZs. Responsible officials can consider 

information from CWPPs as in many 

instances they may be a useful tool for 

determining whether a significant risk 

situation exists. 

Comment: Vegetation treatments in 

the BCR theme. One respondent 

suggested that documentation should be 

required for maintenance or 

improvement of habitat for threatened, 

endangered, proposed, indicator, and 

sensitive species. Another respondent 

recommended inclusion of aspen as a 

type of restoration project. One 

respondent felt that the rule should be 

more flexible in the BCR theme to allow 

for management treatments outside of 

WUI and municipal watersheds. 

Another respondent questioned if 

timber cutting activities in the BCR 

theme would maintain all roadless 

characteristics or improve one or more 

of the roadless characteristics. 

Response: Agency planning 

procedures (i.e., NFMA, NEPA, ESA) 

already require analysis, documentation 

and disclosure of the scientific and 

other information relied upon for 

agency conclusions regarding wildlife 

habitat. Therefore, additional 

requirements are not necessary. 

Treatments in aspen stands are allowed 

as long as they conform to the 

requirements of the rule. For a 

discussion of activities outside of WUI, 

see the discussions above under 

significant risk and under Summary of 

Changes in Proposed Section 294.25 

(Final Rule Section 294.24). As a 

clarification, the final rule limits timber 

cutting in the BCR theme to situations 

that (1) maintain or improve one or 

more of the roadless characteristics over 

the long-term; (2) maximize the 

retention of large trees as appropriate for 

the forest type to the extent the trees 

promote fire-resilient stands; (3) are 

consistent with LMP components other 

than those inconsistent with this final 

rule; and (4) are approved by the 

regional forester. 

Comment: Forest health activities. 

Some respondents were concerned over 

the possible abuse of this exception and 

thought the language should be struck 

from the rule. One respondent thought 

the two exceptions in proposed section 

294.25(c)(1) should stand on their own 

and the reference to forest health should 

be removed. Others felt that a definition 

was needed for the term forest health 

and that further parameters should be 

included. Another respondent thought 

forest health projects should not be 

allowed in the BCR theme, making the 

proposed rule more like the 2001 

roadless rule. One respondent felt forest 

health should not be confined to the 

health of trees but other parts of the 

ecosystem. 

Response: The final rule has been 

designed to address vital forest health 

needs. The final rule removes the 

proposed criteria that a road could be 

constructed ‘‘to facilitate forest health 

activities.’’ The final rule does not 

include a definition for forest health 

because the term is not used. The BCR 

theme in the final rule does not permit 

road building for the purpose of 

conducting limited forest health 

activities. However, these limited forest 

health activities may proceed using 

other means, including the use of aerial 

systems and existing roads, including 

those temporary roads authorized by 

this rule until the road is 

decommissioned. This adjustment is 

intended to add a small degree of 

flexibility under special circumstances 

while maintaining essentially the same 

management regime for these lands as 

directed under the 2001 rule. The final 

rule does not impose restrictions on 

forest health activities for the betterment 

of the ecosystem beyond those expressly 

addressed by the regulation. For 

example, stream habitat improvements 

like willow planting for shade 

improvement are unaffected by the rule. 

Proposed Section 294.26 Other 

Activities in Idaho Roadless Areas 

Summary of Changes in Proposed 

Section 294.26 (Final Rule Section 

294.26). The rule language concerning 

motorized travel, motorized equipment, 

and mechanical transport has been 

simplified with no change in intent. 

Along with other minor wording 

changes, the grazing provision now uses 

permit rather than allotment. The 

proposed and final rules both indicate 

that future grazing operations will 

conform to the rule, but that current 

operations are not affected. Standard 

Forest Service grazing permits have a 

maximum ten-year term. Allotment 

management planning occurs 

periodically and has no set term. The 

Department’s intention for bringing 

future grazing operations into 

conformance with the rule 

classifications is more readily 

accomplished through the mandatory 

term permit system than through the 

optional allotment management 

planning system as not all operations 

are covered by an existing allotment 

management plan. 

Comment: Public involvement during 

transportation planning. A respondent 

suggested the rule should require that 

any present or future roads analysis 

conducted in an Idaho roadless area 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61473 

should be shared with county 

commissioners. 

Response: The Governor’s petition 

and final rule at section 294.26(a) 

identify that decisions concerning the 

future management and/or status of 

existing roads or trails in IRAs under 

this rule will be made during the 

applicable travel management 

processes. Forest Service responsible 

officials are already directed to 

coordinate with counties when engaged 

in travel management decisionmaking 

regarding designation or revision of NFS 

roads, trails, and areas on NFS land as 

directed in 36 CFR 212.53. No 

additional regulatory direction is 

needed. 

Comment: Ski areas. A respondent 

suggested ski areas should be taken out 

of roadless area designations, including 

the Primitive theme. Several 

respondents felt ski areas should be 

moved into the Forest Plan Special Area 

(FPSA) designation. Another respondent 

requested a re-evaluation of the ski area 

permit boundaries in LMPs and the ski 

area master development plan to 

consider the actual ski use boundaries. 

Response: The status and theme 

assignment for all ski areas was further 

evaluated based on public comment. 

Based on the review, it was determined 

that some existing LMP prescriptions 

did not match the authorized ski area 

permit boundary. In the proposed rule, 

not all the developed winter recreation 

sites had been placed into the FPSA 

category. In the final rule, all developed 

winter recreation sites, based on their 

permit boundaries are placed into 

FPSA. These areas would be managed 

according to the applicable LMP. 

For example, the potential for future 

expansion of Brundage Mountain has 

been acknowledged in its master 

development plan, including 

approximately 7,000 acres in the Patrick 

Butte Roadless Area. The final rule 

identifies these lands as a FPSA and, as 

such, the lands will be managed in 

accordance with the local land 

management plan and standard 

administrative and environmental 

review processes for evaluation of ski 

areas will apply. The final rule is 

neutral regarding potential expansion, 

neither assuring nor baring the outcome 

of future decisionmaking. 

Classifications for ski areas, or parts of 

ski areas, where only snowcat skiing is 

authorized were not adjusted as no rule 

related activities are associated with 

these uses. 

Proposed Section 294.27 Scope and 

Applicability 

Summary of Changes in Proposed 

Section 294.27 (Final Rule Sections 

294.27 and 294.28). Several adjustments 

were made to the scope and 

applicability provisions set out in the 

proposed section 294.27. First, a new 

paragraph 294.28(a) was added to 

respond to requests that the rule clarify 

the relationship of this subpart to the 

2001 roadless rule. Paragraph (a) of the 

final rule is intended to make clear that 

this rule supersedes the 2001 roadless 

rule. Therefore the 2001 roadless rule 

shall have no effect within the State of 

Idaho regardless of the legal 

uncertainties of the 2001 roadless rule 

because of pending litigation as noted 

above. The Department has reexamined 

management direction for these lands 

under various regimes, considering 

national and local interests, and 

determined that the final rule represents 

a balanced solution that best meets the 

needs of the American public for these 

lands. A clarification has been added 

about the relationship of this final rule 

and LMPs in section 294.28(d). A 

further clarification of the relationship 

between the rule and plans was made by 

adding paragraph 294.28(f) in the final 

rule that expressly states that the final 

rule is not intended to overwrite 

management direction applicable within 

FPSAs. Paragraphs 294.28(g) and (h) are 

added to expressly note that nothing in 

the rule waives any applicable 

requirements regarding site-specific 

environmental analysis, public 

involvement, consultation with Tribes 

and other agencies, or compliance with 

applicable laws; nor modifies the 

relationship between the United States 

and Indian Tribes. Finally, the 

corrections and modifications process 

has been simplified to improve 

readability and placed in a separate 

section (294.27). 

Comment: Role of LMP components 

during implementation of the rule. 

Several respondents raised concerns 

that the proposed rule was silent on 

meeting LMP standards and guidelines 

or other interagency standards 

established to meet resource objectives, 

for example INFISH. 

Response: The final rule (section 

294.28(d)) makes it clear that applicable 

LMP components (desired conditions, 

objectives, suitability, guidelines, and 

standards) must be adhered to during 

the planning and implementation of a 

project. For example, in the GFRG 

theme, LMP components generally 

permit road construction. However, 

some components set sideboards or 

conditions for road construction (e.g., 

roads may not be constructed in riparian 

areas unless certain conditions are met 

or may not be constructed in grizzly 

bear habitat unless certain road 

densities are met). In particular LMPs 

provide management direction to reduce 

or minimize adverse effects to 

threatened and endangered species. 

This direction is not inconsistent with 

the final rule. Therefore, these 

conditions would still apply to actions 

permissible under the final rule and if 

the project cannot comply with the plan 

requirements, the proposed project 

would have to be modified, abandoned, 

or the specific LMP component 

amended. There are some IRAs where 

the management theme direction 

established in the final rule would be 

more permissive than existing LMPs, for 

example allowing the use of a temporary 

road for fuels treatment within a CPZ 

while the existing LMP does not allow 

for roads in the area. In these few 

instances, the rule would override the 

plan’s general allocation and road 

construction could be permitted. 

However, any such road building must 

still be consistent with all LMP 

direction that provides specific criteria 

for designing projects or activities. In 

the example above, the road must still 

meet requirements found in INFISH, 

PACFISH, southwest Idaho Group 

Forest-wide requirements, the Final 

Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly 

Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area, 

the Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment, 

or other species-specific direction. 

Comment: Administrative corrections 

and modifications. Several respondents 

felt that more clarity was needed on the 

procedures for boundary changes to the 

IRA maps identified in proposed section 

294.21. Others requested further 

clarification regarding the proposed 

significance determination for 

modifications. Several respondents 

recommended public involvement no 

matter the magnitude of change even if 

the proposed change is perceived by the 

Agency to be non-significant or an 

administrative correction. In addition, 

respondents requested a 30-day public 

comment period before any change is 

made. One respondent expressed 

concern that the change clause would 

allow incremental erosion of IRA 

protections. A Tribal respondent felt 

that the change clause would result in 

the categorical exclusions of public 

input and Tribal government-togovernment consultation. Other 

respondents felt that the revision of 

boundary lines for the themes and 

roadless areas should be made simpler. 

Response: The Department identified 

the correction and modification process 

as an aspect of the proposed rule where 

public input was most desired. To 

improve readability, the final rule 

establishes a separate provision for 

corrections and modifications. Although 

there was widespread agreement that a 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61474 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

modification provision is needed, 

respondents sought clarifications 

regarding two particular points: the 

public comment process and the 

significance threshold for modifications. 

The proposed rule identified that all 

changes, except correcting typographic 

or mapping errors, would be subject to 

an opportunity for public comment. The 

extent of public involvement was 

intended to vary depending on whether 

a proposed change was deemed a 

significant modification. Some 

respondents found the proposed rule’s 

approach overly complicated or 

confusing. Several respondents, 

including the RACNAC, urged that an 

opportunity for public comment be 

provided for all changes. Therefore, the 

Department has simplified the process. 

The final rule directs the Chief to 

provide notice and comment for all 

changes, including corrections for 

typographic or mapping errors. Further, 

the significance test has been eliminated 

and the Agency will provide a 30-day 

comment period for corrections and a 

minimum 45-day comment period for 

all other modifications. Adjustments 

will comply with applicable 

administrative and environmental 

analysis requirements. 

Proposed Section 294.28 List of 

Designated Idaho Roadless Areas 

Summary of Changes in Proposed 

Section 294.28 (Final Rule Section 

294.29). The final rule designations 

reflect adjustments to area boundaries 

and assigned classifications for specific 

IRAs based upon further review by 

Forest Service field units, the State, and 

in response to public comment since 

publication of the 2001 roadless rule. 

The FEIS Appendix A lists each 

adjustment and identifies the reason the 

change was made. These roadless areas 

are based on the most current inventory, 

found either in existing forest plans, 

proposed forest plans, or the 2001 

roadless rule. In most cases, the 

boundaries from the three sources are 

the same. 

Most of the Idaho’s 2001 roadless rule 

roadless area boundaries were based on 

forest plan inventories completed in the 

mid-1980s. Most of these inventories 

were not updated for the 2001 roadless 

rule to reflect activities that had 

occurred in the 1990s. During LMP 

revisions since the 2001 roadless rule, 

national forests in Idaho updated their 

inventories. Some roadless areas have 

decreased in size from the inventories 

used by the 2001 roadless rule due to 

road construction and timber sales that 

occurred between the mid-1980 

inventory and prior to the 

implementation of the 2001 roadless 

rule. Other roadless areas increased in 

size due to lands gained through land 

exchanges or a new inventory during a 

LMP revision found more adjacent lands 

qualifying for consideration FSH 

1909.12 Land Management Planning, 

Chapter 70 requirements. Additionally, 

some minor changes were made to 

correct mapping errors found since the 

2001 roadless rule. 

Comment: Several respondents raised 

concerns that the proposed theme 

designations for the propose rule did 

not correctly reflect current LMP 

direction for the area. In addition, some 

respondents felt that too many acres are 

being placed in the GFRG theme. 

Response: As previously noted, the 

GFRG theme was reduced by 203,700 

acres (from 609,600 to 405,900 acres) in 

the final rule as described in FEIS, 

Appendices E and P. The Forest Service 

reviewed current LMP direction for each 

IRA. Based on public comment and 

Forest Service review, several changes 

were made to place some additional 

areas into the forest plan special area 

(FPSA) category as this category better 

reflects the management intent of the 

rule for these areas. They include small 

developed or designated dispersed sites 

on the Caribou-Targhee, Payette, and 

Sawtooth NFs, and the ski areas of 

Brundage Mountain discussed above. A 

change was also made to remove 

potential wild and scenic river corridors 

from the FPSA in the Idaho Panhandle 

NFs. Similarly, a change was made on 

the Challis NF where Management 

Areas 11 and 12 had been placed into 

the Primitive theme based on the 

interpretation of LMP direction. 

However, after further review by the 

Challis NF of the road construction or 

reconstruction activities that have 

occurred in these management areas, it 

was determined that the appropriate 

theme for these two areas is the BCR 

theme. More information on these 

changes can be found in Appendix E of 

the FEIS. 

Regulatory Certifications 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This final rule was reviewed under 

USDA procedures, Executive Order 

(E.O.) 12866 issued September 30, 1993, 

as amended by E.O. 13258 and E.O. 

13422 on Regulatory Planning and 

Review and the major rule provisions of 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement and Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 

800). This final rule is not an 

economically significant rule. This final 

rule will not have an annual effect of 

$100 million or more or adversely affect 

the economy or economic sectors. This 

final rule is not expected to interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency, nor raise legal or policy 

issues. This final rule will not alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 

rights and obligations of recipients of 

such programs. However, due to the 

level of interest in roadless area 

management, this final rule has been 

designated as significant and is 

therefore subject to Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) review 

under E.O. 12866. 

A regulatory impact analysis has been 

prepared for this final rule. OMB 

circulars as well as guidance regarding 

E.O. 12866 indicate that regulatory 

impact analysis should include a benefit 

cost analysis and an assessment of 

distributional effects. The benefits, 

costs, and distributional effects of four 

alternatives referred to as follows: 2001 

Roadless Rule (2001 Rule), existing 

forest plans (Existing Plans), the 

Proposed Rule and the final rule are 

analyzed over a 15-year time period 

from 2008 to 2022. For the purpose of 

regulatory impact analysis, the 2001 

Rule is assumed to be the no action 

alternative to represent baseline 

conditions or goods and services 

provided by national forests and 

grasslands in the near future in the 

absence of the final rule. The baseline 

assumption is consistent with no action 

alternative used in the final 

environmental impact statement for the 

final rule. The IMPLAN modeling 

framework is used to estimate the 

economic impacts of the regulatory 

action. 

