Thursday, October 16, 2008

Part II

Department of Agriculture Forest Service

36 CFR Part 294 Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the National Forests in Idaho; Final Rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2 61456 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Gilbert at (208) 765–7438. Individuals November 29 and 30, 2006, in using telecommunication devices for the Washington, DC. The committee issued Forest Service deaf (TDD) may call the Federal a unanimous, consensus-based Information Relay Service (FIRS) at recommendation on December 19, 2006, 36 CFR Part 294 1–800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 that the Secretary direct the Forest RIN 0596–AC62 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday Service, with the State of Idaho as a through Friday. cooperating agency, to proceed with Special Areas; Roadless Area SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rulemaking. The Committee’s report Conservation; Applicability to the document serves as both notice of final provided specific advice and suggested National Forests in Idaho rule and record of decision. clarifications regarding particular issues. After considering the advisory AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. Decision committee’s review and report, the ACTION: Final rule and record of For the reasons set out below, the Secretary accepted the petition and decision. Department hereby promulgates a directed the Forest Service to initiate regulation establishing IRAs as rulemaking on December 22, 2006. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of described in Alternative 4 of the A notice of intent to prepare an Agriculture (USDA or Department) is ‘‘Roadless Area Conservation National environmental impact statement (EIS) adopting a state-specific, final rule Forest System Lands in Idaho Final was published in the Federal Register establishing management direction for Environmental Impact Statement,’’ April 10, 2007, (72 FR 17816). A notice designated roadless areas in the State of USDA Forest Service, 2008, and the of availability for the draft Idaho. The final rule designates 250 supporting record. This decision is not environmental impact statement (DEIS) Idaho Roadless Areas (IRAs) and subject to Forest Service appeal was published on December 21, 2007, establishes five management themes regulations. (72 FR 72708). The Forest Service that provide prohibitions with published a proposed rule for exceptions or conditioned permissions Outline conservation of NFS inventoried governing road construction, timber The following section outlines the roadless areas within Idaho on January cutting, and discretionary mineral contents of the preamble. 7, 2008, (73 FR 1135). The notice of development. availability for the final environmental The final rule takes a balanced Introduction and Background impact statement (FEIS) was published approach recognizing both local and Roadless Area Inventories in Idaho on September 5, 2008, (73 FR 51815). Purpose and Need for the Idaho Roadless national interests for the management of Rule Additional information, maps, and other these lands. The Department and Forest Public Involvement on the Proposed Rule materials concerning the FEIS, IRAs, Service are committed to the important • How Was Public Involvement Used in and roadless areas nationally, can be challenge of protecting roadless areas the Rulemaking Process? found at http://roadless.fs.fed.us/. and their important characteristics. The • How Did the RACNAC Participate in the The Department is committed to final rule achieves this through five land Rulemaking Process? conserving and managing inventoried classifications that assign various Alternatives Considered roadless areas. The Department • permissions and prohibitions regarding Alternatives Considered by the considers the final rule as the most road building, timber cutting, and Department appropriate solution to address the • The Environmentally Preferred discretionary mineral activities. The challenges of inventoried roadless area Alternative management on NFS lands in the State final rule also allows the Forest Service Comments on the Proposed Rule and to continue to be a good neighbor and Changes Made in Response of Idaho. Collaborating and cooperating reduce the risk of wildland fires to at- • General Comments Not Related to with states and other interested parties risk communities and municipal water Particular Rule Provisions regarding the long-term strategy for the supply systems. The rule does not • Summary of Changes and Comments conservation and management of authorize the building of a single road Related to Particular Rule Provisions inventoried roadless areas allows or the cutting of a single tree; instead it Regulatory Certifications recognition of both national values and establishes permissions and Introduction and Background local situations. prohibitions that will govern what types The Department believes that the final of activities may occur in IRAs. Any On October 5, 2006, Idaho Governor Idaho Roadless Rule collaboratively decision to build a road, allow mineral James Risch submitted a petition to the resolves an issue of great importance to activities, harvest a tree, or conduct any Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) to the people of Idaho and the nation. The other activity permissible under this establish new management for Idaho’s management of large tracts of final rule will require appropriate site- inventoried roadless areas on NFS undeveloped land has been a specific analysis under the National lands. Idaho’s petition divided roadless contentious issue since the founding of Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and areas into five broad management the Forest Service in 1905. The Forest other applicable laws. Projects will also themes: Wild Land Recreation (WLR); Service has engaged in numerous be consistent with the applicable land Special Areas of Historic or Tribal approaches and periodic reviews to management plan (LMP) components. Significance (SAHTS); Primitive; address how to best manage these lands. This final rule supersedes the 2001 Backcountry/Restoration (BCR); and The Idaho Roadless Rule represents a Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 General Forest, Rangeland, and unique effort to address these difficult roadless rule) for National Forest Grassland (GFRG). The petition was questions. How can the Agency best System (NFS) lands in the State of submitted under section 553(e) of the conserve open space? How can the Idaho. Administrative Procedure Act and Agency protect some of the most Department regulations at 7 Code of magnificent areas in Idaho and the DATES: Effective Date: This rule is Federal Regulations (CFR) 1.28. The nation? How much active management, effective October 16, 2008. Roadless Area Conservation National including reducing fuel levels through FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Advisory Committee (RACNAC) (72 FR timber harvest, should the Agency Idaho Roadless Rule Team Leader Brad 13469) reviewed the Idaho petition on consider allowing to reduce the risk of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 negatively affect some local diversity, natural appearing landscapes, adjacent private and other public lands? communities that are dependent on use and other unique resources as the nation The State of Idaho petition included of resources from NFS lands. continues to grow in population and specific information and On August 12, 2008, the Federal faces increasing demands for the various recommendations for the management District Court for the District of multiple-use resources available from of individual inventoried roadless areas Wyoming declared that the 2001 NFS lands. in the State. Additionally, the State of Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Idaho examined roadless areas sharing roadless rule) was promulgated in Roadless Area Inventories in Idaho boundaries or overlapping with all violation of the National Environmental This rulemaking relies on the most neighboring states and determined Policy Act (NEPA) and the Wilderness recent inventory available for roadless coordination with Montana and Utah Act. The court held ‘‘the roadless rule areas within each national forest in the was necessary to ensure consistency of must be set aside’’ and that ‘‘[t]herefore, State of Idaho. Land management plans management themes assigned to these the Court ORDERS that the Roadless were used, as well as other assessments inventoried roadless areas. Rule, 36 CFR 294.10 to 294.14, be and the inventories associated with the The unique perspectives and permanently enjoined, for the second 2000 Roadless Area Conservation Final knowledge provided by the State and its time.’’ Previously, another Federal Environmental Impact Statement. Using citizens was of great assistance district court in California had issued an these inventories, the Forest Service has throughout this rulemaking. Many of order that reinstated the 2001 roadless identified approximately 9.3 million these roadless areas form the backdrop rule, including the Tongass-specific acres of inventoried roadless areas that for Idaho communities and have become amendment, and specified that ‘‘federal are the subject of this rule. part of their identity. They are used for defendants are enjoined from taking any The Agency has sought to be hiking, camping, hunting, and further action contrary to the [2001] particularly sensitive to concerns over motorized recreation on backcountry Roadless Rule * * *.’’ Both these orders the accuracy of the inventories. The trails. Local communities are also have been appealed and the Forest 2001 roadless rule used the inventories sensitive to the economic consequences Service has sought relief in both Federal of record from late 1999 as their basis of Federal land management, whether district courts. For purposes of this for boundaries. This final rule uses for recreation or other multiple-use rulemaking, however, nothing in the these inventories as a starting point but purposes. Although this rule does not pending litigation limits the Secretary also looked at updates identified provide management direction for from conducting state-specific through land management plan (LMP) recreation and access management, its rulemaking regarding roadless area revisions, most notably on the Caribou- emphasis on retaining the roadless management or from evaluating the Targhee National Forest (NF) in 1998 characteristics over the vast majority of 2001 roadless rule as one alternative in and the southwest Idaho forests (Boise, IRA acres will address recreation and the FEIS. Payette and Sawtooth NFs) in 2003. scenery concerns from both national The Department has continued to seek New inventories for northern Idaho and local perspectives. a middle ground to resolve this issue by forests (Idaho Panhandle, Clearwater, Recently, there have been several using forest plans, the locally driven and Nez Perce NFs) currently in LMP attempts to resolve the roadless issue state petition process, and integrating revision were also used. These nationally and in the State of Idaho. the national perspective provided by inventories are based on agency Since the Forest Service Roadless Area RACNAC. While the proposed rule direction in Forest Service Handbook Review and Evaluation (RARE II), the made strides in accomplishing this (FSH) 1909.12, section 70. The oldest Agency has used locally driven forest objective, several respondents and inventory used is from the Salmon- plans to manage inventoried roadless RACNAC expressed concern whether Challis NF, which dates to their LMP areas. While these plans accounted for some provisions could be read to allow from mid-1980. the comments of local communities by portions of the BCR areas to be managed Changes to the roadless inventory considering the characteristics of each in a way that varied from the Governor’s reflect improvements in mapping and individual roadless area, some felt these stated intent to manage the BCR similar elimination of some areas that had been plans lacked a national perspective and to the way the area would be managed developed since the last inventory of allowed too much modification of under the 2001 roadless rule while record and inclusion of some areas after roadless characteristics. providing for limited stewardship review. Inventories used for this final The 2001 roadless rule sought to activities. This was not the intent. rule have all received review and answer these questions from a national This final rule refines provisions and comment by the public during the LMP perspective, but many felt that the rule’s represents a compromise that balances revision process prior to this approach would cause undue harm to the nationally recognized need for rulemaking. local communities. Some states and conservation of IRAs with being more communities felt disenfranchised by the responsive to local communities and Purpose and Need for the Idaho process. citizens. Specifically, the final rule Roadless Rule The State of Idaho indicated that its conserves the undeveloped/unroaded The purpose of the Idaho Roadless decision to petition was precipitated by character for the vast majority of the Rule is to respond to the State’s petition the State’s belief that it was not IRAs; allows limited fuel treatment to recommend State-specific direction provided an adequate opportunity to activities to reduce the risk of wildland for the conservation and management of participate in the development of the fire effects to private and public inventoried roadless areas within the 2001 roadless rule. The State expressed property and municipal water supply State of Idaho. The final Idaho Roadless concern that the rule could be systems; and accommodates limited Rule integrates local management interpreted as not allowing adequate exceptions for some communities highly concerns and the need to protect these protection for communities and dependent on the natural resources areas with the national objectives for municipal water supplies from the found on NFS lands. protecting roadless area values and threat of unwanted wildland fire effects. These undeveloped lands will become characteristics. Additionally, the State indicated its increasingly important as sources of Collaborating with the State of Idaho belief that the 2001 roadless rule could public drinking water, plant and animal on the long-term strategy for the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 public comment period ended on May Through the public meetings as well values and local situations and resolves 10, 2007. The Forest Service received as Tribal and public comments, the unique resource management about 38,000 comments, of which Agency and State repeatedly heard that challenges. Collaboration with others 32,000 were form letters. The remaining any exception to the 2001 roadless who have a strong interest in the letters consisted of original comments or rule’s road building prohibitions must conservation and management of form letters with additional original be based on an actual on-the-ground inventoried roadless areas also helps text. need. Most notable among those needs ensure balanced management decisions A notice of availability for the DEIS was the protection of property and that maintain the most important was published in the Federal Register municipal water supply systems for at- characteristics and values of those areas. on December 21, 2007, (72 FR 72708). risk communities, and phosphate The management direction The Forest Service published a development. established by the rule is based on proposed rule for conservation of The Agency and State sought the individual roadless characteristics for national forests inventoried roadless RACNAC’s advice concerning a lands containing outstanding or unique areas in Idaho on January 7, 2008, (73 framework for better achieving the features where there is minimal or no FR 1135). A copy of the proposed rule objectives laid out in the proposed rule. evidence of human use; culturally and the DEIS has been available on the The RACNAC recognized that a one- significant areas; general roadless World Wide Web/Internet at http:// size-fits-all management regime for the characteristics where human uses may roadless.fs.fed.us/ since January 7, 2008. BCR theme was unrealistic. The or may not be apparent; as well as some A public meeting on the proposed rule committee provided advice on a areas displaying high levels of human was held in Washington, DC on January framework for protecting at-risk use. The Department also recognizes 14, 2008. Sixteen public meetings were communities and their water systems there is compelling interest in— held in Idaho between January 22 and after several public meetings and careful • Reducing the threat to February 28, 2008. deliberation. The Department adopted communities, homes, and property from In addition to the suggestions from most of these recommendations in the the risk of severe wildfire or other risks the RACNAC, the Department received final rule. The Department carefully associated with adjacent Federal lands; considered all input before making a • approximately 140,000 responses. Reducing the threat to forests from Responses included advocacy for a decision in areas where the RACNAC the negative effects of severe wildfire particular outcome or regulatory could not reach consensus; for example, and insect and disease outbreaks; and building new roads for forest health • language, as well as suggestions for Assuring access to property, for the analyses to conduct, issues to consider, activities. State, Tribes, and citizens that own alternatives to the proposed action, and The RACNAC served a critical role in property within roadless areas. calls for compliance with laws and advising the Department regarding the Between 2001 and 2007, wildland regulations. Response to comments on critical need to go beyond past fires burned about 3.1 million acres in the DEIS are in Appendix R of the FEIS. differences and focus on the on-the- Idaho, of which about 1 million acres These comments played a key role in ground management issues for these were in IRAs. Wildland fire is a natural the development of modifications to the lands. This focus led to important component of these roadless areas; proposed rule and the decision made in adjustments including: (1) Reducing however, actions to reduce the risk of this record of decision. GFGR acres by 200,000; (2) increasing wildland fire effects to communities and BCR acres by 280,000, primarily in municipal water supply systems may be It is noteworthy that many of the improvements between draft and final recognition of high fish and wildlife needed in some situations. In 2003, values; (3) lowering the determination Congress recognized the need to were made in response to requests made by Idaho Indian Tribes. Some of the threshold for temporary roads and improve the capacities of the timber cutting within the community Departments of Agriculture and Interior theme changes were made in direct response to Tribal requests (see FEIS protection zone (CPZ), which increases to conduct hazardous fuel reduction opportunities for the Forest Service to projects, by passing the Healthy Forests Appendix P). Chapters 3.15 (Cultural Resources) and 3.16 (Idaho and Affected address local communities’ concerns Restoration Act (HFRA) (Pub. L. 108– with wildfire risks; (4) defining more 148). Indian Tribes) were modified in the FEIS based on Tribal input. Section clearly the permissions for hazardous Aware of all of these concerns and the fuel treatments outside CPZ to clarify long unresolved debates over conserving 294.28(h) was added to Scope and Applicability assuring Tribes this rule that the vast majority of these acres will and managing inventoried roadless be subject to management direction that areas in the absence of wilderness would not affect any of their rights or Federal Government responsibilities to is similar to the 2001 roadless rule; and legislation for the State of Idaho and (5) defining with greater precision after considering the State’s petition, the consult on projects in roadless areas. The Department and Forest Service are where phosphate mining, a nationally advice and recommendations of the strategic mineral, may occur. RACNAC, Tribes, and public; the grateful for the insights and serious attention the Tribes have provided The Department recognizes the Secretary determined that regulatory invaluable work and advice provided by direction for managing Idaho’s roadless during this rulemaking. • the RACNAC throughout the rulemaking areas was needed. How Did the RACNAC Participate in the Rulemaking Process? process. Public Involvement on the Proposed The RACNAC held open meetings in Alternatives Considered Rule various locations across the country. • How Was Public Involvement Used The meetings helped the RACNAC Alternatives Considered by the in the Rulemaking Process? develop recommendations to the Department A notice of intent to prepare an EIS Secretary to be considered in the The FEIS examines four fully on ‘‘Roadless Area Conservation; development of the final rule. The developed alternatives based on public National Forest System Lands in Idaho’’ RACNAC submitted their final comments: No Action, Existing Plans, was published in the Federal Register, recommendations to the Secretary in a Proposed Idaho Roadless Rule, and April 10, 2007, (68 FR 17816). The letter dated May 30, 2008. Modified Idaho Roadless Rule.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61459