Summary of the Results of Impact 

Analysis 

The regulatory impact analysis 

examines four alternatives establishing 

regulatory direction for the management 

of the 9.3 million acres of Idaho 

Roadless Areas (IRAs): 

(1) Direction based on the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 

Rule); 

(2) Direction based on existing land 

management plans for national forests 

in Idaho (Existing Plans); 

(3) Direction based on the proposed 

rule (Proposed Rule). 

(4) Direction based on this final rule 

(Final Rule). 

The purpose of the Final (and 

Proposed) Rule is to provide Statespecific direction for the conservation 

and management of Idaho’s inventoried 

roadless areas. The Final Rule integrates 

local management concerns with the 

national objectives for protecting 

roadless area values and characteristics. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61475 

The 2001 Rule 

The 2001 Rule is the baseline 

alternative. The 2001 Rule alternative 

presents a roadless area management 

regime based on prohibitions with 

exceptions. This alternative prohibits 

road construction and reconstruction in 

roadless areas with exceptions. Timber 

cutting, sale, or removal, is prohibited 

with exceptions. Unless an exemption 

applied, road construction would not be 

allowed for discretionary (leasable and 

saleable) mineral activities. 

Existing Plans 

The Existing Plans alternative 

represents an Idaho Roadless Area 

management regime based on each 

forest’s land management plan (LMP). 

Generally, LMPs would allow timber 

cutting and road construction or 

reconstruction on 1.26 million acres of 

the 9.3 million acres of IRAs. Road 

construction and timber cutting would 

be allowed on an additional 4.48 

million acres over the baseline. 

Permissions for mineral activity vary by 

each National Forest land management 

plan from limited to full development. 

Proposed Rule 

The proposed Idaho Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule is programmatic in 

nature and consists of five management 

themes. The themes provide a 

management spectrum intended to meet 

the purpose of the rule. Depending on 

the theme, road construction or 

reconstruction, timber cutting, and 

discretionary mineral activities are 

allowed or prohibited with or without 

exceptions. 

Final Rule 

The Final Rule refines and clarifies 

parts of the Proposed Rule based on 

comments received on the Proposed 

Rule from the public, Tribes, the State 

of Idaho, and recommendations from 

the RACNAC. The major modifications 

between the Proposed Rule and Final 

Rule include: 

• The amount and type of roadless 

areas placed in the various themes. 

• Clarifications on the permissions 

and restrictions associated with road 

construction and reconstruction and 

timber cutting, sale, or removal with 

fuel treatments in areas associated with 

at-risk communities and municipal 

water supplies. 

• Restrictions on road construction in 

association with leasable minerals other 

than phosphate. 

• The public comment requirements 

to make changes in the future. 

For more information on the 

alternatives, see discussion under 

Alternatives Considered by the 

Department section in this preamble 

and FEIS Chapter 2 (http:// 

roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/ 

idaho_roadless/feis/feis_vol_1.pdf). 

The final rule establishes five 

management themes to clarify direction 

in IRAs in contrast to the single 

management strategy assigned to all 

IRAs under the 2001 Rule alternative. 

The five themes are Wild Land 

Recreation (WLR), Primitive, Special 

Areas of Heritage and Tribal 

Significance (SAHTS), Backcountry/ 

Restoration (BCR), and General Forest, 

Rangeland, and Grassland (GFRG). In 

general, these themes vary according to 

the degree to which road construction, 

timber cutting, and discretionary 

minerals activity are prohibited in IRAs, 

with the WLR theme being the most 

restrictive and the GFRG theme being 

the least restrictive. Management 

direction under the 2001 Rule 

alternative is most similar to the BCR 

theme under the final rule. The final 

rule does not prescribe site-specific 

activities on the ground nor does it 

irreversibly commit resources. Direct 

effects of site-specific activities would 

be disclosed through NEPA project-level 

analysis when site-specific decisions are 

made. Table 1 compares roadless acres 

by theme, across alternatives. 

Because the rule does not prescribe 

site-specific activities, it is difficult to 

quantify the benefits and costs of the 

alternatives. It should also be 

emphasized that the types of benefits 

derived from roadless characteristics 

and the uses of roadless areas are far 

ranging and include a number of nonmarket and non-use benefit categories. 

Consequently, benefits and costs are not 

monetized, nor are net present values or 

benefit cost ratios estimated. Instead, 

increases and/or losses in benefits are 

discussed separately for each resource 

area in a quantitative or qualitative way. 

Benefits and costs are organized and 

discussed in the context of local 

resource concerns and roadless 

characteristics to remain consistent with 

overall purpose of the rule, recognizing 

that benefits associated ‘‘with local 

concerns may trigger indirect benefits in 

roadless characteristics in some cases 

(such as, forest health).’’ Table 2 

summarizes the potential benefits and 

costs of the final rule, the 2001 Rule, the 

Proposed Rule, and Existing Plans 

alternatives. 

Distributional effects or economic 

impacts, in terms of jobs and labor 

income, are quantified for Idaho’s five 

economic areas (EAs) using regional 

impact models (IMPLAN). Economic 

impacts are evaluated only for changes 

in activities directly affected by the rule 

(timber cutting, minerals extraction, and 

road construction and reconstruction). 

Distributional effects are also discussed 

in relation to revenue sharing, small 

entities, and to the resource dependent 

communities (counties) most likely to 

be affected by the rule. Table 3 

summarizes distributional effects and 

economic impacts of the final rule and 

alternatives. The precision of these 

estimates are unknown since a formal 

analysis of uncertainty has not been 

undertaken. Discussion of estimated 

economic impacts therefore focuses on 

the direction of change and the relative 

differences in impacts across 

alternatives, not absolute values of 

impacts. 

Details about the environmental 

effects of the rule are in the Roadless 

Area Conservation; National Forest 

System Lands in Idaho Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 

In general, projected activity levels 

associated with future road construction 

and timber cutting are anticipated to be 

greater for the final rule, relative to the 

2001 Rule alternative baseline 

conditions. For example, the final rule 

projects an increase in road construction 

by 18 miles over the next 15 years. 

Reasonably foreseeable levels of 

activities such as road construction can 

be projected, but the effects of permitted 

activities on resource conditions or 

roadless characteristics are more 

difficult to predict. As a consequence, 

the agency is often limited to describing 

the extent to which particular resource 

conditions (e.g., highly sensitive soils) 

overlap with roadless areas where 

opportunities for activities (e.g., road 

construction) exist under the different 

alternatives. The actual extent of 

resource effects would be significantly 

smaller than the area of overlap because 

reasonably foreseeable activities are 

projected to occur on very small 

fractions of the total area where 

activities are permitted under the 

alternatives. In addition, other 

requirements to minimize or reduce 

adverse effects, such as management 

direction found in land management 

plans would apply. 

Local Resource Concerns 

Local resource concerns include 

protecting communities, property, and 

resources from risk of wildland fire, as 

well as protecting forests from the 

adverse effects of wildfire, insects and 

disease, and ensuring access (see Table 

2). 

Projected levels of timber cutting for 

reducing hazardous fuels and/or 

reducing the risks from insects and 

disease in roadless areas over 15 years, 

are greatest under Existing Plans 

alternative (40,500 acres) followed by 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61476 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

the Proposed Rule alternative (18,000 

acres), the final rule (15,000 acres), and 

the 2001 Rule alternative (9,000 acres). 

Projected timber cutting is estimated to 

generate approximately 3.0 million 

board feet (MMBF) per year for the 2001 

Rule alternative, 13.36 MMBF per year 

for Existing Plans alternative, 5.8 MMBF 

per year for the Proposed Rule 

alternative, and 5.0 MMBF per year for 

the final rule and would account for 2 

percent, 11 percent, 5 percent, and 4 

percent respectively of the average 

annual harvests from NFS land in Idaho. 

A majority of the volume under the final 

rule is projected for the Idaho 

Panhandle National Forest (NF) in the 

northern EA. 

Approximately 1.44 million acres in 

Idaho Roadless Areas (IRAs) are 

estimated to be at risk of 25 percent or 

more tree mortality (i.e., high risk) over 

the next 15 years. Under the 2001 Rule 

alternative, a majority of the high-risk 

areas would remain untreated. Under 

the final rule, opportunities for 

treatment increase as a result of acreage 

assigned to the GFRG and BCR themes. 

Approximately 39,600 of the 1.44 

million acres at risk are in the GFRG 

under the final rule. An estimated 

877,000 at-risk acres are in the BCR 

theme, of which 56,600 acres are in 

community protection zones (CPZs). 

The final rule specifies that road 

construction under the BCR theme is 

primarily limited to areas in CPZs (or 

areas determined to be at significant 

risk) with the intent of focusing 

treatment opportunities in those areas 

where reductions in wildfire to at-risk 

communities and/or community water 

supplies can be obtained. The areas at 

high risk of tree mortality that are 

located in the GFRG theme (39,600 

acres) or in CPZs under the BCR theme 

(56,600 acres) therefore have the most 

potential to be treated under the final 

rule. 

Compared to the final rule, the 

Proposed Rule alternative decreases the 

amount of high risk acreage assigned to 

the GFRG theme to 25,600 acres and 

increases high risk acreage assigned to 

the BCR theme to 939,400 acres. The 

areas identified in the GFRG theme 

would have the most potential to be 

treated given treatment flexibility. 

Timber cutting in the BCR theme would 

be limited and would be done to retain 

roadless characteristics. In contrast to 

the final rule, the Proposed Rule 

alternative does not specify that road 

construction is limited to CPZs or areas 

at significant risk under the BCR theme. 

Under the Existing Plans alternative, the 

high risk acreage assigned to the GFRG 

theme increases to 187,500 acres while 

755,800 acres are assigned to BCR. The 

Existing Plans alternative provides 

flexible opportunities to treat high risk 

acres through timber cutting on lands 

assigned to BCR and GFRG themes 

without constraints associated with 

roadless characteristic retention 

requirements under the Proposed and 

final rules. 

Approximately 731,000 acres (8 

percent) of IRAs are in the Wildland 

Urban Interface (WUI), and about 

418,900 acres (57 percent) of those acres 

are in high priority fire risk areas as 

defined by fire regime and condition 

class. Projected harvests for hazardous 

fuel reductions could treat the 

equivalent of approximately 4 percent of 

high priority areas in the WUI under the 

Proposed and final rules over a 15 year 

period. In contrast, approximately 10 

percent of high priority WUI areas could 

be treated under Existing Plans 

alternative. An insignificant amount of 

high priority WUI acreage would be 

treated under the 2001 Rule alternative. 

As noted above, the final rule is more 

prescriptive about where road 

construction is permitted in association 

with treatments compared to the 

Proposed Rule alternative, thereby 

clarifying the intent to focus projected 

treatments and tree-cutting in areas at 

high risk of wildland fire, including the 

WUI. 

Opportunities to use a full range of 

treatment methods to address severe 

wildland fire risk, particularly in the 

WUI, are substantially greater under the 

Proposed and final rules relative to the 

2001 Rule alternative. Treatment 

flexibility expands only slightly under 

the Proposed and final rules compared 

to the Existing Plans alternative. 

Approximately 66 percent of WUI 

acreage in IRAs is assigned to 

management themes that permit flexible 

treatment methods (mechanical or 

prescribed fire) with road construction 

under the final rule, compared to 67 

percent under the Proposed Rule 

alternative, and 65 percent under the 

Existing Plans alternative. 

Under the final rule, approximately 

16 percent of community public water 

system acreage that overlaps roadless 

areas is assigned to themes that permit 

flexible treatments with road 

construction. Flexible treatments with 

road construction are conditionally 

permitted on an additional 42 percent of 

community public water systems 

acreage under the final rule when 

significant risk conditions are met; these 

areas are located primarily outside of 

CPZs. In contrast, flexible treatments 

with road construction are permitted on 

58 percent and 47 percent of community 

public water systems areas under the 

Proposed Rule and Existing Plans 

alternatives respectively. 

There is some potential for spreading 

of noxious weeds under the Existing 

Plans alternative, with decreasing 

potential under the Proposed and final 

rules due to projected amounts of road 

construction or reconstruction, timber 

cutting, and mineral activity. However, 

the limited extent of projected activities 

would minimize the potential for 

spreading noxious weeds. 

The environmental consequences 

associated with climate change have 

been considered in the context of carbon 

dioxide releases associated with 

projected activity levels and the varying 

capability to respond to climate change 

under the alternatives. Details about 

these consequences are provided in the 

vegetation and forest health section of 

chapter 3 in the final environmental 

impact statement (FEIS) for the final 

rule. 

Phosphate mining activity on existing 

leases will be similar across the 

alternatives over the next 15 years. 

However, 13,190 acres of unleased IRAs 

with known phosphate reserves (593 

million tons) will be made available for 

future leasing or lease expansion under 

the Proposed Rule alternative that 

would not be accessible under the 2001 

Rule alternative. Areas of unleased 

reserves accessible under the final rule 

decrease to 5,770 acres (260 million 

tons) due to additional road 

construction prohibitions. 

Opportunities to recover phosphate 

from unleased areas are negligible under 

the 2001 Rule alternative. Unleased 

areas with known phosphate reserves 

accessible under the Existing Plans 

alternative are estimated to be 13,620 

acres (613 million tons). Development of 

these areas is expected to occur over an 

extended period of time (50+ years). 

There are negligible opportunities for 

geothermal development under the 2001 

Rule alternative as well as the final rule 

due to road construction prohibitions. 

Geothermal opportunities increase 

under the Proposed Rule alternative 

where a total of 382,400 acres of land 

suitable for leasing (less than 40 

percent) are assigned to the GFRG 

theme, though roadless acres (7,033 

acres) under current lease applications 

would not be accessible using road 

construction. Under the Existing Plans 

alternative, opportunities increase to 

include a total of 3,091,900 acres under 

the BCR and GFRG themes. Roadless 

areas under current lease applications 

would be accessible under the Existing 

Plans alternative. All future phosphate 

and geothermal lease proposals are 

subject to NEPA review. There are 

currently no existing geothermal leases 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61477 

on NFS lands in Idaho, implying that 

information is not available to project 

reasonably foreseeable geothermal 

activity in roadless areas. 

The final rule is not expected to have 

a significant impact on other local 

resource issues or concerns including 

livestock grazing, saleable minerals, 

other leasable minerals (oil, gas, and 

coal), locatable minerals, energy 

corridors, or wind or biomass energy. 

Roadless Characteristics 

Roadless characteristics include: high 

quality soil, water (including drinking 

water), air; plant and animal diversity; 

habitat for sensitive species; reference 

landscapes and high scenic quality; 

primitive and semi-primitive recreation; 

cultural resources; and other locally 

identified unique characteristics (see 

Table 2). Shifts in the number of acres 

assigned to more permissive 

management themes can increase the 

potential for adverse effects to roadless 

characteristics. However, reasonably 

foreseeable effects in the next 15 years 

are likely to be limited by the levels of 

road construction or reconstruction, 

timber harvest, and leasable minerals 

activity that are projected to be 

reasonably foreseeable during that time. 

Based on activity prohibitions and the 

relative acreage assigned to different 

management themes (e.g., GFRG), the 

final rule creates greater potential for 

reductions in scenic integrity compared 

to the 2001 Rule alternative but lower 

potential relative to the Proposed Rule 

and Existing Plans alternatives. Based 

on projected levels of timber harvest 

over the next 15 years, reasonably 

foreseeable reductions in scenic 

integrity from high to moderate levels 

are expected to occur on 15,000 acres 

under the final rule compared to 40,500 

acres under the Existing Plans 

alternative and 18,000 acres under the 

Proposed Rule alternative. Reasonably 

foreseeable reductions in scenic 

integrity from high to low levels from 

long-term development (50+ years) of 

the Caribou-Targhee NF’s unleased 

phosphate reserves are also lower under 

the final rule (5,770 acres) compared to 

the Proposed Rule alternative (13,190 

acres) and the Existing Plans alternative 

(13,620 acres). Development within a 

half-mile buffer around long-term future 

phosphate activity could affect 

additional acres (e.g., estimated 812 

acres under the final rule). Reductions 

in scenic integrity associated with 

development of existing phosphate 

leases are similar across the other three 

alternatives. 

The final rule does not directly affect 

wilderness designations in the context 

of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System, but the changes in activities 

permitted in IRAs under the final rule 

have the potential to affect visitor 

experience in adjacent wilderness and 

the degree to which IRAs are considered 

for future wilderness designation. The 

final rule and Proposed Rule 

alternatives significantly reduce GFRG 

theme acreage located adjacent to 

existing wilderness (9,400 GFRG acres) 

compared to the Existing Plans 

alternative (158,300 GFRG acres 

adjacent to wilderness); thereby limiting 

the potential for impacts on wilderness 

experience in adjacent areas. There 

would be little or no impact on 

wilderness experience under the 2001 

Rule alternative. 

Approximately 1,320,500 acres are 

recommended for wilderness under the 

Existing Plans alternative. There is no 

change or effect on recommended 

wilderness expected under the 2001 

Rule alternative. Under the final rule, 

parts of three of the recommended 

wilderness areas would be managed 

under less protective themes (Primitive, 

BCR); however, eight areas would 

benefit from a net increase in protection 

under theme assignments under the 

final rule. Overall, a total of 1,479,700 

acres would be managed under the WLR 

theme under the final rule, implying 

159,200 acres of additional protection of 

wilderness-type characteristics. The 

Proposed Rule alternative also offers 

additional overall protection (1,378,000 

acres assigned to the WLR theme) but to 

a lesser extent compared to the final 

rule. Parts of three recommended 

wilderness areas would be assigned to 

less protective themes with seven areas 

benefiting from a net increase in 

protection under the Proposed Rule 

alternative. No measurable differences 

in dispersed recreation opportunities 

are expected across alternatives. Losses 

in dispersed recreation associated with 

development of existing phosphate 

leases are equal for all alternatives over 

the next 15 years. Development of future 

leases may affect dispersed recreation 

associated with 13,620 and 13,190 acres 

under the Existing Plans and the 

Proposed Rule alternatives respectively. 

Potential impacts decrease to 5,770 

acres under the final rule. Perceptions of 

remoteness and solitude may be affected 

in dispersed recreation areas where 

timber cutting and road construction 

occur under all alternatives, but effects 

are constrained by projected levels of 

these activities. No adverse effects to 

hunting and fishing are expected under 

the final rule with the exception of 

potential effects to opportunities in 

areas associated with development 

linked to phosphate leases. 

Approximately 257,700 acres were 

reassigned from the GFRG theme to the 

BCR theme under the final rule to 

provide greater protection of big game 

habitat compared to the Proposed Rule 

alternative. 

Opportunities for developed 

recreation are limited under the 

Proposed and final rule alternatives but 

increase to some extent under the 

Existing Plans alternative, though 

reasonably foreseeable development is 

minimal (there are no foreseeable 

developments planned). Opportunities 

for maintaining dispersed recreation 

opportunities are high under the 2001 

Rule alternative with little potential for 

increases in developed recreation 

opportunities. The potential for shifts in 

recreational opportunity spectrum 

classes is slight across the alternatives 

due to relatively limited activity level 

projections and the focus on temporary 

roads that are not accessible for 

recreation. Concerns about access and 

designations for motorized versus nonmotorized recreation were raised in 

comments during scoping; however, the 

final rule does not provide direction on 

where and when off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) use would be permissible and 

makes clear that travel planning-related 

actions should be addressed through 

travel management planning and 

individual forest plans. 

Existing special use permits for 

outfitters and guides would be 

unaffected by the final rule. The 

potential for adverse effects to outfitter 

and guide opportunities are expected to 

be limited because the projected extent 

of activities or development would be 

relatively small and localized in any 

outfitter’s area of operation. Likewise, 

existing permits for ski areas would not 

be affected by the final rule. There are 

no foreseeable ski area expansions or 

developments into roadless areas over 

the next 15 years for which an EIS does 

not already exist. Future ski area 

expansion into roadless areas with road 

construction would not be permitted 

under the 2001 Rule alternative. Under 

the Existing Plans alternative, ski area 

expansion or development could occur 

as permitted by the forest plan. Under 

the Proposed and final rules, existing 

ski areas with development and any 

additional development authorized in 

their master development plans are in 

the forest plan special area theme and 

the applicable land management plan 

direction would apply. 

The overall effects of the 2001 Rule 

alternative on endangered, threatened, 

candidate, or sensitive species are 

expected to be beneficial, as are the 

effects derived from assigning roadless 

areas to the WLR, Primitive, and SAHTS 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61478 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

themes under the other alternatives. 

There is some potential for adverse 

effects from activities permitted under 

the BCR and GFRG themes, with relative 

risks being highest under the Existing 

Plans alternative and lowest under the 

final rule. Eleven threatened or 

candidate plant and 339 to 345 sensitive 

plant populations are known to occur in 

the BCR and GFRG themes under the 

Proposed Rule and Existing Plans 

alternatives. These populations decrease 

to six and 51 in the GFRG theme and in 

the CPZ areas within the BCR theme 

under the final rule. In general, 

foreseeable effects to sensitive 

populations and biodiversity are 

constrained by projected activity levels. 

No measurable changes in populations 

are expected across the alternatives; 

however, activities may impact 

individuals. 

Road building associated with timber 

cutting will have a negligible effect on 

high hazard soils under all alternatives. 

Acres of high sensitivity soils assigned 

to themes where road construction is 

permitted decreases from approximately 

2 million acres under the Existing Plans 

and Proposed Rule alternatives to 

253,500 acres under the final rule. Land 

management plan direction that 

provides guidance on road construction 

across sensitive soils would apply 

across all alternatives. Road 

construction is conditionally 

permissible on 1,786,400 acres of high 

sensitivity soils under the final rule. 

Road construction is not permitted in 

areas that overlap with highly sensitive 

soils under the 2001 Rule alternative. 

Road building is likely to affect high 

hazard soils in areas associated with 

existing phosphate leases but effects are 

equivalent across alternatives. Similar 

effects associated with future leases are 

possible but not likely to occur within 

the next 15 years under the Proposed 

Rule and Existing Plans alternatives 

(future leases are not feasible under the 

2001 Rule alternative). 

Road construction and timber cutting 

under the 2001 Rule alternative, the 

Proposed Rule alternative, and the final 

rule are expected to have negligible 

effects on the water quality of 303(d)- 

listed (i.e., impaired water quality) 

streams and drinking water. Unleased 

known phosphate areas with potential 

for development over a period of 50 or 

more years under the Existing Plans 

alternative, the Proposed Rule 

alternative, and the final rule are 

estimated to overlap with three 303(d)- 

listed streams, one of which is impaired 

by selenium, and 640 acres of 

community water supplies 

(groundwater). Development of these 

areas could affect the listed water 

bodies; however, mine development or 

expansion would be required to use a 

variety of environmental commitments 

and best management practices (BMPs) 

to reduce the potential for exceeding 

environmental standards for selenium. 

The EIS for the Smoky Canyon mine 

expansion predicts that water quality 

criteria will not be exceeded. Operators 

would also be required to monitor for 

selenium impacts and migration. 

The final rule is expected to have 

negligible adverse effects on other 

resources associated with roadless 

characteristics including cultural 

resources, air quality, and non-timber 

products based on reasonably 

foreseeable activity projections. Any 

adverse impacts to these resources and 

services would be addressed through 

analysis conduced in accordance with 

NEPA and minimized through 

compliance with forest plan standards 

and guidelines. 

Agency Costs and Revenues 

Under all alternatives, road 

construction or reconstruction likely 

would not see an increase in the 

foreseeable future (next 15 years) 

because the appropriated road budget is 

expected to be flat or declining. 

Reasonably foreseeable changes in 

agency costs associated with roads are 

not likely to be significant under the 

Proposed or final rules relative to the 

Existing Plans alternative given the 

types of roads constructed (e.g., 

temporary, single-purpose, and/or built 

by the user) and relative levels of 

construction or reconstruction 

projected. None of the alternatives 

would restrict or limit road 

maintenance. Given the current backlog 

of road maintenance, there is no 

emphasis on constructing new roads 

that need to be maintained. New roads 

under the Proposed and final rules must 

be temporary unless certain exceptions 

are met. Many roads under the Existing 

Plans alternative are expected to be 

single-purpose, closed between uses, 

and/or temporary. As a result, road 

maintenance costs are not expected to 

be significantly different across 

alternatives. 

Timber sales are often used as a leastcost method (revenue is returned to the 

Federal treasury to offset the costs of 

preparing and carrying out the timber 

harvest) of managing vegetation to meet 

resource objectives or to achieve desired 

ecosystem conditions. Net revenues 

associated with reasonably foreseeable 

volumes may increase under the 

Proposed and final rules relative to the 

2001 Rule alternative, primarily for the 

Idaho Panhandle NF and the northern 

EA based on projected levels of timber 

cutting, though changes in harvest are 

relatively small and may not result in 

significant changes to aggregate volumes 

from all NFS lands. Net revenue may 

decrease under the Proposed and final 

rules relative to the Existing Plans 

alternative. 

Vegetation treatments for forest health 

or fuel reductions can be challenging in 

roadless areas because of the potential 

costs of accessing sites and 

implementing treatment practices in 

areas that are remote or otherwise 

dominated by roadless characteristics. 

Current trends in silvicultural practices 

often require thinning and other 

treatments with greater frequency, thus 

needing road access more often. 

Thinning to remove excessive forest 

fuels, before using prescribed fire, or to 

treat diseased or insect-infested stands 

is often economically feasible only if a 

road system is present. Allowing road 

construction for harvesting timber in the 

GFRG theme and to a limited degree in 

the BCR theme under the Proposed and 

final rules reduces the cost of using 

treatment methods that may contribute 

to forest health objectives. Fuel 

treatments are likely to be more 

expensive and less efficient to 

implement under the 2001 Rule 

alternative because road construction or 

reconstruction is prohibited, and 

mechanical treatments would generally 

occur near the limited number of 

existing roads. 

Based on a qualitative comparison of 

relative treatment cost per acre, 

treatments in the WUI are potentially 

most costly per acre for the 2001 Rule 

alternative, followed by the Existing 

Plans alternative, the Proposed Rule 

alternative and final rule. Relative 

treatment costs per acre in areas with 

community public water systems ranked 

highest for the 2001 Rule alternative, 

followed by the Existing Plans and 

Proposed Rule alternatives. Relative 

costs under the final rule are expected 

to be similar to the Proposed Rule if all 

community public water systems are 

treated using a significant risk 

determination, thereby allowing greater 

treatment flexibility. Otherwise, final 

rule treatment costs are likely to fall 

between the 2001 Rule alternative and 

the Existing Plans alternative. 

Distributional Effects 

Distributional effects, as represented 

by changes in employment and income 

contributed under the final rule, are a 

function of projected levels of road 

construction, timber cutting, and 

discretionary minerals activity in 

roadless areas under the different 

alternatives. Employment and income 

impacts (Table 3) are quantified for 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61479 

reasonably foreseeable levels of 

activities over the next 15 years. 

Phosphate mining on existing leases 

is estimated to contribute the greatest 

number of jobs and income, but jobs 

from this sector are not projected to 

differ by alternative. Timber cutting is 

primarily responsible for differences in 

jobs and income across alternatives. 

Under baseline or no-action conditions, 

as represented by the 2001 Rule 

alternative, timber harvest and road 

construction are estimated to contribute 

19 jobs per year. Projected harvest and 

accompanying road construction under 

the final rule is estimated to contribute 

an additional 15 jobs and $371,900 in 

labor income per year, relative to 

baseline conditions. These contributions 

are expected to occur in the northern 

(Idaho Panhandle NF) and southeastern 

(Caribou/Targhee NF) EAs where 

current employment in agriculture, 

mining, and construction sectors is 

approximately 41,000 jobs in the 

northern EA and 32,000 jobs in the 

southeastern EA, suggesting that 

distributional effects are relatively small 

or insignificant under the final rule. 

Employment and income are estimated 

to decrease by 53 jobs and $1.49 million 

per year under the final rule compared 

to conditions expected under the 

Existing Plans alternative. Impacts 

relative to the Existing Plans alternative 

are likely to occur within the northern, 

southeastern, and central (Clearwater 

NF) EAs but are again expected to be 

relatively small compared to current 

employment levels in these economic 

areas. Employment and income 

decreases by only 5 jobs and $134,500 

per year under the final rule relative to 

the Proposed Rule alternative. 

Timber-dependent counties where 

changes in harvest opportunities and 

corresponding jobs and income may 

have the most significant impact on 

local economies are identified by EA. 

Timber cutting or harvest opportunities 

increase or remain constant for all 

counties under the final rule compared 

to the 2001 Rule alternative. When 

comparing the opportunities under the 

final rule to those of the Existing Plans 

alternative, nine counties are identified 

for the northern EA, while five such 

counties are located in the central EA, 

one of which is located in the State of 

Washington. One additional county is 

located in the southeastern EA. 

Payments to counties are expected to 

remain the same under all alternatives 

as long as the Secure Rural Schools and 

Community Self-Determination Act 

(SRSA) remains in effect. Mineral-based 

payments to states are a function of 

receipts from leasable minerals, 

including receipts from phosphate 

operations, but no differences in 

phosphate production are projected 

across alternatives. Opportunities for 

mining-dependent counties (e.g., 

Caribou, Oneida, Power, and Bannock) 

are therefore expected to remain the 

same in the reasonably foreseeable 

future (15 years). 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES—THEMES

2001 rule Existing plans Proposed rule Final rule 

Idaho Roadless Rule and equivalent themes for the 2001 Rule and Existing Plans (acres) 

WLR ......................................................................................... 0 1,320,500 1,378,000 1,479,700 

Primitive ................................................................................... 0 1,903,100 1,652,800 1,722,700 

SAHTS ..................................................................................... 0 0 70,700 48,600 

Similar to BCR * ....................................................................... 9,304,300 0 0 0 

BCR ......................................................................................... 0 4,482,000 5,258,700 5,312,900 

GFRG ....................................................................................... 0 1,263,200 609,600 405,900 

Other lands (acres) ** 

FPSAs ...................................................................................... 0 334,500 334,500 334,500 

Total Idaho Roadless Area Acres ............................. 9,304,300 9,304,300 9,304,300 9,304,300 

* The 2001 roadless rule is similar to the BCR theme for timber cutting, and discretionary mineral activities, except for the allowance for road 

construction or reconstruction to access phosphate deposits, and the allowance for road construction or reconstruction to facilitate timber cutting 

in specific situations. 

** The final rule would not apply to Forest Plan Special Areas (FPSA). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61480 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND COSTS

2001 rule Existing plans Proposed rule Final rule 

LOCAL RESOURCE CONCERNS 

Forest Health 

Insects and disease .......... Most of the 1.44 million 

acres currently at risk of 

25 percent mortality or 

significant growth loss 

(i.e., high-risk forests) 

would remain untreated.

Projected treatments on 

9,000 acres likely to be 

effective over 15 years.

Opportunities for treatment 

of high-risk forests: 

187,500 acres of highrisk forests in GFRG; 

755,800 acres in BCR.

Projected treatments on 

40,500 acres likely to be 

effective over 15 years.

Opportunities for treatment 

of high-risk forests: 

25,600 acres in GFRG; 

939,400 acres in BCR.

Opportunities to treat 

GFRG. Opportunity for 

treatment in BCR if done 

for forest health or to reduce hazardous fuels.