Additional alternatives were considered due to the construction of a classified quality of roadless characteristics in that but were eliminated from detailed road and subsequent timber harvest. area. analysis because they did not meet some These exceptions, with some The Proposed Rule did not apply to aspect of the purpose and need or for modifications, are carried forward as other special areas referred to as forest other reasons in response to public part of Alternatives 3 and 4. plan special areas such as research natural areas; wild and scenic rivers comments including: Alternative Alternative 2 (Existing Plans) allocations of management themes; (designated, eligible, and suitable); additional conservation measures for Management direction in this special interest areas; and visual the GFRG theme; additional limitations alternative represents a roadless area corridors. Table S–1 in the FEIS shows on management activities in the various management regime based on each 334,500 acres as forest plan special themes; motorized access; and forest’s land management plan (LMP). areas. These areas would be managed expansion of the scope of the proposal. Each forest’s plan is unique to its according to applicable current and Chapter 2 of the FEIS provides a more planning area. Collectively the LMPs future LMP direction. However, if the complete discussion of the disposition provide a broad range of management current special status designations for of these alternatives. opportunities from wilderness to an area are changed in the future, these intensive management. When revising a lands would be subject to the terms of Alternative 1 (No Action) (2001 Rule) LMP, each forest or group of forests the rule and a modification would be The 2001 roadless rule was the collaborates with the public to develop undertaken. product of a national process and management direction for their roadless The Proposed Rule presented a established management direction at the areas. Overall, as national forests in continuum of prohibitions and national level with limited focus on Idaho have revised the LMPs, the trend permissions for each roadless area state or local issues. The 2001 roadless has been to move more roadless areas through the allocation of themes. rule (66 FR 3244, Jan. 12, 2001) into management prescriptions that Allocation to a specific theme does not proposed to ensure that inventoried emphasize the conservation of roadless mandate or direct the Forest Service to roadless areas sustain their values for characteristics. Under this alternative, propose or implement any action; this generation and for future management of roadless areas would be rather, the themes provide an array of generations. By sustaining these values, governed by the specific management permitted and prohibited activities a continuous flow of benefits associated allocations assigned in each LMP. related to cutting, selling or removing with healthy watersheds and Management direction would be timber; road construction or ecosystems was expected. periodically reviewed as plans are reconstruction; and discretionary The Forest Service identified timber revised. mineral activities. cutting and road construction or The Proposed Rule would have Alternative 3 (Proposed Idaho Roadless reconstruction as having the greatest established prohibitions and Rule) (Proposed Rule) likelihood of altering and fragmenting permissions for discretionary mineral landscapes and the greatest likelihood Alternative 3 considers establishment activities that vary according to an of resulting in an immediate, long-term of regulatory direction based on the area’s classification theme. However, loss of roadless area values and State’s petition, as presented to the like the 2001 Rule alternative, the characteristics. Therefore, the 2001 Rule RACNAC and set forth in the Proposed Proposed Rule allowed for road prohibited these activities with certain Rule. This alternative represents a construction or reconstruction in the exceptions in each roadless area. strategy for the conservation and case of reserved or outstanding rights or The 2001 Rule alternative identified a management of Idaho Roadless Areas as provided for by statute or treaty, list of exceptions to the prohibitions on (IRAs) that takes into account State and including roads associated with road construction (sec. 294.12) that local situations and unique resource locatable mineral activities pursuant to respond to circumstances where the management challenges, while the General Mining Law of 1872. The prohibitions might conflict with legal recognizing and integrating the national Proposed Rule provided additional responsibilities to provide for public interest in maintaining roadless direction regarding common variety health and safety or environmental characteristics for future generations. minerals. protection. The Department noted that Building from the petition’s while in some cases, the exceptions examination of the management Alternative 4 (Modified Idaho Roadless could result in effects contrary to the direction assigned in each forest’s Rule) (Final Rule) purpose of the rule; the Department existing or proposed LMPs, the Alternative 4 considers establishment determined that they were necessary to Proposed Rule assigned the lands of regulatory direction based on honor existing law or address social or within each roadless area to one or more modifications to the Proposed Rule economic concerns (66 FR 3255). of five broad management themes: Wild (Alternative 3). Public comment The 2001 Rule alternative also allows Land Recreation (WLR); Special Areas identified the need for modifications to for timber cutting for activities such as of Historic or Tribal Significance the Proposed Rule and DEIS. The improving threatened, endangered, (SAHTS); Primitive; Backcountry/ Department and Forest Service officials, proposed, or sensitive species habitat; Restoration (BCR); and General Forest, in consultation with the State, reviewed maintaining or restoring the Rangeland, and Grassland (GFRG). and considered the public comment, characteristics of ecosystem These themes span a continuum that Tribal recommendations, and the advice composition and structure to reduce the includes at one end, a restrictive of the RACNAC and concluded the rule risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects; approach emphasizing passive could be improved. Many of the selling or removing timber incidental to management and natural restoration suggested modifications contributed to other authorized activities; cutting, approaches, and on the other end, active the development of the final rule and selling, or removing timber needed for management designed to accomplish FEIS. personal or administrative uses; or sustainable protection of roadless Alternative 4 (Final Rule) uses the improving roadless characteristics that characteristics. The continuum accounts thematic approach of Alternative 3 but have been substantially altered in a for stewardship of the uniqueness of adds refinements to address five portion of an inventoried roadless area each roadless area’s landscape and the principle concerns:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 Alternative 4 reduces the lands alternatives provide varying levels of areas placed in the various themes; managed under the GFRG theme to road construction and reconstruction to (2) The permissions and restrictions 405,900 acres. These areas are mainly facilitate timber cutting and also for road construction and managed according to forest plan provide differing levels of limited tree reconstruction, and timber cutting, sale, direction except that roads may not be cutting for commodity purposes and and removal in the BCR theme; constructed to access new mineral or mineral resource development. The total (3) Management of lands containing energy leases other than to access projected road construction or phosphate deposits in BCR areas; specific areas of phosphate deposits. reconstruction over the next 15 years is (4) Tribal interests regarding activities Design of projects in these areas will 15 miles (Alternative 1, 2001 Rule), 180 in roadless areas and future consider roadless characteristics and miles (Alternative 2, Existing Plans), 61 consultations; and will meet all environmental laws, and miles (Alternative 3, Proposed Rule), (5) Public comment requirements for the area will remain on the roadless and 50 miles (Alternative 4, Modified corrections and modifications. inventory. Rule). Alternative 1 projects the fewest The Final Rule alternative reflects In sum, Alternative 4 assures ground disturbing activities and is consideration of other adjustments retention of the roadless characteristics deemed the environmentally preferred beyond these principal issues as well. of approximately 8.5 million acres of alternative. Overall, Alternative 4 provides more roadless lands. On the remaining 0.8 million acres (community protection Comments on the Proposed Rule and protections from development than the Changes Made in Response 2001 Rule alternative on 3.25 million zones in the BCR theme and GFRG The Department received acres of IRAs. These lands are in the acres), the Agency’s best estimates indicate only about 0.1 percent of IRAs approximately 140,000 comments in WLR, Primitive, and SAHTS themes. All would likely see any changes in response to the proposed rule and DEIS. road construction and reconstruction is roadless characteristics over the next 15 A detailed analysis and response to prohibited, except when provided by years. public comment is set out in Appendix statute or treaty, or pursuant to valid R of the FEIS. The Forest Service existing rights or other legal duty of the The Environmentally Preferred considered all comments as part of the United States. In addition, Alternative 4 Alternative rulemaking. The discussion of public prohibits surface use and occupancy Under NEPA, the Department is comment below is divided between and road construction or reconstruction required to identify the environmentally general comments and those that to access new mineral leases. Similarly, preferred alternative (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). involve particular regulatory provisions, Alternative 4 provides the same or more This is interpreted to mean the as well as providing a summary of restrictions than the 2001 Rule alternative that will promote the changes made in the final rule. alternative for cutting, selling, or national environmental policy as removing timber for lands in the expressed in NEPA’s section 101 and General Comments Not Related to Primitive and SAHTS themes. By that would cause the least damage to the Particular Rule Provisions reassigning acres to the WLR, Primitive, biological and physical components of Comment: State role in rulemaking. or SAHTS themes, Alternative 4 the environment. This alternative best Some respondents expressed concerns provides greater protection from protects, preserves, and enhances over the legality of the State of Idaho’s development for 76,400 acres more than historic, cultural, and natural resources efforts to submit a petition to change the Existing Plans alternative and (Council on Environmental Quality, current Federal land management or 199,500 acres more than the Proposed Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning that the State would have undue Rule alternative. CEQ’s National Environmental Policy