Projected treatments on 

18,000 acres likely to be 

effective over 15 years.

Opportunities for treatment 

of high-risk forests: 

39,600 acres in GFRG; 

877,000 acres in BCR, 

of which 56,600 acres 

are in the CPZ. 

Opportunities to treat 

GFRG. Opportunity for 

treatment in BCR if done 

in the CPZ or to reduce 

significant risk of 

wildland fire effects to 

at-risk communities or 

municipal water supply 

systems. 

Projected treatments on 

15,000 acres likely to be 

effective over 15 years. 

Noxious weeds—Potential 

for noxious weed spread.

Spreading is unlikely given 

limited potential for soil 

disturbance.

42,250 acres of weeds 

currently in IRAs.

Some potential for spreading based on acreage 

assigned to GFRG (1.26 

million acres); the limited 

degree of projected road 

construction, timber cutting, and mineral activity 

would minimize the potential for spreading. 

5,170 acres of weeds 

currently in GFRG.

Some potential for spreading based on acreage 

assigned to GFRG 

(609,600 acres); the limited degree of projected 

construction, harvest, 

and mineral activity 

would minimize the potential for spreading. 

2,750 acres of noxious 

weeds currently in 

GFRG.

Some potential for spreading based on acreage 

assigned to GFRG 

(405,900 acres); the limited degree of projected 

construction, harvest, 

and mineral activity 

would minimize the potential for spreading. 

3,070 acres of noxious 

weeds currently in 

GFRG. 

Fuels Management 

Ability to treat Wildland 

Urban Interface (WUI) 

and Community Public 

Water System (CPWS) 

areas.

Road construction not permitted in conjunction 

with treatments on 100 

percent of the WUI or 

CPWS that overlap 

roadless areas.

Treatments more expensive; insignificant acreage treated relative to 

acres at risk. Limited capacity to treat high-priority Condition class 2 

and 3 areas.

Projected harvests could 

treat 2 percent of highpriority areas (Fire Regimes I, II, and III; Condition class 2 and 3) 

within WUIs or less than 

half a percent of highpriority areas overall.

Does not directly permit 

timber cutting to reduce 

risk of unwanted 

wildland fire.

Treatments (mechanical 

and prescribed fire) permitted on 89% of the 

WUI and 93% of CPWS.

Treatments with road construction permitted on 

65% of WUI and 47% of 

CPWS.

Projected harvests could 

treat 10 percent of highpriority areas (Fire Regimes I, II, and III; Condition class 2 and 3) 

within WUIs or 1 percent 

of high-priority areas 

overall.

May permit timber cutting 

to reduce risk of unwanted wildland fires.

May permit fuel reduction 

to reduce wildland fire 

risks to municipal water 

supply systems.

Treatments (mechanical 

and prescribed fire) permitted on 89% of the 

WUI and 92% of CPWS.

Treatments with road construction permitted on 

67% of WUI and 58% of 

CPWS.

Projected harvests could 

treat 4 percent of highpriority 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, BCR, and 

GFRG themes.

Permits fuel-reduction activities to reduce 

wildland fire risks to 

CPWSs in the Primitive, 

BCR, and GFRG 

themes.

Treatments (mechanical 

and prescribed fire) permitted on 87% of the 

WUI and 92% of CPWS. 

Treatments with road construction permitted on 

66% of WUI and 16% of 

CPWS. 

Mechanical treatments 

with road construction 

are permitted in 42 percent of the CPWS areas 

only when the significant 

risk conditions are met. 

Projected harvests could 

treat 4 percent of highpriority areas (Fire Regimes I, II, and III; Condition class 2 and 3) 

within WUIs or less than 

half a percent of highpriority areas overall. 

Directly permits timber cutting to reduce significant 

risk of unwanted 

wildland fires in the BCR 

and generally permitted 

in GFRG themes. 

Permits fuel-reduction activities to reduce 

wildland fire risks to 

CPWS in the Primitive, 

BCR, and GFRG 

themes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61481 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND COSTS—Continued 

2001 rule Existing plans Proposed rule Final rule 

Prescribed burning is permitted in 100 percent of the WUI or to protect CPWS areas. 

Potential for increase in 

human-caused fire starts.

No increase ....................... Potential for increase ........ No measurable increase ... No measurable increase. 

Timber Cutting—Projected 

Timber harvest (Acres over 

15 years).

9,000 ................................. 40,500 ............................... 18,000 ............................... 15,000. 

Harvest (MBF/year)1 ......... 3,000 (2% of annual avg.) 13,360 (11% of annual 

avg.).

5,840 (5% of annual avg.) 5,040 (4% of annual avg.). 

Roads—Projected (miles over 15 years) 

Construction—Permanent 12 ...................................... 72 ...................................... 12 ...................................... 12. 

Construction—Temporary 3 ........................................ 33 ...................................... 26 ...................................... 21. 

Reconstruction ................... 0 ........................................ 75 ...................................... 23 ...................................... 17. 

Total ........................... 15.0 ................................... 180 .................................... 61 ...................................... 50. 

Decommissioning .............. 1.0 ..................................... 3.2 ..................................... 2.7 ..................................... 2.4. 

Leasable Minerals 

Geothermal development .. No existing leases on NFS land. Trend data not available to project reasonably foreseeable activity. Current lease 

applications include 7,033 acres within roadless areas. 

Negligible opportunities for 

development.

No opportunities on 38% 

of acreage.

Development opportunities 

on 53% of BCR theme 

(2,354,100 suitable 

acres) and on 58% of 

GFRG theme (737,800 

suitable acres) 3.

7,033 under current lease 

applications accessible.

No opportunities on 93% 

of acreage.

Development opportunities 

on 63% of GFRG theme 

(382,400 suitable 

acres) 3.

7,033 under current lease 

applications would not 

be accessible.

Negligible opportunities for 

development. 

Phosphate—Reasonably 

foreseeable output (short 

term within 15 years).

Projected output is equal (2,000,000 tons per year) 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. 

Phosphate—Reasonable 

foreseeable development 

in roadless areas.

1,100 acres of road construction and mining disturbance proposed in Sage Creek and Meade Peak Roadless 

Areas; development over next 15 years. 

Phosphate—Additional 

acres under lease in 

roadless areas.

6,100 acres of remaining unmined phosphate currently under lease in seven roadless areas; development expected to be spread out over 50 or more years. 

Phosphate—Long term 

leasing of unleased 

phosphate deposits (50 

or more years).

Opportunities to recover 

phosphate from IRAs 

are negligible.

Estimated 613 million tons 

of phosphate deposits 

from 13,620 unleased 

acres available for development. 1⁄2 mile buffer could affect additional 

1,910 acres.

Estimated 593 million tons 

of phosphate deposits 

from 13,190 unleased 

acres available for development. 1⁄2 mile buffer could affect additional 

1,850 acres.

Road construction prohibited in WLR, SAHTS, 

Primitive, BCR theme 

acres.

Estimated 260 million tons 

of phosphate deposits 

from 5,770 unleased 

acres available for development. 1⁄2 mile buffer could affect additional 

812 acres. 

Road construction prohibited in WLR, SAHTS, 

Primitive, BCR themes, 

and 910 acres of GFRG 

themes. 

Other Resource and Service Areas where Relative Impacts are Insignificant or Negligible 

Livestock Grazing .............. Differences in activity, revenue, and operating costs are expected to be minimal across alternatives; existing processes will regulate management direction related to grazing (allotments and permitted use). 

Leasable Minerals: Oil, 

gas, and 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 would affect rights of reasonable access to prospect and explore lands open to mineral 

entry and develop valid claims under the General Mining Law of 1872. Rights to reasonable access continue. 

Saleable minerals (sand, 

stone, gravel, pumice, 

etc.).

Differences in production of saleable minerals are projected to be minimal across alternatives because of the relative inefficiencies of providing saleable minerals from IRAs. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61482 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND COSTS—Continued 

2001 rule Existing plans Proposed rule Final rule 

Energy corridors ................ None of the proposed corridors designated for oil, gas, and/or electricity under section 368 of the Energy Policy Act 

are within IRAs. Opportunities for non-section 368 corridors within IRAs are a function of the themes assigned to 

the areas proposed for corridor development; differences in opportunities across alternatives cannot be discerned. 

Wind and biomass energy Low potential for wind energy in IRAs because of technological, logistical, and environmental issues associated 

with constructing wind turbines in the more mountainous roadless areas. Biomass energy could be a by-product 

from any alternative. It is unlikely that any medium- to large-scale wood biomass in roadless areas would be conducted independently. 

Road Construction allowed 

for CERCLA violations.

Road construction to address CERCLA violations is allowed in all alternatives. 

ROADLESS CHARACTERISTICS 

Physical Resources—Soils 

Acres of highly sensitive 

soils where road 

construction/ reconstruction is permitted (BCR 

and GFRG themes).

0 ........................................ 2,049,300 .......................... 2,121,300 .......................... 253,500 (GFRG and BCR/ 

CPZ). 

Acres of highly sensitive 

soils where road construction is conditionally 

permissible.

0 ........................................ 0 ........................................ 0 ........................................ 1,786,400. 

Effects from road construction on high-hazard soils.Land management plan direction that provides guidance on road construction on sensitive soils would apply across 

all alternatives; therefore although road construction could be permitted land management plans may provide design criteria to minimize effects, such as avoidance or mitigation practices. No or negligible effect from road building associated with timber cutting. Effects to soils are equal for road construction associated with phosphate mining 

over next 15 years. Effects to high-hazard soils from long-term future (50 or more years) phosphate leases are likely under the Existing Plans and the Proposed Rule, but limited risk under the Final and 2001 Rules. 

Physical Resources—Water 

Effect of road construction, 

reconstruction, and timber harvest on listed 

streams and drinking 

water.

Negligible effect ................ Minimal effect .................... Negligible effect ................ Negligible effect. 

Effect of mining on listed 

streams and drinking 

water.

Overlap with unleased 

phosphate in roadless 

areas: 

Three 303(d) streams (one 

in roadless areas due to 

selenium); 

640 acres of community 

water supplies (groundwater); 

Possible effect on 303(d) 

streams from selenium—mitigation required at time of analysis.

Overlap with unleased 

phosphate in roadless 

areas: 

Three 303(d) streams (one 

in roadless areas due to 

selenium); 

640 acres of community 

water supplies (groundwater); 

Possible effect on 303(d) 

streams from selenium—mitigation required at time of analysis.

Overlap with unleased 

phosphate in roadless 

areas: 

Three 303(d) streams (one 

in roadless areas due to 

selenium); 

640 acres of community 

water supplies (groundwater); 

Possible effect on 303(d) 

streams from selenium—mitigation required at time of analysis.

Overlap with unleased 

phosphate in roadless 

areas: 

Three 303(d) streams (one 

in roadless areas due to 

selenium); 

640 acres of community 

water supplies (ground 

water); 

Possible effect on 303(d) 

streams from selenium—mitigation required at time of analysis. 

Selenium Mitigation ........... Mine development or expansion would use a variety of environmental commitments and Best Management Practices to reduce the potential for selenium mobilization and migration from the mine site. Operators required to monitor impacts on water, soils, vegetation, wildlife, and fisheries. Analysis for preferred alternative for Smoky Canyon 

predicts that groundwater quality protection standards or surface water quality standards would not be exceeded. 

Sensitive Species and Biodiversity 

Effects on terrestrial and 

aquatic animal species 

or habitat.

Projected activities may impact individuals, but no measurable change in populations is expected. Projects and development would be subject to NEPA and other regulatory requirements related to monitoring and mitigation for 

sensitive species. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61483 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND COSTS—Continued 

2001 rule Existing plans Proposed rule Final rule 

Beneficial ........................... Beneficial in WLR, Primitive, or SAHTS; some 

potential risk of adverse 

effects in management 

prescriptions similar to 

BCR and GFRG.

Beneficial in WLR, Primitive, or SAHTS; limited 

potential risk of adverse 

effects for activities occurring in BCR; some 

potential risk in GFRG, 

but less than Existing 

Plans.

Beneficial in WLR, Primitive, or SAHTS, BCR 

outside CPZ; limited potential risk of adverse effects for activities occurring in BCR CPZ; some 

potential risk in GFRG, 

but less than Existing 

Plans or the Proposed 

Rule. 

Effects on biodiversity of 

botanical species.

Beneficial ........................... Beneficial in WLR, Primitive, or SAHTS. Some 

potential risk of adverse 

effects for activities conducted in the GFRG and 

BCR themes.

Beneficial in WLR, Primitive, or SAHTS. Some 

potential risk of adverse 

effects for activities conducted in the GFRG and 

BCR themes, but less 

than Existing Plans.

Beneficial in WLR, Primitive, or SAHTS, BCR 

outside CPZ. Some potential risk of adverse effects for activities conducted in GFRG and 

BCR CPZ but less than 

Existing Plans or the 

Proposed Rule. 

Number of occurrences of known threatened and candidate plant populations, by theme 

WLR/Primitive/SAHTS ....... 0 ........................................ 0 ........................................ 0 ........................................ 0. 

BCR ................................... 16 ...................................... 9 ........................................ 9 ........................................ 11 (6 in BCR CPZ). 

GFRG ................................ 0 ........................................ 2 ........................................ 2 ........................................ 0. 

Forest Plan Special Areas 0 ........................................ 5 ........................................ 5 ........................................ 5. 

Number of occurrences of known sensitive plant populations, by theme 

WLR ................................... 0 ........................................ 81 ...................................... 90 ...................................... 102. 

Primitive/SAHTS ................ 0 ........................................ 97 ...................................... 82 ...................................... 100. 

BCR ................................... 686 .................................... 284 .................................... 336 .................................... 312 (46 in BCR CPZ). 

GFRG ................................ 0 ........................................ 55 ...................................... 9 ........................................ 3. 

Forest Plan Special Areas 0 ........................................ 169 .................................... 169 .................................... 169. 

Scenic Integrity 

Potential for change in scenic integrity—based on activity projections 

Acres that stay in High to 

Very High scenic integrity.

9,228,000 .......................... 9,242,980 .......................... 9,234,740 .......................... 9,276,230. 

Acres likely to change to 

High or Moderate scenic 

integrity from timber cutting or road construction 

or reconstruction.

9,000 ................................. 40,500 ............................... 18,000 ............................... 15,000. 

Acres likely to change from 

High to Low due to development of existing 

phosphate leases.

7,200 acres associated with development of existing phosphate mining leases under all alternatives. 

Acres likely to change to 

Moderate or Low scenic 

integrity from phosphate 

mining over long-term 

(50 or more years).

0 ........................................ 13,620 ............................... 13,190 ............................... 5,770. 

Recreation 

Dispersed Recreation (including Hunting and 

Fishing).

Feeling of solitude or remoteness may change in areas where projected road construction and timber cutting occur 

(see above for projected activity levels, by alternative). 

No measurable change to 

dispersed recreation opportunities.

No measurable change to 

dispersed recreation opportunities, except if unleased phosphate deposits (13,620 acres) 

are developed.

No measurable change to 

dispersed recreation opportunities, except if unleased phosphate deposits (13,190 acres) 

are developed.

No measurable change to 

dispersed recreation opportunities, except if unleased phosphate deposits (5,770 acres) are 

developed. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61484 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND COSTS—Continued 

2001 rule Existing plans Proposed rule Final rule 

Developed recreation— 

ability to construct or reconstruct roads to access new or expanded 

developed recreation 

areas.

There are no foreseeable developments under any of the alternatives. 

No road construction/reconstruction permitted to 

access new developed 

recreation sites (9.3 million acres).

Road construction/reconstruction generally permitted to access new 

developed recreation 

sites in management 

prescriptions similar to 

BCR and GFRG (5.7 

million acres).