influence on the outcome of the rule. As to lands managed under the BCR Act Regulations (46 FR 18026). Response: This is a Federal rule and theme, Alternative 4 provides similar The Department believes the the Department has, in no way, management direction as the 2001 Rule alternative that best meets these criteria abdicated or delegated its authority or alternative for 5.26 million acres, is Alternative 1 (No Action, 2001 Rule). responsibility for management of these although an estimated 442,000 acres Alternative 1 generally protects all NFS lands. The Governor of Idaho, would be subject to special inventoried roadless areas from adverse pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and 7 CFR consideration of specific situations environmental impacts associated with 1.28 filed a petition to conduct involving reducing the risk of wildland limited exceptions for road rulemaking for these immensely fire to at-risk communities within the construction, reconstruction, and tree valuable lands. The Forest Service has CPZ. Outside the CPZ, temporary roads cutting for commodity purposes and worked cooperatively with the State of could be constructed only where, in the discretionary mineral activities and is Idaho during consideration of the regional forester’s judgment, such roads projected to result in the least road petition and during the development of are the only reasonable way to meet the construction (15 miles) and fewest this final rule as is expected under objectives of reducing the significant harvested acres (9,000 acres) over the numerous statutes, regulations, and risk of wildland fire effects to an at-risk next 15 years. Executive orders. community or municipal water supply Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 allow for an Pursuant to NEPA’s implementing system, and the activity is developed in array of vegetation management regulations, State, local, and Tribal a way that maintains or improves one or activities potentially needed to maintain governments are frequently granted more roadless characteristics over the or improve roadless characteristics or cooperating agency status. State long-term. Infrequent use of this restore ecological structure, function, governments are especially important provision, with its conditions, is composition, or processes; including partners in management of the nation’s anticipated due to resource conditions, reducing the risks of uncharacteristic or land and natural resources. States, agency budgets, and regional forester unwanted wildland fire effects. In particularly in the West, own and approval and oversight. CPZ status will addition, these alternatives provide manage large tracts of land with be confirmed at the project level, based additional protections to certain lands tremendous social and biological value. on the definition of CPZ provided in with outstanding roadless State governments frequently pioneer section 294.21. characteristics. However, these innovative land management programs

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 providing input and cooperation during government-to-government, as provided considerable influence over statewide the NEPA process for a proposal for in treaties, laws, or Executive orders. economic development and private land affecting an IRA. It is the Department Nor does the final rule limit or modify use, both of which significantly affect intent that the State of Idaho can request prior existing Tribal rights, including natural resource management. In cooperating agency status for proposals those involving hunting, fishing, addition, State conservation agencies’ affecting IRAs like it has done for this gathering, and protecting cultural and relationships with others offer rulemaking. It is important to note that spiritual sites. Finally, the Department additional partnership opportunities. although the recommendations listened carefully and understood Tribal Strong State and Federal cooperation provided by the commission will be concerns that the Tribe’s holistic regarding management of inventoried non-binding on the Agency, the interests are in no way limited to one roadless areas can facilitate long-term, Department encourages the responsible particular theme or management community-oriented solutions. Forest Service officials to give priority classification. The SAHTS designation Collaborating with the State of Idaho to those projects recommended by the highlights and protects certain areas that on the long-term strategy for the commission. possess historically and culturally management of IRAs recognizes national Comment: Compliance with Executive important attributes, but is not the values and local situations and resolves Order 13175, Consultation and exclusive indicator of areas that possess unique resource management Coordination with Indian Tribal such values. The final rule allows challenges. Collaboration with the State, Governments. Some Tribal officials continued recognition of Tribal rights Tribes and others who have a strong requested more government-to- and interests in IRAs outside of the interest in conserving and managing government consultation on the SAHTS theme. inventoried roadless areas also helps to proposed rule. One Tribe expressed Comment: NEPA requirements for ensure balanced management decisions concern that the change clause builds in projects. Some respondents felt an EIS that maintain the most important categorical exclusions that will exclude should be required for all projects characteristics and values of those areas. public input and Tribal government-to- proposed in IRAs and the use of an Comment: Idaho’s Roadless Rule government consultation on individual environmental assessment (EA) should Implementation Commission. Some projects. One Tribe questioned the use be disallowed. respondents questioned the role and of the theme approach suggesting that Response: The Idaho Roadless Rule authority of the Governor’s Roadless maintaining all roadless areas should focuses on general land classifications Rule Implementation Commission provide the same or similar values and rather than project-level analysis and (Idaho Executive Order No. 2006–43 of opportunities. Another Tribe stated the documentation requirements. However, December 21, 2006). Other respondents themes do not incorporate the holistic since 1992, the Forest Service has thought the structure of the commission nature of Tribal rights and interests that routinely required the use of EISs for should be better defined, that there include areas outside those identified as proposals that ‘‘would substantially should be a time frame for the SAHTS, and clarification was needed so alter the undeveloped character of an commission to respond to a proposed areas of Tribal interest would still have inventoried roadless area or a potential project, and that county commissioners project-by-project consultation with wilderness area.’’ This requirement, and rural communities should be affected Tribes. originally in its implementing involved in designing and Response: On September 20, 2007, the procedures in Forest Service Handbook implementing projects. Some State of Idaho and the Forest Service 1909.15 at section 20.6, is now in the respondents raised concern over the met with the Idaho Council on Indian Agency’s regulations at 36 CFR 220.5(a) legality of the commission. The Affairs and presented a joint overview (73 FR 43095). The Department has RACNAC recommended additional of the history of the Idaho Roadless determined that a general prohibition on procedural requirements in the rule, Petition and the DEIS associated with the use of EAs is not warranted as some which includes collaborative review of development of the proposed rule. The proposed actions will not have projects, especially in the BCR theme, Forest Service and the State of Idaho significant environmental effects and by a State Implementation Commission committed to meeting with each Tribe will not harm roadless characteristics. with a regional advisory committee-like to discuss in more detail the Idaho Public response to scoping for a structure. Roadless Rule prior to the release of the proposed action in an IRA will help the Response: Although it is the DEIS. These meetings took place responsible Forest Service official Department’s position that it cannot between October 2007 and January 2008 determine the appropriate level of mandate the creation of or the scope of and were tailored to meet each Tribe’s documentation for compliance with the commission’s responsibilities to the preference. After the release of the DEIS NEPA. State, the Department supports this and the proposed rule, several staff-to- Comment: Endangered species collaborative concept and feels it would staff and government-to-government consultation. Several respondents be an essential part of the overall meetings were held between January expressed concern regarding the collaborative process with the public, and August 2008 with each Tribe. Many proposed rules effects to threatened and Tribes, and local and state governments. of the Tribes’ ideas and suggestions endangered species and sought The Forest Service shared public resulted in improvements to the final clarifications regarding consultation comments and the RACNAC rule. under the Endangered Species Act recommendations on the composition Nothing in the final rule should be (ESA). and function of the implementation construed as eliminating public input or Response: Idaho Roadless Areas have commission received during this Tribal consultation requirements for been identified as an important habitat rulemaking with the State of Idaho. The future projects conducted in accordance for a variety of terrestrial and aquatic State of Idaho has already committed to with this rule. The final rule clarifies wildlife and plants, including some having the implementation commission that it does not modify the unique threatened and endangered species. The as its way of providing a collaborative relationship between the United States large, relatively undisturbed areas approach pursuant to State of Idaho and Indian Tribes. The final rule provide biological strongholds and play Executive Order 2006–34 and may requires the Federal government to work a key role in proving for diversity of continue to determine its own course for with federally recognized Indian Tribes, plant and animal communities.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2 61462 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

The National Oceanic and served a related but distinct function Comment: Management theme Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under NEPA. definitions. Several respondents Fisheries and the U. S. Fish and requested clarification of the Proposed Section 294.21 Definitions Wildlife Service (FWS), have oversight management themes. Some suggested responsibilities for implementation of Summary of Changes in Proposed that specific references to recreation in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 294.21 (Final Rule Section the theme definitions should be Informal consultation and conferencing 294.21). Definitions of the following dropped. on the proposed rule began with terms have been included in response to Response: Definitions for individual frequent discussions among Forest public comment: community protection themes are removed in the final rule. Service, FWS, and NOAA Fisheries zone, fire hazard and risk, fire The Department believes the biologists. The Agency has prepared a occurrence, Forest Plan Special Area, prohibitions and permissions biological assessment on the final rule forest type, hazardous fuels, road established for each individual theme decommissioning, and uncharacteristic and formally consulted with the FWS best defines the management intended wildland fire effects. Most of these and NOAA. The biological opinions can and the redundant definitions in the definitions were added to improve be found at http://roadless.fs.fed.us/ proposed rule were unnecessary and led clarity on the use of the exemptions idaho.shtml and effects are discussed in to confusion. the FEIS at sections 3.7 Botanical allowed for road construction and Resources, 3.8 Aquatic Species, and 3.9 reconstruction, timber cutting, and Proposed Section 294.22 Idaho Terrestrial Animal Habitat and Species. mineral activities. Rational for their Roadless Areas inclusion is discussed in the Summary of Changes and Comments appropriate sections below. Definitions Summary of Changes in Proposed Related to Particular Rule Provisions for significant risk and the individual Section 294.22 (Final Rule Section 294.22). Paragraphs (b) and (c) have Proposed Section 294.20 Purpose management classification themes have been removed. Significant risk is now been reordered to improve continuity. Summary of Changes in Proposed addressed at section 294.24(c)(1)(ii). The Similarly, the narrative description of Section 294.20 (Final Rule Section Department believes the themes are best the management continuum that was set 294.20). Text about the relationship understood in terms of the specific out in proposed paragraph (c) has been between this rule and other roadless permissions and restrictions established removed as unnecessary. rulemakings was removed from by the rule for each land classification The final rule remains structured paragraph (a) and is now addressed in rather than a generalized description of around five themes: (1) Wild Land section 294.28(a). Paragraph (b) was desired conditions. Recreation (WLR); (2) Special Areas of removed as unnecessary because the Comment: Definition of road. A Historic or Tribal Significance (SAHTS); multiple-use mission of the Forest respondent stated it was unclear if user- (3) Primitive; (4) Backcountry/ Service is well understood and is created roads or unclassified roads Restoration (BCR); and (5) General provided for elsewhere in statute and under the 2001 roadless rule are roads Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland regulation. for purposes of this rule and whether (GFRG). These five themes were Comment: Purpose and need. A deciding officers can designate an proposed following review of the respondent suggested the same unclassified road as a forest road. allocations set out in the existing and statement of purpose and need as Response: First, the definition of proposed revisions to land management described in the DEIS should be forest road used in the proposed and plans. The five themes and allocations included in the rule. final rule is drawn from the Agency’s for particular areas were refined in Response: The regulatory purpose set definition of that term in the travel response to public comment on the out in the final rule has been slightly management regulations found at 36 proposed rule. The themes span a revised and is now a more accurate CFR part 212. Travel management continuum from more restrictive to statement of purpose of the Idaho decisions are not affected by this rule as more permissive (see Figure 1). This Roadless Rule as providing State- noted in section 294.26(a). Adjustments continuum accounts for stewardship of specific direction for management of to NFS road inventories are made each roadless area’s unique landscape roadless areas. The purpose and need pursuant to the Travel Management rule and the quality of roadless statement included with the DEIS (70 FR 68264). characteristics in that area.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 these activities include, but are not Response: In response to these not mandate or direct the Forest Service limited to, trail construction or requests, some theme assignments were to propose or implement any action; maintenance; removal of hazard trees adjusted for the final rule. In general, rather, the themes provide an array of adjacent to forest roads for public health public requests for changes in theme permitted and prohibited activities and safety reasons; fire line construction assignments for IRAs in section 294.29 regarding road construction, timber for wildland fire suppression or control in this final rule were adopted when the cutting, and discretionary mineral of prescribed fire; survey and Forest Service review, demonstrated activities. Although the ability of the maintenance of property boundaries; that the theme change would better Forest Service to conduct certain other authorized activities such as ski reflect the uniqueness of the roadless activities (road building, activities runs and utility corridors; or for road area and the appropriate level of associated with mineral development, construction and reconstruction where conservation needed for the protection and timber cutting) typically varies from allowed by this rule. and management of the particular area. theme-to-theme, other activities Comment: Eliminate the use of The FEIS, Appendix P describes each of (motorized travel, current grazing multiple themes. A respondent the specific requests and the disposition activities, or use of motorized suggested the removal of the multiple of those requests. equipment and mechanical transport) is theme approach from the rule and The following changes were made to not changed by this final rule. Although return to the single theme approach theme assignments as a result of public these other activities are not regulated used for the 2001 roadless rule. and Tribal comments. by this rule, these activities and others Response: The Governor’s petition (1) Approximately 279,800 acres were not addressed by this rule are still sought refinement of the 2001 roadless changed from GFRG to BCR. This subject to the allowances and rule’s one-size-fits-all approach includes important big game habitat and restrictions of their current LMP and maintaining that some areas deserved known phosphate lease areas on the would be subject to future planning and higher protections, others similar, and Caribou portion of the Caribou-Targhee decisionmaking processes of the Forest others less protection then those granted NF where development would be Service. For example, when allowed in the 2001 roadless rule. Comments precluded because of aquatic concerns under the LMP, the use of prescribed received by the various Idaho County (portions of Deer Creek). fire as a management tool would be commissioners and other members of available across all themes as this rule the public were in accord. The wide- (2) Approximately 75,900 acres were does not require, limit or prohibit the variety of management regimes given changed from BCR to GFRG. This use of prescribed fire. Similarly, some these areas by individual Forest Service includes lands that were already roaded activities (e.g., locatable mineral access LMPs further demonstrates the value of on the Salmon and Targhee NFs and and operations) are governed under a more measured approach. Therefore, lands adjacent to Jesse Creek Watershed entirely separate regulations. the Department has elected to maintain that are outside the CPZ but where the Additionally, like the 2001 roadless the flexibility the multiple theme community wildfire protection plans rule, timber cutting, sale, or removal in approach allows and has retained it in (CWPPs) anticipate treatment is needed inventoried roadless areas is permitted the final rule. to protect the municipal water supply when incidental to implementation of a Comment: Theme assignment. Some system. management activity not otherwise respondents requested changes in theme (3) Approximately 149,200 acres were prohibited by the final rule. Examples of assignments for specific IRAs. changed from BCR to Primitive.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2 ER16OC08.000 61464 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

(4) Approximately 68,400 acres of the states, ‘‘Any inventoried roadless area Response: The BCR theme represents Rapid River Roadless Area on the recommended for wilderness or the largest amount of acreage across all Payette and Nez Perce NFs were designated wilderness study is not of the theme designations in this rule, changed from Primitive to WLR. available for any use or activity that may and it received the majority of the (5) Approximately 10,700 acres of the reduce the wilderness potential of an comments. During his original Selkirk Roadless Area on the Idaho area. Activities currently permitted may presentation to the RACNAC, Governor Panhandle NF were changed from continue, pending designation, if the Risch expressed a desire to have the Primitive to WLR. activities do not compromise wilderness areas designated under this theme (6) Approximately 21,000 acres of the values of the area.’’ Similarly, the final managed similar to the 2001 roadless Pioneer Area in the Mallard Larkins rule does not change current rule while also providing for certain Roadless Area on the Idaho Panhandle recreational opportunities in WLR areas, stewardship activities. The proposed NF was changed from SAHTS to WLR. including motorized travel (see sections rule sought to provide this balance by Comment: Management under 294.27(a) and 294.28). A wide-array of only allowing new road construction or existing LMPs for certain areas. A motorized and mechanical recreation reconstruction facilitating timber cutting respondent suggested areas not and other multiple-use activities that are where necessary to address significant recommended for wilderness in the not allowed in designated wilderness risks and to facilitate permitted forest 2001 roadless rule should be removed areas will continue to be available and health activities. from this process and be managed under are unaffected by this rule. Many respondents felt that the criteria their existing plans. Comment: Primitive theme. A by which new roads could be Response: The 2001 roadless rule respondent suggested the Primitive constructed were left undefined and made no wilderness recommendations. theme should be avoided because areas potentially could vary from the purpose The Forest Service makes preliminary of the 2001 roadless rule. Specifically, wilderness recommendations through designated as Primitive would fall short of the wilderness suitability criteria several respondents felt that new road the land management planning process. construction to facilitate timber cutting Recommendations to Congress because of the proposed rule’s permitted activities. should only be done in cases of concerning wilderness imminent threat to people and property, Response: This rule is not designed to recommendations are an authority although others felt significant risk was address potential wilderness reserved to the Secretary. However, the too restrictive and did not have enough designations. However, agency suggested approach of directing that flexibility to address forest health issues wilderness evaluation criteria associated preliminarily recommended areas be in IRAs. Based on public comments and with LMPs provide that although a managed in accordance with existing advice from the RACNAC, the forest road or other permanently LMP direction would essentially be Department saw a need to refine the authorized road is one criteria for not achieved through the approach scope and conditions by which considering an area for potential described in FEIS Alternative 2. The temporary roads could be constructed in Department believes that in the absence wilderness, Forest Service Handbook the BCR theme. of Congressional action, it is appropriate (FSH) 1909.12, section 71.11, paragraph The RACNAC spent a considerable to include such lands in the IRA system. 9, provides for including areas where amount of time discussing this theme Comment: Wild Land Recreation prior timber harvest and road and recognized that the theme did not (WLR) theme. A respondent suggested construction is not evident. Road lend itself to a one-size-fits-all the WLR theme should be eliminated as construction and reconstruction is management approach, particularly it unlawfully creates de facto prohibited in the Primitive theme with regard to fuel treatments for wilderness. Another respondent felt the except to access reserved or outstanding protecting at-risk communities and rule should maintain current wilderness rights, or other legal duty of the United municipal water supply systems, but recommendations, maintain the current States. Any roads constructed for these also felt that the proposed rule was too type of recreation activities allowed in purposes could affect consideration for expansive and needed further each individual WLR area, and wilderness. Timber cutting, sale, or clarification and refinement. recommend additional areas for removal is also prohibited except under The Department agrees that the wilderness designation. limited conditions and only when done principles articulated by the RACNAC Response: It is important to note that from an existing road or using aerial represented a good starting point. The IRAs are not de facto wilderness areas systems and is subject to numerous final rule adopts the RACNAC’s advice and the final rule does not make any restrictions. The FEIS, section 3.14 of borrowing the CPZ concept from recommendations for potential Roadless Characteristics, discloses that HFRA to focus timber cutting and wilderness. The Department is mindful the existing character may be modified temporary road construction where that only Congress can establish on the edges of a roadless area with the needed to protect at-risk communities. additions to the National Wilderness interior kept intact. Future activities in The definition of at-risk communities Preservation System and that Congress the Primitive theme could have used in the proposed and final rule has not called for the creation of potential effects on the undeveloped reflects the definition of that term as protective perimeters or buffer zones and natural qualities of a roadless area used in the HFRA. Within the CPZ, the around wilderness areas. The but these activities are expected to be Department believes the balance should Department maintains that the WLR limited, infrequent, and would not tip in favor of community protection theme provides appropriate protections affect natural ecosystems processes or while ensuring that temporary road for selected areas. opportunities for primitive and construction is not undertaken where in It is correct that most lands in the unconfined recreation. the responsible official’s judgment the WLR theme were identified and Comment: Backcountry/Restoration project cannot reasonably achieve the recommended for wilderness theme (BCR). Several respondents felt community protection objectives designation during the land the use of the BCR theme should be without a temporary road. Additionally, management planning process. In the avoided because it would allow road the RACNAC recognized that the context of land management planning, construction, logging, and other geographic definition from HFRA may the Forest Service Manual 1923.03 development. not provide enough flexibility for some

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 Idaho Panhandle NF and the consistent with the timber cutting limiting the scope of temporary road Scotchmans Peak Roadless Area on the provision. The final rule follows the list building for fuels treatments outside the Idaho Panhandle and Kootenai NFs. of excepted activities from the 2001 CPZ to projects that can demonstrate Some developed lands, which are areas roadless rule and adds two refined significant risk of wildland fire effects to that have been previously roaded and categories of actions. an at-risk community or a municipal harvested, were changed from the BCR First, the final rule accepts advice water supply system while positively theme to the GFRG theme. In total, the from the RACNAC and public comment determining that one or more roadless land area encompassing the GFRG to retain the 2001 roadless rule’s general characteristics will be maintained or theme was reduced by approximately exceptions. All exceptions are retained improved over the long-term. The long- 203,700 acres. See Appendices E and P except the minerals roads provision term perspective is especially important of the FEIS. which is separately addressed in section because a temporary road may have the Comment: Forest Plan Special Areas. 294.25. Second, there was confusion potential for immediate short-term Several respondents asked for regarding the expected level of effects to an area’s roadless clarification about whether wild and treatment to address significant risk characteristics, but stand thinning, scenic river management areas and situations in BCR theme areas. RACNAC strategic fuel breaks, and other activities other LMP special areas have and many respondents wanted accomplished by building a temporary precedence over the rule. clarification for the situations in which road could have long-term beneficial Response: Under section 294.28(f), road building would be permitted. Some effects. The final rule also emphasizes Forest Plan Special Areas (FPSA), like respondents expressed concern that all the importance of maximizing the wild and scenic river management 5.3 million acres would be treated under retention of large trees, as appropriate areas, are managed in accordance with these provisions. This was never the for the forest type, to the extent the trees local LMP components. For Department’s or the State’s intention. promote fire resilient stands and clarification, a definition of FPSA has The State had noted, at the January 2008 exercises restraint by permitting projects been added to the final rule. These RACNAC meeting, that it desired such that cannot reasonably be accomplished lands include areas such as research projects to focus mainly on protecting without a temporary road. Notably, the natural areas, designated and eligible the wildland urban interface (WUI) and final rule does not permit new road wild and scenic river corridors, municipal water supply systems. The construction for the purpose of developed recreation sites, or lands RACNAC agreed that such refinements conducting limited forest health identified for other specified were appropriate but were unable to activities. Under the final rule, the vast management purposes. A listing of all reach consensus regarding road majority of the BCR acres will be the FPSAs is set out in the FEIS, construction for forest health treatments managed comparable to the 2001 Appendix Q. The State’s petition outside CPZ. See the discussion under roadless rule with a small amount of identified that some roadless areas are Summary of Changes in Proposed additional timber cutting and temporary already part of other land classification Section 294.25 (Final Rule Section road construction to allow fuel systems that are governed by specific 294.24). treatments to better protect vital agency directives and existing LMP In light of these considerations, the community interests. direction. The petition did not request Department refined the final rule and Comment: General Forest, Rangeland, the Forest Service to impose additional will allow temporary roads in CPZ and Grassland (GFRG) theme. A or superseding management direction or recognizing that in balancing public respondent suggested elimination of the restrictions for these FPSAs. Instead, the interests of community protection and GFRG theme. Another suggested any petition identified a preference that roadless characteristics—the balance small strips of GFRG lands should go these lands be administered under the tips sharply in favor of communities into adjacent BCR and felt that the laws, regulations, and other within the CPZ. Further, the Department GFRG theme should be eliminated to management direction unique to the has found there is broad support for avoid the conflict of the rule allowing special purpose of the applicable land addressing instances where wildland for activities not permissible in LMPs. A classification. The Department agrees, fire can affect vital community interests respondent thought the Agency should and although these lands are included and infrastructure even beyond CPZs. reconsider the roadless character for in section 294.29 for the sake of Local communities, the RACNAC, and some of the GFRG designations based on completeness, the final rule does not various officials strongly supported the Idaho Conservation League maps. establish any management direction for, providing limited opportunities for Response: The FEIS considered the or that applies to, any of these identified hazardous fuel reduction projects in a request to eliminate the GFRG theme in, FPSAs. way that continues to recognize the section 2.3, Consideration of Comments importance of conserving roadless area Proposed Section 294.23 Road and determined that this request was characteristics. In contrast to treatments effectively accomplished through Construction and Reconstruction in within the CPZ, the Department believes examination of the 2001 Rule alternative Idaho Roadless Areas the balance tips in favor of maintaining (Alternative 1). Based on public Summary of Changes in Proposed or improving roadless characteristics comment, including Idaho Conservation Section 294.23 (Final Rule Section over the long-term for projects League’s maps, some areas were 294.23). No substantive changes were conducted outside the CPZ. However, changed from GFRG to BCR to better made to paragraph (a). In response to the Department will allow temporary retain the roadless character in these advice from the RACNAC and public roads outside CPZ to protect at-risk areas to respond to Tribal interests and comment, the Department refined the communities and municipal water to provide important big game habitat. road construction provisions concerning supply systems under limited For example, several small strips the BCR theme. The proposed rule circumstances. To meet these goals, adjacent to the outer boundaries of allowed roads for classes of timber Forest Service officials will make a roadless areas were changed to BCR, cutting activities per the 2001 roadless positive determination that the including lands associated with the East rule with the addition of a significant community or water supply system is Cathedral, Magee, Mallard Larkins, and risk threshold determination and facing a significant risk from a wildland Upper Priest Roadless Areas on the allowed for forest health activities fire disturbance event, and the project