Road construction/reconstruction permitted to access new developed 

recreation sites management in GFRG (0.6 million acres).

Road construction/reconstruction permitted to access new developed 

recreation sites management in GFRG (0.4 million acres). 

Recreation Opportunities2 In general, the magnitude of shifts in recreational opportunity spectrum classes is slight across the alternatives because: (i) differences in road construction is minimal, and (ii) many constructed roads are likely to be temporary 

and not accessible for recreation purposes. As a consequence, changes in dispersed compared to developed 

recreation opportunities are small across alternatives. Relative differences include the following: 

Relatively high potential for 

maintaining existing dispersed recreation opportunities; little potential for 

increasing developed 

recreation.

Greatest opportunity for 

developed and roadbased recreation to 

occur and expand, but 

magnitude of shift is 

tempered by limited 

amount of construction 

projected to occur.

High level of protection for 

dispersed recreation, 

foreseeable threats from 

construction and development are remote.

High level of protection for 

dispersed recreation, 

foreseeable threats from 

construction and development are remote. 

Special uses—Ski areas ... Existing permits are unaffected. No foreseeable ski area expansions or developments into IRAs over next 15 years. 

Expansion or development 

with roads not permitted.

Expansion or development 

as permitted by the forest plan.

Existing ski areas with development and any additional 

development authorized in their master development 

plans are in FPSA theme and the rule does not apply. 

Special uses—Outfitters 

and Guides.

Existing permits are unaffected. None of the alternatives directly affect the processing or administration of special 

use permits. Potential for adverse effects is limited because projected levels of activity would be relatively small 

and localized within any outfitter’s area of operation. Recreational experience may change in some areas where 

activities occur, but outfitter and guide services are not expected to be affected due to the dispersed nature of the 

activities. 

Hunting and fishing ........... No effect on opportunities Opportunities 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.

Opportunities could be affected in locations of 

phosphate leasing. No 

effect from geothermal 

development. No effect 

from timber cutting and 

limited road construction. 

Additional protections provided to 257,700 acres 

moved from GFRG to 

BCR because of big 

game habitat. 

Wilderness 

Existing wilderness areas 

(1,723,300 acres of IRAs 

adjacent to existing wilderness).

Limited to no indirect effects to wilderness from 

activities in roadless 

areas.

158,300 acres of GFRG 

adjacent to wilderness; 

841,900 acres of BCR.

Limited potential for impacts to wilderness experience.

9,400 acres of GFRG adjacent to wilderness; 

951,000 acres of BCR.

Limited potential for impacts on wilderness experience.

9,400 acres of GFRG adjacent to wilderness; 

951,000 acres of BCR. 

Limited potential for impacts on wilderness experience. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61485 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND COSTS—Continued 

2001 rule Existing plans Proposed rule Final rule 

Recommended wilderness No change or effect on 

recommended wilderness in Existing Plans.

Existing Plans recommend 

1,320,500 as wilderness.

No change to recommendations in Existing Plans.

1,378,000 acres in WLR, 

implying 57,500 acres of 

additional protection 

over existing plans.

Seven recommended wilderness areas benefit 

from increased protection on a total of 93,100 

acres. Net decreases in 

protection occur in three 

areas (total of 35,600 

acres).

No change to recommendations in Existing Plans. 

1,479,700 acres in WLR, 

implying 159,200 acres 

of additional protection 

over Existing Plans. 

Eight recommended wilderness areas benefit 

from increased protection on a total of 

172,200 acres. Net decreases in protection 

occur in three areas 

(total of 13,000 acres). 

Roadless area characteristics associated with wilderness.Majority of roadless areas 

retain their existing character.

Areas developed could have reduced roadless area character. Activities in GFRG 

may not change roadless character if prior activities are still evident. 

Based on projections, 99.9 

percent unaffected over 

the next 15 years.

Based on projections, 

99.55% of roadless 

areas unaffected over 

the next 15 years.

Based on projections, 

99.9% of roadless areas 

unaffected over the next 

15 years.

Based on projections, 

99.9% of roadless areas 

unaffected over the next 

15 years. 

Other Resource and Service Areas where Relative Impacts are Negligible or Minimal 

Non-timber products .......... Current access for the harvest of non-timber products is not expected to change under the Proposed and Final 

Rules. Assignment of roadless acres to themes that restrict road construction may limit access opportunities for 

some individuals, but construction may also reduce availability of some species. 

Cultural resources ............. Prior to management actions taking place on the ground under any alternative or theme, cultural resource inventories and appropriate mitigation are required by law. Differences in risk to cultural resources are not expected to 

be measurable across alternatives because of projected levels of road construction and long-term use and fate of 

new roads. There is low potential for disturbance/vandalism under all alternatives with the exception of low to moderate potential under Existing Plans. 

Air Quality .......................... Negligible effects on air quality from fuel reduction projects are expected; subject to strict guidelines for minimizing 

impacts. 

AGENCY COSTS AND REVENUES 

Roads ................................ Reasonably foreseeable changes in agency costs associated with roads (administration, construction, maintenance) are not likely to be significant under the Proposed or Final Rules relative to the 2001 Rule given the types 

of roads constructed (e.g., temporary, single-purpose, and/or built by the user), relative levels of construction or reconstruction projected, and flat budget expectations. 

Timber and Vegetation/ 

Fuel Treatments.

Accessing sites and implementing treatments in remote areas, dominated by roadless characteristics can be costly. 

Revenue from timber sales are often used to offset the costs of treatments. There is slight potential for gains in net 

revenues for some forest units (e.g., Idaho Panhandle) under the Final and Proposed Rules, as well as Existing 

Plans, relative to the 2001 Rule, but projected changes in harvest are relatively small and may not result in significant changes to aggregate volumes from all forest system lands. 

Highest cost per acre and 

less efficient treatments 

due to road construction 

prohibitions.

Second highest cost per 

acre for treatments in 

the WUI and community 

public water system 

(CPWS) areas.

Lowest cost per acre for 

treatments in the WUI 

and CPWS areas (and 

equal to the Final Rule 

in the WUI).

Lowest cost per acre for 

treatments in the WUI 

(and equal to the Proposed Rule). 

Lowest cost per acre for 

treatments in CPWS 

areas if using significant 

risk determination for 

CPWS; otherwise, cost 

per acre is second highest for CPWS areas. 

1Percentage of average harvest on all NF land within Idaho that occurred between 2002 and 2006. Harvest primarily attributable to stewardship and treatments for forest health and fuels management. 2The alternatives do not provide direction on where and when OHV use would be permissible. 

3Suitability based on areas with acceptable slopes for leasing (<40% slope). 

CPZ = Community Protection Zone 

CPWS = Community Public Water System 

GFRG = General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland theme 

NF = National Forest 

SAHTS = Special Areas of Historical and Tribal Significance theme 

WUI = Wildland Urban Interface 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61486 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

2001 rule Existing plans Proposed rule Final rule 

Timber Cutting 

Jobs per year (1) ............... 17 ...................................... 75 ...................................... 35 ...................................... 30. 

Labor income per year (1) $452,700 ........................... $1,902,800 ........................ $849,600 ........................... $741,900. 

Location of jobs: BEA Economic 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.

Northern (Idaho Panhandle), and Southeastern (Caribou/ 

Targhee NF) EA. 

Leasable Minerals: Phosphate 

Jobs and labor income per 

year (1).

No changes in jobs (582/year) or labor income ($23.5 million) contributed by phosphate on existing leases within 

IRAs, due to the fact that none of the alternatives affect existing leases. 

No new leases in roadless 

areas likely to be feasible.

Jobs and income from new leases on unleased phosphate reserves within IRAs in the 

southeastern EA are expected to occur in the future over an extended period of time 

(50 or more years). 

Road Construction 

Jobs per year (1) ............... 2 ........................................ 12 ...................................... 4 ........................................ 4. 

Labor income per year (1) $52,900 ............................. $462,500 ........................... $162,400 ........................... $135,600. 

Location of jobs: BEA Economic Areas (EA).Northern and Southeastern 

EAs.

Northern, Southeastern, 

and Central EAs.

Northern and Southeastern 

EAs.

Northern and Southeastern 

EAs. 

Revenue Sharing and Resource-Dependent Counties 

Resource-dependent counties where potential opportunities decrease.Opportunities increase for all timber-dependent counties under the Final or Proposed Rule relative to the 2001 

Rule. Opportunities for mining-dependent counties (e.g., Caribou, Oneida, Power, and Bannock) remain the same 

based on reasonably foreseeable phosphate output (over next 15 years) that remains constant across alternatives. 

Potential opportunities decrease for the following timber-dependent counties under the Final and Proposed Rule 

relative to Existing Plans (2): 

Northern EA: Boundary, Bonner, Kootenai, Benewah, Latah, Ferry (WA), Pend Oreille (WA), Shoshone, and 

Stevens (WA). 

Central EA: Clearwater, Idaho, Lewis, Nez Perce, and Asotin (WA). 

Southeastern EA: Bear Lake. 

Revenue sharing ............... Payments to counties are expected to remain the same under all alternatives as long as the Secure Rural Schools 

and Community Self-Determination Act remains in effect. Mineral-based payments to states are a function of 

leasable receipts, but no differences in phosphate production are projected across alternatives over the next 15 

years. 

Adverse impacts to small 

entities.

Greatest potential given 

prohibitions in roadless 

areas; most protective of 

sectors that benefit from 

resource conditions associated with roadless 

areas.

Least potential given fewest prohibitions and 

theme assignments; 

least protective of sectors that benefit from resource conditions associated with roadless 

areas.

Limited potential for losses of small entity opportunities. 

Opportunity losses are not expected to result in significant adverse economic impacts and/or affect substantial 

numbers of small entities, including recreational special 

use permit holders that may benefit from resource conditions associated with roadless characteristics. 

(1) Jobs and income contributed annually (2007$). Based on projected levels of timber harvest, road construction, and phosphate mining output per year, conversion of physical output to final demand ($) and application of regional economic multipliers. 

(2) Counties where 10% of total labor income is attributable to timber-related sectors and that are located in economic areas (EAs) where 

there is a significant net decrease in acreage assigned to the GFRG theme. 

Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

This final rule has also been 

considered in light of E.O. 13272 

regarding proper consideration of small 

entities and the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), which amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). The Forest Service with the 

assistance of the State of Idaho has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities as 

defined by the E.O. 13272 and SBREFA, 

because the final rule does not subject 

small entities to regulatory 

requirements. Therefore, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required for 

this final rule. 

For many activities and/or program 

areas, small entity opportunities under 

the final rule are projected to increase, 

relative to the 2001 Rule alternative (i.e., 

baseline or no-action alternative) as a 

result of (1) easing of restrictions on 

selected activities under the BCR 

management theme under the final rule, 

and (2) adopting the less-restrictive 

GFRG theme for some roadless acres 

under the final rule. There is some 

potential for reasonably foreseeable 

decreases in small entity opportunities 

to occur for special uses (recreation— 

outfitters and guides) under the final 

rule, relative to the 2001 Rule 

alternative. When comparing the 

impacts to entities associated with wood 

products, the number of jobs under the 

final rule are projected to increase 

relative to the 2001 Rule, though the 

magnitude of this increase is less than 

corresponding increases projected to 

occur under existing plans or the 

Proposed Rule. None of these 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61487 

opportunity losses are expected to result 

in significant economic impacts and/or 

affect a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Jobs and income related to timber 

harvest are projected to increase under 

the final rule relative to the 2001 Rule 

for all EAs, in large part, because 

prohibitions on road construction and 

timber cutting are eased under the 

GFRG theme and some areas under the 

BCR theme (e.g., CPZs). In contrast, jobs 

and income decrease under the final 

rule, relative to the Existing Plans 

alternative primarily for the northern 

and central EAs, implying potential 

decreases in small entity opportunities 

associated with timber harvest 

(opportunities are not expected to 

decrease significantly in other EAs). 

However, the decrease in jobs associated 

with timber cutting in roadless areas 

under the final rule is only 45 jobs 

relative to the Existing Plans alternative. 

This number of jobs is relatively small 

(less than 1%) when compared to 4,581 

workers employed by small business 

establishments within the forestry/ 

logging/sawmill sectors in Idaho. The 

decreases in timber harvest projected 

under the final rule for these EAs are 

representative of volumes from roadless 

acres only, and it should be noted that 

recent harvests from IRAs, as 

represented by projected harvests under 

the 2001 Rule alternative have been 

equal to or less than the volumes 

projected under the final rule. As a 

consequence, reasonably foreseeable 

opportunities for timber harvest from 

roadless areas under the final rule are 

projected to be equal to or larger than 

timber volumes harvested from IRAs in 

recent years or volumes projected under 

the 2001 Rule alternative. Timber sales 

to small businesses are currently 

exceeding established small business 

shares in all forest units within the 

northern and central EAs, with the 

exception of the Kanisku portion of the 

Idaho Panhandle NF. This suggests that 

economic impacts to small businesses in 

the wood product sectors are not 

expected to be significant nor are a 

substantial number of small businesses 

likely to be adversely affected under the 

final rule. 

In the context of special use permits 

for recreation (320 outfitter and guide 

permits are associated with Idaho’s NFs, 

as of fall 2006), none of the four 

alternatives address the processing or 

administration of special use permits 

directly. All decisions regarding existing 

and future special use permits will be 

project-specific and require compliance 

with all environmental regulations. 

Relative to the 2001 Rule alternative, 

increases in timber harvest 

opportunities projected for roadless 

areas under the final rule suggest the 

potential for losses in desirable resource 

conditions and corresponding decreases 

in small business opportunities for 

outfitters and guides for the 

southeastern EA. However, the 

magnitude of these decreases is 

expected to be small given minimal 

overlap between existing permit 

locations and the location of projected 

harvests on IRAs, as well as the 

relatively small percentage of roadless 

areas projected to be affected by timber 

cutting (less than 0.01% of roadless area 

per year) within the southeastern EA. 

Economic impacts to small businesses 

are therefore not expected to be 

significant in this EA. Similar effects in 

the northern EA (approximately 0.02% 

of roadless areas affected by timber 

cutting per year) are also not expected 

to result in significant economic 

impacts, nor affect a substantial number 

of small businesses (22 of the 320 

outfitter and guide permits are 

associated with the Idaho Panhandle NF 

in the northern EA). 

Reasonably foreseeable opportunities 

for small businesses linked to phosphate 

mining over the next 15 years are 

expected to remain the same across all 

alternatives because projected 

phosphate output from existing leases is 

not projected to vary across alternatives. 

In the long-term, a greater number of 

acres associated with unleased known 

phosphate reserves would be made 

accessible under the final rule, relative 

to the 2001 Rule, implying greater 

opportunities for small businesses. 

Unleased phosphate acreage accessible 

under the Existing Plans alternative 

(13,620 acres) and the Proposed Rule 

alternative (13,190 acres) is greater than 

corresponding acreage under the final 

rule (5,770 acres), but the impacts of 

these differences are expected to occur 

over a period of 50 years or more. It is 

also noted that none of the companies 

currently operating phosphate mines in 

Idaho can be classified as small 

businesses. Adverse economic impacts 

are therefore not expected to occur to 

small entities associated with phosphate 

mining in the reasonably foreseeable 

future. 

There are no changes in small 

business opportunities under the final 

rule compared to the 2001 Rule 

alternative because opportunities for 

geothermal development are negligible 

under both alternatives due to 

prohibitions on road construction for 

this purpose. Under the Existing Plans 

and Proposed Rule alternatives, road 

construction associated with geothermal 

development is permitted primarily in 

acres assigned to the GFRG theme. 