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 based on the RACNAC’s advice, does encourages responsible officials to use roadless characteristics over the long- not believe that all BCR theme areas these plans where appropriate in term. A significant risk exists where the outside the CPZ should have to determining whether or not a project history of fire occurrence and fire demonstrate the imminent threat qualifies under this exception. The hazard and risk indicated a serious standard of the 2001 roadless rule. Department expects that responsible likelihood that a wildland fire Instead, this rule provides the flexibility officials will give due consideration disturbance event would present a high needed to implement Community during the public comment process to risk of threat to an at-risk community or Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) input from the State’s Collaborative municipal water supply system. where consistent with this rule and Implementation Commission. The Officials must also determine that the allows for limited treatment of Commission’s recommendations would project cannot be reasonably hazardous fuels that threaten at-risk be considered along with other public accomplished without a temporary road. communities and municipal water and Tribal comments. Clearly, temporary roads will not need supply systems. Thus, the Department The Department believes it has to be constructed to address every has determined an allowance will be appropriately considered roadless area significant risk situation inside or made for individual projects that can characteristics and the interests in outside a CPZ. demonstrate a significant risk that a protecting at-risk communities or In paragraph (c), new wording has wildland fire disturbance event could municipal water supply systems in been added that specifically directs the adversely affect an at-risk community or defining the scope of the significant risk minimizing of effects and clarifies the municipal water supply system and exception. Expansion of the significant intent to conform to applicable LMP maintain or improve one or more risk determination to include irrigation components. Existing LMPs for these roadless characteristics in the long-term. and water rights is beyond the scope of areas set out forestwide and area Notably, the responsible Forest Service the HFRA provision used as a model for specific direction and make general official must determine that the activity this provision and therefore was not suitability determinations but do not cannot be reasonably accomplished adopted. generally authorize any particular without a temporary road. For further Comment: Temporary roads projects. Under this framework the clarity, a definition taken from the 2006 standards, reclamation, and alternatives. Forest Service examines site-specific Interagency Protecting People and Several respondents suggested the rule environmental effects when projects or Natural Resources: A Cohesive Fuels should include plans and standards for activities are actually proposed. See Treatment Strategy (2006 Cohesive temporary road design criteria, Ohio Forestry Ass’n v. Sierra Club, 118 Strategy) for hazardous fuels has been identification of the responsible party to S. Ct. 1665, 1668, 1671 (1998). The added to the Final Rule. close it, and timeframes for RACNAC and some members of the rehabilitation. They felt definitions for public suggested that the requirements Furthermore, on advice from the decommissioning, rehabilitation, and for roads under the proposed minerals RACNAC, the Department has limited closure of roads should be included in section be carried forward and applied the application of the term significant the rule. One respondent suggested that to all road construction. In response, the risk in geographic terms as well. First, the Agency should require monitoring final rule at section 294.23(d) provides a proposed project must demonstrate and funding to occur for temporary additional direction concerning that its purpose is to treat hazardous roads prior to their construction thus temporary roads comparable to that fuels connected to an at-risk community ensuring the temporary road is provided for mineral activities. or municipal water supply system. This reclaimed and re-vegetated to meet Additionally, a provision has been greatly reduces the potential geographic roadless characteristics. The RACNAC added that existing roads and those scope of road building and treatments in recommended further clarifications permitted under this final rule may be the BCR theme from those in the when temporary roads could be built, maintained. proposed rule. Second, the Department who could use them, and how they Comment: Significant risk. Several refined the term significant risk to would be decommissioned. respondents requested the situations where the history of fire Response: The final rule now contains establishment of more guidelines to occurrence, and fire hazard and risk, a definition of temporary road. Use of determine what constitutes a significant indicated a serious likelihood that a such roads is restricted, although use of risk situation. Others suggested that the wildland fire disturbance event would these roads for Forest Service significant risk criteria should be present a high risk of threat to an at-risk administrative purposes is permissible, confined to WUI areas and only apply community or municipal water supply as defined at 36 CFR 212.51(a)(5) the imminent threat criteria for the system. The final rule defines fire (involving fire, military, emergency, or remaining areas. Some respondents felt hazard and risk to mean the fuel law enforcement vehicles for emergency vegetation activities outside CPZs conditions on the landscape. Fire purposes). In the final rule, the use of should have more restrictions than occurrence is defined as the probability a discretionary temporary road outside those inside the zone. A respondent of wildfire ignition based on historic fire the CPZ will be limited in scope and suggested inclusion of threats to occurrence records and other only occur if no other reasonable irrigation and water rights as part of the information. Under these definitions, alternative for treating the fuels is significant risk exception. this significant risk determination available. If a temporary road is Response: The Department, based on focuses largely on landscape conditions, determined to be necessary to support public comment and advice from the probability of ignition (serious allowed activities such as fuel RACNAC, concluded that the significant likelihood), departure from historical treatments to reduce a significant risk risk threshold should not be required for fire frequencies, and the severity of the situation, the Forest Service can ensure projects, including temporary road risk of adverse affects (significant) to an closure and rehabilitation through construction, in the CPZ as defined in at-risk community or municipal water contract provisions for any associated this rule. See also the discussion below supply system. The Department’s timber sale or stewardship contract. under Summary of Changes in Proposed experience indicates that much of this Temporary roads are sometimes Section 294.25 (Final Rule Section pertinent information may be in necessary to allow purchasers to access 294.24.) However, the Department, individual Idaho county CWPPs and and transport timber. Specific timber

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61467

and stewardship contract provisions or outstanding rights. The 2001 roadless RACNAC advice, the Department made govern the authorization, construction, rule lists the same exemptions. Like the a net reduction in the amount of the operation, and restoration of these 2001 roadless rule, roads for habitat GFRG theme by approximately 203,700 temporary roads. In the past, the Agency improvement projects are not allowed. It acres. In addition, roads may not be has sometimes waived the contract’s is anticipated that most roads will be constructed or reconstructed to access decommissioning requirement because temporary. However, the Department new mineral leases except in association the Agency intended to continue to use recognizes that a permanent road may with specific phosphate deposits. The the road for other multiple-use need to be constructed in some Agency has carefully reviewed existing purposes, such as post-sale reforestation situations, such as access for a private management direction and potential projects, monitoring, or fire protection. land inholding. Justification for a uses of these lands to ensure that the However, closure of these roads then permanent road will need to be appropriate management theme is being became dependent upon the Agency established for any proposed project. applied for each IRA. This specific receiving funding. This led to many Comment: Roads for forest health review goes beyond what was temporary roads remaining open activities. Several respondents undertaken during the 2001 rulemaking without decommissioning. The final recommended that no roads be allowed and these refinements reflect the best rule reinforces that new temporary fuel in the BCR and the GFRG themes for the judgment and expertise of the Forest treatment roads must be purpose of forest health. Other Service. decommissioned when the project is respondents suggested that temporary Proposed Section 294.24 Mineral completed and will not be open for roads should be permitted only for Activities in Idaho Roadless Areas public use while the project is vegetation management for wildlife and underway. Additional funding for road forest health reasons. Another