Given the stated permission for road 

construction for geothermal 

development under the Existing Plans 

and Proposed Rule alternatives, and the 

corresponding prohibition of road 

construction for geothermal purposes 

under the final rule, there is some 

potential for decreases in opportunities 

for geothermal development under the 

final rule. However, the absence of 

existing geothermal leases on NFS land 

in Idaho, combined with evidence that 

11 of 14 pending or authorized 

geothermal leases on BLM land in Idaho 

are held by a company that cannot be 

considered a small business per the 

definitions set forth by the Small 

Business Administration, suggests that 

these opportunity losses will not result 

in significant economic impacts nor 

affect a substantial number of small 

businesses in the reasonably foreseeable 

future. 

Decreases in small entity 

opportunities under the final rule are 

expected to be minimal or negligible for 

other sectors, including construction 

(i.e., roads), saleable minerals, oil and 

gas, livestock, non-forest timber 

products, ski areas, and other special 

uses (energy corridors). 

Thirty eight of Idaho’s 44 counties are 

considered small with population size 

of less than 50,000. Thirty five of these 

small counties are considered rural and 

are natural resource-dependent 

counties. Opportunities increase for all 

timber-dependent counties under the 

final rule or Proposed Rule alternative 

relative to the 2001 Rule alternative. 

Opportunities for mining-dependent 

counties (e.g., Caribou, Oneida, Power, 

and Bannock) remain the same based on 

reasonably foreseeable phosphate 

output (over the next 15 years) that 

remains constant across alternatives. 

When comparing the final rule or the 

Proposed Rule alternative relative to the 

Existing Plans alternative, potential 

opportunities may be decreased for the 

following timber-dependent counties: 

Northern EA: Boundary, Bonner, 

Kootenai, Benewah, Latah, Ferry (WA), 

Pend Oreille (WA), Shoshone, and 

Stevens (WA); Central EA: Clearwater, 

Idaho, Lewis, Nez Perce, and Asotin 

(WA); and Southeastern EA: Bear Lake. 

Revenue sharing with counties (i.e., 

secure payments to counties, payments 

in lieu of taxes) is expected to remain 

the same under all alternatives as long 

as the Secure Rural School and 

Community Self-Determination Act 

(SRSA) remains in effect. Counties that 

may experience losses in funding 

associated with 25% revenue-sharing, in 

the event that SRSA is not reauthorized, 

are those counties that share land with 

national forests where revenueVerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61488 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

generating opportunities potentially 

decrease. These counties may include 

timber-dependent counties in the 

northern and central EAs when 

comparing the final rule to the Existing 

Plans or Proposed Rule alternatives. 

However, reasonably foreseeable levels 

of revenue-sharing from timber harvest 

from roadless areas under the final rule 

are expected to be equal to or larger than 

revenue shares derived from harvest 

projected to occur under the 2001 Rule 

or volumes harvested from roadless 

areas in recent years. Revenue-sharing 

opportunities increase or remain the 

same for all counties under the final 

rule compared to the 2001 Rule, 

indicating that the final rule is not 

expected to have a significant adverse 

economic impact on small government 

entities. Mineral-based payments to 

states are a function of receipts from 

leasable minerals, including receipts 

from phosphate operations, but no 

differences in phosphate production are 

projected across alternatives. 

Opportunities for mining-dependent 

counties (e.g., Caribou, Oneida, Power, 

and Bannock) are therefore expected to 

remain the same in the reasonably 

foreseeable future (15 years). 

Mitigation measures for small entity 

impacts associated with the final rule 

are not relevant in many cases, because 

the final rule eases restrictions on a 

number of activities in many areas, 

implying increases in potential 

opportunities for small entities, as noted 

above. Mitigation measures associated 

with existing programs and laws 

regarding revenue sharing with counties 

and small business shares or set-asides 

will continue to apply (e.g., SRSA). 

Environmental Impact 

The Agency has prepared a FEIS in 

concert with this rule. In it, the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects of the 

final rule and alternatives are disclosed. 

The FEIS may be viewed at http:// 

www.roadless.fs.fed.us/idaho. 

The Agency has prepared a biological 

assessment on the potential effects of 

the final rule on threatened, 

endangered, and proposed species and 

formally consulted with the FWS and 

NOAA. The biological opinions can be 

found at http://roadless.fs.fed.us/ 

idaho.shtml and effects are discussed in 

the FEIS at sections 3.7 Botanical 

Resources, 3.8 Aquatic Species, and 3.9 

Terrestrial Animal Habitat and Species. 

Energy Effects 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under E.O. 13211 of May 18, 2001, 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. It has been 

determined that this final rule does not 

constitute a significant energy action as 

defined in the Executive order. 

As explained in greater detail in the 

FEIS, this final rule is not expected to 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use. The final rule does 

not disturb existing access or mineral 

rights, restrictions on saleable mineral 

materials are narrow, and no oil and gas 

leasing is currently underway or 

projected for these lands. The final rule 

is not expected to have a significant 

impact on wind or biomass energy. 

Opportunities for geothermal 

development are negligible under both 

the final rule and the 2001 Rule 

alternative. 

No novel legal or policy issues 

regarding adverse effects to supply, 

distribution, or use of energy are 

anticipated beyond what has already 

been addressed in the FEIS or the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis. None of the 

proposed corridors designated for oil, 

gas, and/or electricity under section 368 

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 are 

within IRAs. 

The final rule also provides a 

regulatory mechanism for consideration 

of requests for modification of 

restrictions if adjustments are 

determined to be necessary in the 

future. Therefore, this action is not a 

significant energy action and no 

Statement of Energy Effects is required. 

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the 

Public 

This rule does not call for any 

additional record keeping or reporting 

requirements or other information 

collection requirements as defined in 5 

CFR part 1320 that are not already 

required by law or not already approved 

for use and, therefore, imposes no 

additional paperwork burden on the 

public. Accordingly, the review 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and 

its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 

part 1320 do not apply. 

Federalism 

The Department has considered this 

rule under the requirements of E.O. 

13132 issued August 4, 1999, 

Federalism. The Department assessed 

that the rule conforms with the 

Federalism principles set out in this 

Executive order; would not impose any 

compliance costs on the states; and 

would not have substantial direct effects 

on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, nor on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. Therefore, 

the Department concludes that this rule 

does not have Federalism implications. 

This rule is based on a petition 

submitted by the State of Idaho under 

the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 

U.S.C. 553(e) and pursuant to 

Department of Agriculture regulations at 

7 CFR 1.28. The State’s petition was 

developed with involvement of local 

governments. The State has been a 

cooperating agency for the development 

of the EIS for this rule. State and local 

governments were encouraged to 

comment on this rule in the course of 

this rulemaking process. 

Consultation With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Pursuant to E.O. 13175 of November 

6, 2000, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments,’’ the 

Agency has assessed the impact of this 

rule on Indian Tribal governments and 

has determined the rule does not 

significantly or uniquely affect Indian 

Tribal governments. The rule deals with 

future permitted road construction, 

timber cutting, and certain mineral 

development projects in IRAs and has 

no direct effect on the current 

occupancy or use of these NFS lands. 

The rule does not waive any applicable 

requirements regarding site-specific 

environmental analysis, public 

involvement, consultation with Tribes, 

and other agencies or compliance with 

applicable laws. Nor does the rule 

modify the unique relationship between 

the United States and Indian Tribes that 

requires the Federal Government to 

work with federally recognized Indian 

Tribes government-to-government as 

provided for in E.O. 13175. Nothing 

herein limits or modifies prior existing 

Tribal rights, including those involving 

hunting, fishing, or gathering. The 

Agency has also determined this rule 

does not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on Indian Tribal 

governments. This rule does not 

mandate Tribal participation in NFS 

planning. Rather, the rule recognizes the 

responsibility of Forest Service officials 

to consult early with Tribal 

governments and to work cooperatively 

with them where planning issues affect 

Tribal interests. 

No Takings Implications 

This rule has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria in E.O. 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with Civil 

Constitutionally Protected Rights. It has 

been determined that the rule does not 

pose the risk of a taking of private 

property. The rule effects only NFS 

lands and contains exemptions that 

prevent the taking of constitutionally 

protected private property. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61489 

Civil Justice Reform 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. 

The Department has not identified any 

State or local laws or regulations that 

are in conflict with this regulation or 

that would impede full implementation 

of this rule. Nevertheless, in the event 

that such a conflict was to be identified, 

the final rule, if implemented, would 

preempt the State or local laws or 

regulations found to be in conflict. 

However, in that case (1) no retroactive 

effect would be given to this final rule 

and (2) the Department would not 

require the use of administrative 

proceedings before parties could file 

suit in court challenging its provisions. 

Unfunded Mandates 

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538), which the President signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, the 

Department has assessed the effects of 

this final rule on State, local, and Tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

This rule does not compel the 

expenditure of $100 million or more by 

any State, local, or Tribal governments 

or anyone in the private sector. 

Therefore, a statement under section 

202 of the Act is not required. 

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 294 

National Forests, Navigation (air), 

Recreation areas, State petitions for 

inventoried roadless area management. 

■ Therefore, for the reasons set forth in 

the preamble, the Forest Service 

proposes to amend part 294 of Title 36 

of the Code of Federal Regulations by 

adding new subpart C to read as follows: 

PART 294—SPECIAL AREAS 

Subpart C—Idaho Roadless Area 

Management 

Sec. 

294.20 Purpose. 

294.21 Definitions. 

294.22 Idaho Roadless Areas. 

294.23 Road construction and 

reconstruction in Idaho Roadless Areas. 

294.24 Timber cutting, sale, or removal in 

Idaho Roadless Areas. 

294.25 Mineral activities in Idaho Roadless 

Areas. 

294.26 Other activities in Idaho Roadless 

Areas. 

294.27 Corrections and modifications. 

294.28 Scope and applicability. 

294.29 List of designated Idaho Roadless 

Areas. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 472, 529, 551, 1608, 

1613; 23 U.S.C. 201, 205. 

§ 294.20 Purpose. 

The purpose of this subpart is to 

provide, in the context of multiple-use 

management, State-specific direction for 

the conservation of inventoried roadless 

areas in the national forests within the 

State of Idaho. This subpart sets forth 

the procedures for management of Idaho 

Roadless Areas consistent with the 

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 

1960 (16 U.S.C. 528–531). 

§ 294.21 Definitions. 

The following terms and definitions 

apply to this subpart. 

At-risk community: As defined under 

section 101 of the Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act (HFRA). 

Community protection zone: An area 

extending one-half mile from the 

boundary of an at-risk community or an 

area within one and a half miles of the 

boundary of an at-risk community, 

where any land: 

(1) Has a sustained steep slope that 

creates the potential for wildfire 

behavior endangering the at-risk 

community; 

(2) Has a geographic feature that aids 

in creating an effective fire break, such 

as a road or a ridge top; or 

(3) Is in condition class 3 as defined 

by HFRA. 

Fire hazard and risk: The fuel 

conditions on the landscape. 

Fire occurrence: The probability of 

wildfire ignition based on historic fire 

occurrence records and other 

information. 

Forest Plan Special Area: Certain 

lands identified on the Idaho Roadless 

Area Maps, § 294.22(c) and listed in 

§ 294.29 shall be managed pursuant to 

applicable land management 

components. These lands include areas 

such as research natural areas, 

designated and eligible wild and scenic 

river corridors, developed recreation 

sites, or other specified management 

purposes, as described in the Roadless 

Area Conservation; National Forest 

System Lands in Idaho, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Appendix Q. 

Forest road: As defined at 36 CFR 

212.1, the term means a road wholly or 

partly within or adjacent to and serving 

the National Forest System that the 

Forest Service determines is necessary 

for the protection, administration, and 

use of the National Forest System and 

the use and development of its 

resources. 

Forest type: A forest stand that is 

essentially similar throughout its extent 

in composition under generally similar 

environmental conditions, including 

temporary, permanent, climax, and 

cover types. 

Hazardous fuels: Excessive live or 

dead wildland fuel accumulations that 

increase the potential for 

uncharacteristically intense wildland 

fire and decrease the capability to 

protect life, property, and natural 

resources. 

Idaho Roadless Areas: Areas 

designated pursuant to this rule and 

identified in a set of maps maintained 

at the national headquarters office of the 

Forest Service. 

Municipal water supply system: As 

defined under section 101 of the 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act, the 

term means the reservoirs, canals, 

ditches, flumes, laterals, pipes, 

pipelines, and other surface facilities 

and systems constructed or installed for 

the collection, impoundment, storage, 

transportation, or distribution of 

drinking water. 

Responsible official: The Forest 

Service line officer with the authority 

and responsibility to make decisions 

about protection and management of 

Idaho Roadless Areas pursuant to this 

subpart. 

Road: As defined at 36 CFR 212.1, the 

term means a motor vehicle route over 

50 inches wide, unless identified and 

managed as a trail. 

Road construction and 

reconstruction: As defined at 36 CFR 

212.1, the terms mean supervising, 

inspecting, actual building, and 

incurrence of all costs incidental to the 

construction or reconstruction of a road. 

Road decommissioning: As defined at 

36 CFR 212.1, the term means activities 

that result in the stabilization and 

restoration of unneeded roads to a more 

natural state. 

Road maintenance: The ongoing 

upkeep of a road necessary to retain or 

restore the road to the approved road 

management objective. 

Road realignment: Activity that 

results in a new location of an existing 

road or portions of an existing road, and 

treatment of the old roadway. 

Roadless characteristics: Resources or 

features that are often present in and 

characterize Idaho Roadless Areas, 

including: 

(1) High quality or undisturbed soil, 

water, and air; 

(2) Sources of public drinking water; 

(3) Diversity of plant and animal 

communities; 

(4) Habitat for threatened, 

endangered, proposed, candidate, and 

sensitive species, and for those species 

dependent on large, undisturbed areas 

of land; 

(5) Primitive, semi-primitive nonmotorized, and semi-primitive 

motorized classes of dispersed 

recreation; 

(6) Reference landscapes; 

(7) Natural appearing landscapes with 

high scenic quality; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61490 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(8) Traditional cultural properties and 

sacred sites; and 

(9) Other locally identified unique 

characteristics. 

Substantially altered portion: An area 

within an Idaho Roadless Area where 

past road construction, timber cutting, 

or other uses have materially 

diminished the area’s roadless 

characteristics. 

Temporary road: As defined at 36 

CFR 212.1, the term means a road 

necessary for emergency operations or 

authorized by contract, permit, lease, or 

other written authorization that is not a 

forest road and that is not included in 

a forest transportation atlas. Temporary 

roads are available for administrative 

use until decommissioned. 

Uncharacteristic wildland fire effects: 

An increase in wildland fire size, 

severity, and resistance to control; and 

the associated impact on people, 

property, and fire fighter safety 

compared to that which occurred in the 

native system. 

§ 294.22 Idaho Roadless Areas. 

(a) Designations. All National Forest 

System lands within the State of Idaho 

listed in § 294.29 are hereby designated 

as Idaho Roadless Areas. 

(b) Management classifications. 

Management classifications for Idaho 

Roadless Areas express a management 

continuum. The following management 

classifications are established: 

(1) Wild Land Recreation; 

(2) Special Areas of Historic or Tribal 

Significance; 

(3) Primitive; 

(4) Backcountry/Restoration; and 

(5) General Forest, Rangeland, and 

Grassland. 

(c) Maps. The Chief shall maintain 

and make available to the public a map 

of each Idaho Roadless Area, including 

records regarding any corrections or 

modifications of such maps pursuant to 

§ 294.27. 

(d) Activities in Idaho Roadless Areas 

shall be consistent with the applicable 

management classification listed for 

each area under § 294.29. 

§ 294.23 Road construction and 

reconstruction in Idaho Roadless Areas. 

(a) Wild Land Recreation, Special 

Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance, 

or Primitive. Road construction and 

reconstruction are prohibited in Idaho 

Roadless Areas designated as Wild Land 

Recreation, Special Areas of Historic or 

Tribal Significance, or Primitive. 

However, the Regional Forester may 

authorize a road to be constructed or 

reconstructed in an area designated as 

Wild Land Recreation, Special Area of 

Historic or Tribal Significance, or 

Primitive if pursuant to statute, treaty, 

reserved or outstanding rights, or other 

legal duty of the United States. 

(b) Backcountry/Restoration. (1) Road 

construction and reconstruction are 

only permissible in Idaho Roadless 

Areas designated as Backcountry/ 

Restoration where the Regional Forester 

determines: 

(i) A road is needed to protect public 

health and safety in cases of an 

imminent threat of flood, wildland fire, 

or other catastrophic event that, without 

intervention, would cause the loss of 

life or property; 

(ii) A road is needed to conduct a 

response action under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) or to conduct a natural 

resource restoration action under 

CERCLA, section 311 of the Clean Water 

Act, or the Oil Pollution Act; 

(iii) A road is needed pursuant to 

statute, treaty, reserved or outstanding 

rights, or other legal duty of the United 

States; 

(iv) A road realignment is needed to 

prevent irreparable resource damage 

that arises from the design, location, 

use, or deterioration of a road and 

cannot be mitigated by road 

maintenance. Road realignment may 

occur under this subsection only if the 

road is deemed essential for public or 

private access, natural resource 

management, or public health and 

safety; 

(v) Road reconstruction is needed to 

implement a road safety improvement 

project on a road determined to be 

hazardous based on accident experience 

or accident potential on that road; or 

(vi) The Secretary of Agriculture 

determines that a Federal Aid Highway 

project, authorized pursuant to Title 23 

of the United States Code, is in the 

public interest or is consistent with the 

purpose for which the land was 

reserved or acquired and no other 

reasonable and prudent alternative 

exists. 

(2) A responsible official may 

authorize temporary road construction 

or road reconstruction for community 

protection zone activities pursuant to 

§ 294.24(c)(1)(i) if in the official’s 

judgment the community protection 

objectives cannot be reasonably 

accomplished without a temporary road. 

(3) The Regional Forester may 

approve temporary road construction or 

road reconstruction to reduce hazardous 

fuel conditions outside a community 

protection zone where in the Regional 

Forester’s judgment the circumstances 

set out below exist. Temporary road 

construction or road reconstruction to 

reduce hazardous fuel conditions under 

this provision will be dependent on 

forest type and is expected to be 

infrequent. 

(i) There is a significant risk that a 

wildland fire disturbance event could 

adversely affect an at-risk community or 

municipal water supply system 

pursuant to § 294.24(c)(1)(ii). A 

significant risk exists where the history 

of fire occurrence, and fire hazard and 

risk, indicate a serious likelihood that a 

wildland fire disturbance event would 

present a high risk of threat to an at-risk 

community or municipal water supply 

system. 

(ii) The activity cannot be reasonably 

accomplished without a temporary road. 

(iii) The activity will maintain or 

improve one or more roadless 

characteristics over the long-term. 

(c) General Forest, Rangeland, and 

Grassland. (1) A forest road may be 

constructed or reconstructed or a 

temporary road may be constructed in 

Idaho Roadless Areas designated as 

General Forest, Rangeland, and 

Grassland, unless prohibited in 

§ 294.25(e). 

(2) Forest roads constructed or 

reconstructed pursuant to § 294.23(c)(1) 

must be conducted in a way that 

minimizes effects on surface resources 

and must be consistent with land 

management plan components as 

provided for in § 294.28(d). 

(d) Temporary roads. (1) Temporary 

road construction must be conducted in 

a way that minimizes effects on surface 

resources, is consistent with land 

management plan components as 

provided for in § 294.28(d), and may 

only be used for the specified 

purpose(s). 

(2) Temporary roads must be 

decommissioned upon completion of 

the project or expiration of the contract 

or permit, whichever is sooner. A road 

decommissioning provision will be 

required in all such contracts or permits 

and may not be waived. 

(e) Road maintenance. Maintenance 

of temporary and forest roads is 

permissible in Idaho Roadless Areas. 

(f) Roads associated with mineral 

activities. Road construction or 

reconstruction associated with mineral 

activities is provided for in § 294.25. 

§ 294.24 Timber cutting, sale, or removal 

in Idaho Roadless Areas. 

(a) Wild Land Recreation. The cutting, 

sale, or removal of timber is prohibited 

in Idaho Roadless Areas designated as 

Wild Land Recreation under this 

subpart, except: 

(1) For personal or administrative use, 

as provided for in 36 CFR part 223; or 

(2) Where incidental to the 

implementation of a management 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61491 

activity not otherwise prohibited by this 

subpart. 

(b) Special Areas of Historic or Tribal 

Significance and Primitive. (1) The 

cutting, sale, or removal of timber is 

prohibited in Idaho Roadless Areas 

designated as a Special Area of Historic 

or Tribal Significance or as Primitive 

under this subpart, except: 

(i) To improve threatened, 

endangered, proposed, or sensitive 

species habitat; 

(ii) To maintain or restore the 

characteristics of ecosystem 

composition, structure, and processes; 

(iii) To reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildland fire effects to 

an at-risk community or municipal 

water supply system; 

(iv) For personal or administrative 

use, as provided for in 36 CFR part 223; 

or 

(v) Where such cutting, sale or 

removal is incidental to the 

implementation of a management 

activity not otherwise prohibited by this 

subpart. 

(2) Any action authorized pursuant to 

paragraphs § 294.24(b)(1)(i) through (iii) 

shall be limited to situations that: 

(i) Maintain or improve one or more 

of the roadless characteristics over the 

long-term; 

(ii) Use existing roads or aerial harvest 

systems; 

(iii) Maximize the retention of large 

trees as appropriate for the forest type, 

to the extent the trees promote fireresilient stands; 

(iv) Are consistent with land 

management plan components as 

provided for in § 294.28(d); and 

(v) Is approved by the regional 

forester. 

(c) Backcountry/Restoration. (1) The 

cutting, sale, or removal of timber is 

permissible in Idaho Roadless Areas 

designated as Backcountry/Restoration 

only: 

(i) To reduce hazardous fuel 

conditions within the community 

protection zone if in the responsible 

official’s judgment the project generally 

retains large trees as appropriate for the 

forest type and is consistent with land 

management plan components as 

provided for in § 294.28(d); 

(ii) To reduce hazardous fuel 

conditions outside the community 

protection zone where there is 

significant risk that a wildland fire 

disturbance event could adversely affect 

an at-risk community or municipal 

water supply system. A significant risk 

exists where the history of fire 

occurrence, and fire hazard and risk, 

indicate a serious likelihood that a 

wildland fire disturbance event would 

present a high risk of threat to an at-risk 

community or municipal water supply 

system; 

(iii) To improve threatened, 

endangered, proposed, or sensitive 

species habitat; 

(iv) To maintain or restore the 

characteristics of ecosystem 

composition, structure, and processes; 

(v) To reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildland fire effects; 

(vi) For personal or administrative 

use, as provided for in 36 CFR part 223; 

(vii) Where incidental to the 

implementation of a management 

activity not otherwise prohibited by this 

subpart; or 

(viii) In a portion of an Idaho Roadless 

Area designated as Backcountry/ 

Restoration that has been substantially 

altered due to the construction of a 

forest road and subsequent timber 

cutting. Both the road construction and 

subsequent timber cutting must have 

occurred prior to October 16, 2008. 

(2) Any action authorized pursuant to 

paragraphs § 294.24(c)(1)(ii) through (v) 

shall be approved by the Regional 

Forester and limited to situations that, 

in the Regional Forester’s judgment: 

(i) Maintains or improves one or more 

of the roadless characteristics over the 

long-term; 

(ii) Maximizes the retention of large 

trees as appropriate for the forest type 

to the extent the trees promote fireresilient stands; and 

(iii) Is consistent with land 

management plan components as 

provided for in § 294.28(d). 

(3) The activities in paragraph 

§ 294.24(c)(1) may use any forest roads 

or temporary roads, including those 

authorized under § 294.23(b)(2 and 3) 

until decommissioned. 

(d) General Forest, Rangeland, and 

Grassland. Timber may be cut, sold, or 

removed within Idaho Roadless Areas 

designated as General Forest, 

Rangeland, and Grassland but shall be 

consistent with the land management 

plan components as provided for in 

§ 294.28(d). 

§ 294.25 Mineral activities in Idaho 

Roadless Areas. 

(a) Nothing in this subpart shall be 

construed as restricting mineral leases, 

contracts, permits, and associated 

activities authorized prior to October 16, 

2008. 

(b) Nothing in this subpart shall affect 

mining activities conducted pursuant to 

the General Mining Law of 1872. 

(c) Wild Land Recreation, Special 

Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance, 

or Primitive. (1) For mineral leases, 

contracts, permits, and other associated 

activities authorized after the effective 

date of this subpart the Forest Service 

will not recommend, authorize, or 

consent to road construction, road 

reconstruction, or surface occupancy 

associated with mineral leases in Idaho 

Roadless Areas designated as Wild Land 

Recreation, Special Areas of Historic or 

Tribal Significance, or Primitive themes. 

(2) After October 16, 2008, the Forest 

Service will not authorize sale of 

common variety mineral materials in 

Idaho Roadless Areas designated as 

Wild Land Recreation, Special Areas of 

Historic or Tribal Significance, or 

Primitive themes. 

(d) Backcountry/Restoration. (1) For 

mineral leases, contracts, permits, and 

other associated activities authorized 

after the effective date of this subpart, 

the Forest Service will not recommend, 

authorize, or consent to road 

construction or road reconstruction 

associated with mineral leases in Idaho 

Roadless Areas designated as 

Backcountry/Restoration. Surface use or 

occupancy without road construction or 

reconstruction is permissible for all 

mineral leasing unless prohibited in the 

applicable land management plan. 

(2) After October 16, 2008, the Forest 

Service may authorize the use or sale of 

common variety mineral materials, and 

associated road construction or 

reconstruction to access these mineral 

materials, in Idaho Roadless Areas 

designated as Backcountry/Restoration 

only if the use of these mineral 

materials is incidental to an activity 

otherwise permissible in backcountry/ 

restoration under this subpart. 

(e) General Forest, Rangeland, and 

Grassland. (1) For mineral leases, 

contracts, permits, and other associated 

activities authorized after October 16, 

2008, the Forest Service will not 

recommend, authorize, or consent to 

road construction or reconstruction 

associated with mineral leases in Idaho 

Roadless Areas designated as General 

Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland 

theme; except such road construction or 

reconstruction may be authorized by the 

responsible official in association with 

phosphate deposits as described in 

Figure 3–20 in section 3.15 Minerals 

and Energy in the Roadless Area 

Conservation; National Forest System 

Lands in Idaho Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. Surface use or 

occupancy without road construction or 

reconstruction is permissible for all 

mineral leasing unless prohibited in the 

land management plan components. 

(2) After October 16, 2008, the Forest 

Service may authorize the use or sale of 

common variety mineral materials, and 

associated road construction or 

reconstruction to access these mineral 

materials, in Idaho Roadless Areas 

designated as General Forest, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61492 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Rangeland, and Grassland only if the 

use of these mineral materials is 

incidental to an activity otherwise 

permissible in General Forest, 

Rangeland, and Grassland under this 

subpart. 

(3) Road construction or 

reconstruction associated with mining 

activities permissible under this 

subsection may only be approved after 

evaluating other access options. 

(4) Road construction or 

reconstruction associated with mining 

activities permissible under this 

subsection must be conducted in a 

manner that minimizes effects on 

surface resources and must be 

consistent with land management plan 

components as provided for in 

§ 294.28(d). Roads constructed or 

reconstructed must be decommissioned 

upon completion of the project, or 

expiration of the lease, or permit, or 

other authorization, whichever is 

sooner. 

§ 294.26 Other activities in Idaho Roadless 

Areas. 

(a) Motorized travel. Nothing in this 

subpart shall be construed as affecting 

existing roads or trails in Idaho Roadless 

Areas. Decisions concerning the future 

management of existing roads or trails 

in Idaho Roadless Areas shall be made 

during the applicable travel 

management process. 

(b) Grazing. Nothing in this subpart 

shall be construed as affecting existing 

grazing permits in Idaho Roadless 

Areas. Future road construction 

associated with livestock operations 

shall conform to this subpart. 

(c) Motorized equipment and 

mechanical transport. Nothing in this 

subpart shall be construed as affecting 

the use of motorized equipment and 

mechanical transport in Idaho Roadless 

Areas. 

§ 294.27 Corrections and modifications. 

Correction or modification of 

designations made pursuant to this 

subpart may occur under the following 

circumstances: 

(a) Administrative corrections. 

Administrative corrections to the maps 

of lands identified in § 294.22(c) 

include, but are not limited to, 

adjustments that remedy clerical errors, 

typographical errors, mapping errors, or 

improvements in mapping technology. 

The Chief may issue administrative 

corrections after a 30-day public notice 

and opportunity to comment. 

(b) Modifications. The Chief may add 

to, remove from, or modify the 

designations and management 

classifications listed in § 294.29 based 

on changed circumstances or public 

need. The Chief shall provide at least a 

45-day public notice and opportunity to 

comment for all modifications. 

§ 294.28 Scope and applicability. 

(a) After October 16, 2008 subpart B 

of this part shall have no effect within 

the State of Idaho. 

(b) This subpart does not revoke, 

suspend, or modify any permit, 

contract, or other legal instrument 

authorizing the occupancy and use of 

National Forest System land issued 

prior to October 16, 2008. 

(c) This subpart does not revoke, 

suspend, or modify any project or 

activity decision made prior to October 

16, 2008. 

(d) The provisions set forth in this 

subpart shall take precedence over any 

inconsistent land management plan 

component. Land management plan 

components that are not inconsistent 

with this subpart will continue to 

provide guidance for projects and 

activities within Idaho Roadless Areas; 

as shall those related to protection of 

threatened and endangered species. 

This subpart does not compel the 

amendment or revision of any land 

management plan. 

(e) The prohibitions and permissions 

set forth in the subpart are not subject 

to reconsideration, revision, or 

rescission in subsequent project 

decisions or land and resource 

management plan amendments or 

revisions undertaken pursuant to 36 

CFR part 219. 

(f) This subpart shall not apply to 

Forest Plan Special Areas within Idaho 

Roadless Areas. 

(g) Nothing in this subpart waives any 

applicable requirements regarding sitespecific environmental analysis, public 

involvement, consultation with Tribes 

and other agencies, or compliance with 

applicable laws. 

(h) This subpart does not modify the 

unique relationship between the United 

States and Indian Tribes that requires 

the Federal Government to work with 

federally recognized Indian Tribes 

government-to-government as provided 

for in treaties, laws or Executive orders. 

Nothing herein limits or modifies prior 

existing tribal rights, including those 

involving hunting, fishing, gathering, 

and protection of cultural and spiritual 

sites. 

(i) If any provision of the rules in this 

subpart or its application to any person 

or to certain circumstances is held 

invalid, the remainder of the regulations 

in this subpart and their application 

remain in force. 

§ 294.29 List of designated Idaho Roadless 

Areas. 

The acronyms used in the list are 

Wild Land Recreation (WLR), 

Backcountry/Restoration (BCR), General 

Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland 

(GFRG), Special Areas of Historic or 

Tribal Significance (SAHTS) and Forest 

Plan Special Areas (FPSA). 

Forest Idaho roadless area # WLR Primitive BCR GFRG SAHTS FPSA 

Boise ............................ Bald Mountain ................................. 019 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Bear Wallow .................................... 125 ................ X ................ ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Bernard ............................................ 029 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Black Lake ....................................... 036 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Blue Bunch ...................................... 923 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Breadwinner .................................... 006 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Burnt Log ......................................... 035 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Cathedral Rocks .............................. 038 ................ X ................ ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Caton Lake ...................................... 912 ................ ................ X X ................ X 

Boise ............................ Cow Creek ....................................... 028 ................ X ................ ................ ................ ................

Boise ............................ Danskin ............................................ 002 ................ X ................ ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Deadwood ....................................... 020 ................ X X ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Elk Creek ......................................... 022 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Grand Mountain ............................... 007 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Grimes Pass .................................... 017 ................ ................ X X ................ X 

Boise ............................ Hanson Lakes ................................. 915 X X ................ ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Hawley Mountain ............................. 018 ................ X ................ ................ ................ ................

Boise ............................ Horse Heaven ................................. 925 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Boise ............................ House Mountain .............................. 001 ................ X ................ ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Lime Creek ...................................... 937 ................ X ................ ................ ................ ................


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61493 

Forest Idaho roadless area # WLR Primitive BCR GFRG SAHTS FPSA 

Boise ............................ Lost Man Creek ............................... 041 ................ X ................ ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Meadow Creek ................................ 913 ................ ................ X X ................ X 

Boise ............................ Mt Heinen ........................................ 003 ................ X ................ ................ ................ ................

Boise ............................ Nameless Creek .............................. 034 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Boise ............................ Needles ........................................... 911 X X X X ................ X 

Boise ............................ Peace Rock ..................................... 026 ................ X X ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Poison Creek ................................... 042 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Boise ............................ Poker Meadows ............................... 032 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Rainbow ........................................... 008 ................ X ................ ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Red Mountain .................................. 916 X X X X ................ X 

Boise ............................ Reeves Creek .................................. 010 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Boise ............................ Sheep Creek ................................... 005 ................ X ................ ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Smoky Mountains ............................ 914 ................ X ................ ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Snowbank ........................................ 924 ................ X ................ ................ ................ ................

Boise ............................ Steel Mountain ................................ 012 ................ X ................ ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Stony Meadows ............................... 027 ................ X X ................ ................ ................

Boise ............................ Ten Mile/Black Warrior .................... 013 X X ................ X ................ X 

Boise ............................ Tennessee ....................................... 033 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Boise ............................ Whiskey ........................................... 031 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Boise ............................ Whiskey Jack .................................. 009 ................ X ................ ................ ................ ................

Boise ............................ Whitehawk Mountain ....................... 021 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Boise ............................ Wilson Peak .................................... 040 ................ X ................ ................ ................ ................

Caribou ......................... Bear Creek ...................................... 615 ................ X X X ................ X 

Caribou ......................... Bonneville Peak ............................... 154 ................ ................ X X ................ X 

Caribou ......................... Caribou City ..................................... 161 X ................ X ................ ................ X 

Caribou ......................... Clarkston Mountain ......................... 159 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Caribou ......................... Deep Creek ..................................... 158 ................ ................ X X ................ X 

Caribou ......................... Dry Ridge ........................................ 164 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Caribou ......................... Elkhorn Mountain ............................ 156 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Caribou ......................... Gannett-Spring Creek ..................... 111 ................ X X X ................ X 

Caribou ......................... Gibson ............................................. 181 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Caribou ......................... Hell Hole .......................................... 168 ................ ................ ................ X ................ X 

Caribou ......................... Huckleberry Basin ........................... 165 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Caribou ......................... Liberty Creek ................................... 175 ................ ................ X X ................ X 

Caribou ......................... Meade Peak .................................... 167 ................ X X X ................ X 

Caribou ......................... Mink Creek ...................................... 176 ................ ................ X X ................ X 

Caribou ......................... Mount Naomi ................................... 758 X ................ X X ................ X 

Caribou ......................... North Pebble ................................... 155 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Caribou ......................... Oxford Mountain .............................. 157 ................ ................ X X ................ X 

Caribou ......................... Paris Peak ....................................... 177 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Caribou ......................... Pole Creek ....................................... 160 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Caribou ......................... Red Mountain .................................. 170 ................ X X ................ ................ ................

Caribou ......................... Sage Creek ..................................... 166 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Caribou ......................... Schmid Peak ................................... 163 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Caribou ......................... Scout Mountain ............................... 152 ................ ................ X X ................ X 

Caribou ......................... Sherman Peak ................................. 172 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Caribou ......................... Soda Point ....................................... 171 ................ ................ X X ................ X 

Caribou ......................... Station Creek ................................... 178 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Caribou ......................... Stauffer Creek ................................. 173 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Caribou ......................... Stump Creek ................................... 162 ................ X X X ................ X 

Caribou ......................... Swan Creek ..................................... 180 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Caribou ......................... Telephone Draw .............................. 169 ................ ................ X X ................ X 

Caribou ......................... Toponce ........................................... 153 ................ X X ................ ................ ................

Caribou ......................... West Mink ........................................ 151 ................ ................ X X ................ X 

Caribou ......................... Williams Creek ................................ 174 ................ ................ X X ................ X 

Caribou ......................... Worm Creek .................................... 170 ................ ................ X X ................ X 

Challis .......................... Blue Bunch Mountain ...................... 923 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Borah Peak ...................................... 012 X ................ X ................ ................ X 

Challis .......................... Boulder-White Clouds ..................... 920 X ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Camas Creek .................................. 901 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Challis Creek ................................... 004 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Cold Springs .................................... 026 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Copper Basin ................................... 019 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Diamond Peak ................................. 601 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Challis .......................... Greylock .......................................... 007 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Grouse Peak ................................... 010 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Hanson Lake ................................... 915 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Jumpoff Mountain ............................ 014 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... King Mountain ................................. 013 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Lemhi Range ................................... 903 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Challis .......................... Loon Creek ...................................... 908 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Pahsimeroi Mountain ....................... 011 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Pioneer Mountains .......................... 921 X ................ X ................ ................ X 

Challis .......................... Prophyry Peak ................................. 017 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61494 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Forest Idaho roadless area # WLR Primitive BCR GFRG SAHTS FPSA 

Challis .......................... Railroad Ridge ................................. 922 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Red Hill ............................................ 027 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Red Mountain .................................. 916 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Seafoam .......................................... 009 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Spring Basin .................................... 006 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Squaw Creek ................................... 005 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Taylor Mountain ............................... 902 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Warm Creek .................................... 024 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... White Knob ...................................... 025 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Challis .......................... Wood Canyon .................................. 028 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Clearwater .................... Bighorn-Weitas ................................ 306 ................ ................ X ................ X X 

Clearwater .................... Eldorado Creek ............................... 312 ................ ................ X ................ X ................

Clearwater .................... Hoodoo ............................................ 301 X ................ ................ ................ X ................

Clearwater .................... Lochsa Face .................................... 311 ................ X X ................ X X 

Clearwater .................... Lolo Creek (LNF) ............................. 805 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Clearwater .................... Mallard-Larkins ................................ 300 X X X ................ ................ ................

Clearwater .................... Meadow Creek—Upper North Fork 302 ................ X X ................ ................ ................

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

Clearwater .................... Siwash ............................................. 303 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Clearwater .................... Sneakfoot Meadows ........................ 314 X X X ................ ................ X 

Clearwater .................... Weir-Post Office Creek ................... 308 ................ ................ X ................ X X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... Beetop ............................................. 130 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Big Creek ......................................... 143 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Blacktail Mountain ........................... 122 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... Blacktail Mountain ........................... 161 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Buckhorn Ridge ............................... 661 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Continental Mountain ...................... 004 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... East Cathedral Peak ....................... 131 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... East Fork Elk ................................... 678 ................ ................ ................ X ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Gilt Edge-Silver Creek ..................... 792 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Graham Coal ................................... 139 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... Grandmother Mountain ................... 148 X ................ X X ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... Hammond Creek ............................. 145 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Hellroaring ....................................... 128 ................ ................ ................ X ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Katka Peak ...................................... 157 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Kootenai Peak ................................. 126 ................ ................ ................ X ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Little Grass Mountain ...................... 121 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Lost Creek ....................................... 137 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... Magee .............................................. 132 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Mallard-Larkins ................................ 300 X ................ X ................ ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... Maple Peak ..................................... 141 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Meadow Creek-Upper N. Fork ........ 302 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... Midget Peak .................................... 151 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... Mosquito-Fly .................................... 150 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... Mt. Willard-Lake Estelle .................. 173 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... North Fork ....................................... 147 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... Packsaddle ...................................... 155 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Pinchot Butte ................................... 149 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Roland Point .................................... 146 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Saddle Mountain ............................. 154 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Salmo-Priest .................................... 981 X ................ ................ ................ ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... Schafer Peak ................................... 160 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Scotchman Peaks ........................... 662 X ................ X ................ ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... Selkirk .............................................. 125 X ................ X X ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... Sheep Mountain-State Line ............. 799 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... Skitwish Ridge ................................. 135 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Spion Kop ........................................ 136 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... Stevens Peak .................................. 142 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Storm Creek .................................... 144 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Tepee Creek .................................... 133 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Trestle Peak .................................... 129 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Trouble Creek .................................. 138 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... Trout Creek ..................................... 664 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... Upper Priest .................................... 123 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Idaho Panhandle .......... White Mountain ............................... 127 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Idaho Panhandle .......... Wonderful Peak ............................... 152 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Kootenai ....................... Mt. Willard-Lake Estelle .................. 173 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Kootenai ....................... Roberts ............................................ 691 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Kootenai ....................... Scotchman Peaks ........................... 662 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61495 

Forest Idaho roadless area # WLR Primitive BCR GFRG SAHTS FPSA 

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 ............................. .......... ................ X ................ ................ ................ ................

Nez Perce .................... Silver Creek—Pilot Knob ................. 849 ................ ................ ................ ................ X ................

Nez Perce .................... West Fork Crooked River ................ .......... ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Payette ......................... French Creek ................................... 026 ................ X X X ................ X 

Payette ......................... Hells Canyon/7 Devils 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 ................ ................ X 

Payette ......................... Patrick Butte .................................... 002 ................ X X ................ ................ X 

Payette ......................... Placer Creek .................................... 008 ................ X X ................ ................ X 

Payette ......................... Poison Creek ................................... 042 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Payette ......................... Rapid River ...................................... 922 X ................ ................ ................ ................ X 

Payette ......................... Secesh ............................................. 010 X X X ................ ................ X 

Payette ......................... Sheep Gulch .................................... 017 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Payette ......................... Smith Creek ..................................... 007 ................ X ................ ................ ................ ................

Payette ......................... Snowbank ........................................ 924 ................ X ................ ................ ................ ................

Payette ......................... Sugar Mountain ............................... 014 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Agency Creek .................................. 512 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Allan Mountain ................................. 946 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Salmon ......................... Anderson Mountain ......................... 942 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Blue Joint Mountain ......................... 941 ................ X ................ ................ ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Camas Creek .................................. 901 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Deep Creek ..................................... 509 ................ ................ ................ X ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Duck Peak ....................................... 518 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Salmon ......................... Goat Mountain ................................. 944 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Goldbug Ridge ................................ 903 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Haystack Mountain .......................... 507 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Italian Peak ...................................... 945 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Jesse Creek .................................... 510 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Jureano ............................................ 506 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Lemhi Range ................................... 903 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Salmon ......................... Little Horse ...................................... 514 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Long Tom ........................................ 521 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Salmon ......................... McEleny ........................................... 505 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Musgrove ......................................... 517 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Napias ............................................. 515 ................ ................ ................ X ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Napoleon Ridge ............................... 501 ................ ................ X X ................ X 

Salmon ......................... Oreana ............................................. 516 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Perreau Creek ................................. 511 ................ ................ ................ X ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Phelan ............................................. 508 ................ ................ ................ X ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Sal Mountain ................................... 513 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Sheepeater ...................................... 520 ................ ................ X X ................ X 

Salmon ......................... South Deep Creek ........................... 509 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Salmon ......................... South Panther ................................. 504 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Salmon ......................... Taylor Mountain ............................... 902 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Salmon ......................... West Big Hole ................................. 943 ................ X X X ................ X 

Salmon ......................... West Panther Creek ........................ 504 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Sawtooth ...................... Black Pine ....................................... 003 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
61496 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Forest Idaho roadless area # WLR Primitive BCR GFRG SAHTS FPSA 

Sawtooth ...................... Blackhorse Creek ............................ 039 ................ X ................ ................ ................ ................

Sawtooth ...................... Boulder-White Clouds ..................... 920 X X X ................ ................ X 

Sawtooth ...................... Buttercup Mountain ......................... 038 ................ X ................ ................ ................ X 

Sawtooth ...................... Cache Peak ..................................... 007 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Sawtooth ...................... Cottonwood ..................................... 010 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Sawtooth ...................... Elk Ridge ......................................... 019 ................ X ................ ................ ................ ................

Sawtooth ...................... Fifth Fork Rock Creek ..................... 023 ................ X ................ X ................ ................

Sawtooth ...................... Hanson Lakes ................................. 915 X X X ................ ................ X 

Sawtooth ...................... Huckleberry ..................................... 016 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Sawtooth ...................... Liberal Mountain .............................. 040 ................ X ................ X ................ ................

Sawtooth ...................... Lime Creek ...................................... 937 ................ X ................ ................ ................ X 

Sawtooth ...................... Lone Cedar ...................................... 011 ................ ................ ................ X ................ ................

Sawtooth ...................... Loon Creek ...................................... 908 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Sawtooth ...................... Mahogany Butte .............................. 012 ................ ................ ................ X ................ ................

Sawtooth ...................... Mount Harrison ................................ 006 ................ X X X ................ X 

Sawtooth ...................... Pettit ................................................ 017 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Sawtooth ...................... Pioneer Mountains .......................... 921 X X X ................ ................ X 

Sawtooth ...................... Railroad Ridge ................................. 922 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Sawtooth ...................... Smoky Mountains ............................ 914 ................ X X ................ ................ X 

Sawtooth ...................... Sublett ............................................. 005 ................ X ................ ................ ................ ................

Sawtooth ...................... Third Fork Rock Creek .................... 009 ................ X ................ X ................ ................

Sawtooth ...................... Thorobred ........................................ 013 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Targhee ........................ Bald Mountain ................................. 614 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Targhee ........................ Bear Creek ...................................... 615 ................ ................ X X ................ X 

Targhee ........................ Caribou City ..................................... 161 ................ ................ X X ................ ................

Targhee ........................ Diamond Peak ................................. 601 X X X X ................ X 

Targhee ........................ Garfield Mountain ............................ 961 ................ X X X ................ X 

Targhee ........................ Garns Mountain ............................... 611 ................ ................ X X ................ X 

Targhee ........................ Italian Peak ...................................... 945 X ................ X ................ ................ X 

Targhee ........................ Lionhead .......................................... 963 X ................ X ................ ................ X 

Targhee ........................ Mt. Jefferson .................................... 962 ................ X X X ................ X 

Targhee ........................ Palisades ......................................... 613 X ................ X ................ ................ X 

Targhee ........................ Poker Peak ...................................... 616 ................ X ................ ................ ................ X 

Targhee ........................ Pole Creek ....................................... 160 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Targhee ........................ Raynolds Pass ................................ 603 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Targhee ........................ Two Top .......................................... 604 ................ X ................ ................ ................ ................

Targhee ........................ West Slope Tetons .......................... 610 ................ ................ X ................ ................ X 

Targhee ........................ Winegar Hole ................................... 347 ................ X X ................ ................ X 

Wallowa-Whitman ........ Big Canyon Id .................................. 853 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Wallowa-Whitman ........ Klopton Creek—Corral Creek Id ..... 854 ................ ................ X ................ ................ ................

Dated: October 7, 2008. 

Mark Rey, 

Under Secretary, Natural Resources and 

Environment. 

[FR Doc. E8–24285 Filed 10–8–08; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2