Summary of Changes to Proposed closures would not be necessary. A respondent suggested allowing Section 294.24 (Final Rule Section definition for road decommissioning is temporary roads for only forest health 294.25). Mineral and energy potential provided in the final rule. Definitions activities but not habitat improvement within IRAs was given serious for rehabilitation and closure are not projects in the BCR theme. consideration. The minerals portion of provided as these terms are not used in Response: The RACNAC could not the rule has been reorganized and now the final rule. Agency road definitions come to a consensus on whether new provides management direction for each are found at 36 CFR 212.1, and the roads to facilitate forest health activities theme. Paragraphs (a) and (b) separately regulations found in 36 CFR part 212 are should be permitted outside the CPZ. identify that the rule provisions apply applied for all road construction and do After careful deliberation, the prospectively and only where the not need to be repeated in this rule. See Department decided that no new roads Department exercises discretionary FEIS Appendix O for more details (temporary or permanent) for forest authority. regarding road construction and health purposes should be built in the The final rule does not include the decommissioning. BCR theme, but such activities could be proposed rule’s (section 294.24(a)) Comment: Roads in the BCR theme. conducted from existing permanent language ‘‘including any subsequent Several respondents felt that the roads, temporary roads allowed by this renewal, reissuance, continuation, proposed rule allowed too many rule, or by aerial harvest systems. The extension, or modification, or new legal opportunities to build roads in the BCR final rule does permit road construction instruments, for mineral and associated theme. They suggested that the 2001 for forest health activities in the GFGR activities on these or adjacent land.’’ roadless rule language should be used to theme as long as the activity is This provision, in particular, the protect these areas. One respondent consistent with applicable LMP adjacent land phrase allows new access suggested no roads be built in the BCR components. and road building, mainly for phosphate theme. Another respondent suggested Comment: Responsible official for mining, to occur where a post-rule limiting all roads in BCR to temporary authorizing construction of permanent modification to a pre-existing lease roads and using them only for fire roads. One respondent thought that resulted in an enlargement of the protection needs, not habitat decisions regarding whether or not a original lease boundary regardless of improvement projects. If a permanent permanent road is needed should be theme. The RACNAC could not reach road is needed, the respondent wanted made at a higher level than that of the consensus on the issue of phosphate more justification requirements. Others local line officer. mining. However, there were suggested more roads should be allowed Response: The final rule identifies discussions during committee in the BCR theme without restrictions. roles for responsible officials in deliberations expressing support for a Response: The Department agrees connection with various activities recommendation that the final rule with respondents that the scope and across the different themes. Regional eliminate the exception for phosphate conditions for building temporary roads foresters will be responsible for certain mining in the BCR theme lands and in the BCR theme needed refinement. determinations, for example road move appropriate acres of known The Department has concluded that construction activities in BCR theme phosphate lease areas (KPLAs) and a building new roads for fuels treatments outside the CPZ. Standard delegation of buffer zone into GFRG theme lands. should be limited to two circumstances: decisionmaking authority found at Based on these comments, the (1) To conduct fuel treatment activities Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1230 will Department is eliminating the adjacent within the CPZ; and (2) to conduct fuel operate unless specified otherwise in lands provision. New access will only treatment activities outside the CPZ the final rule. be permitted where the expansion falls only where a significant risk of wildfire Comment: Roads in GFRG. One within the GFRG theme. This change is effects to an at-risk community or respondent felt that no permanent roads not to be construed as limiting access or municipal water supply system can be should be built GFRG. Another other related activities associated with demonstrated and only when roadless respondent felt that the 2001 roadless mineral leasing, including lease values can be improved or maintained rule approach should be the minimum renewals, reissuances, continuations, over the long-term. Other exceptions are protection for the GFRG theme. extensions, or modifications issued made in the BCR theme for public Response: Based on public comment, prior to the effective date of this rule health and safety reasons or for reserved input from Tribal representatives, and regardless of the theme. The Forest

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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, rule. The Agency will also require that Another respondent asked for Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the permissible road construction or clarification for why some saleable RACNAC, and other interested parties reconstruction associated with mining mineral activities are allowed when identified the locations of phosphate activities in the GFRG theme will only associated with other allowable mining activities most likely to occur in be approved after evaluating other activities, what these other allowable the future and adjusted the land access options. The use or sale of activities would be, how frequent, and classifications to focus on a smaller common variety mineral materials in what is the pubic benefit. Another number of acres that could be available the GFRG theme will only be permitted suggestion was to provide an exception for mineral development and conserving where it is incidental to an otherwise for the Forest Service to use of common the roadless character of the remaining lawful activity. variety minerals in support of its areas. These adjustments allow the Comment: Mineral activities. One activities, like road or trail maintenance. Agency to preserve the unroaded respondent asked for clarifying language Response: Commercial permitting of character of the vast majority of these concerning surface use and roading for salable minerals in the BCR and GFRG lands, especially certain high quality mineral activities with respect to each of themes is prohibited in the final rule. fish and game habitat (e.g., portions of the themes. Others felt that the This addresses public concerns over this Deer Creek and Bear Creek), while proposed regulations did not provide type of mineral development. recognizing long-standing interest in adequate environmental protection for Practically speaking, there is no limited development of nationally mineral extraction operations. Some independent commercial interest in critical phosphate mineral resources by respondents felt there should not be any development of these saleable minerals industry and local communities. By new roads allowed for mineral in IRAs. The total average production of adjusting the classifications for specific development. Others felt there should mineral materials from NFS lands lands the Agency will provide better be no mineral development of any kind represents only about 1 percent of the resource protection while making on national forests and suggested total mineral materials production for essentially the same number of acres pursuing a formal statutory withdrawal all of Idaho (FEIS, section 3.5 Minerals available for phosphate development. of lands under the mining laws. and Energy). Because of these adjustments, the Response: After consideration of these Saleable minerals will only be made proposed rule’s exceptions for new comments, the Department determined available as incidental to an otherwise phosphate activities in the BCR theme that surface use and occupancy for permissible activity. The majority of were no longer necessary and have been leasable minerals will only be permitted saleable mineral use has been gravel for removed. Thus, for leases obtained after in the BCR and GFRG theme areas, and road construction, reconstruction, and the effective date of this rule, road that any such operations may be further maintenance or for Agency facilities construction and other associated restricted or prohibited by the development including trails. For activities can only occur in areas applicable LMP components. example, gravel may be necessary to designated as GFRG theme to access Comparatively, these limitations are reduce the sediment from a road specific phosphate deposits identified more restrictive than the 2001 roadless permitted in the BCR theme by this rule in Figure 3–20 in the FEIS. As a result, rule, which permitted surface use and and could be authorized where an under the final rule road construction or occupancy on any inventoried roadless appropriate gravel source is in reconstruction will only be permissible area. However, the Department declines proximity of the road. This exception is in specific areas (5,770 acres of KPLAs) the request submitted by some expected to be rarely used, but is where there is very high potential for respondents that USDA request the important because it allows use of development in the future. This Secretary of Interior to initiate the saleable minerals for protection of other refinement addresses concerns Federal Land Policy and Management resources in IRAs without the increased regarding unbounded geographic scope Act (FLPMA) withdrawal process for all costs of hauling these materials long of these possible activities within IRAs. roadless areas or all NFS lands. Instead, distances. It also allows the Agency to Road construction is not permitted after the final rule establishes limitations on use these sources in support of the effective date of the final rule for the future exercise of discretion permissible road, trail, or facilities mineral leasing in BCR theme areas, but available to Forest Service responsible construction or maintenance. the final rule does not bar surface officials. These limitations include: (1) Comment: Phosphate and leasable occupancy unless prohibited by the No road construction or reconstruction minerals. Several respondents expressed applicable LMP. or surface occupancy in the WLR, concern over allowing any expansion of The Forest Service will no longer SAHTS, and Primitive theme areas; (2) phosphate mining in IRAs, especially recommend, authorize, or consent to no road construction or reconstruction Primitive and WLR themes, although road construction or reconstruction for mineral leases in BCR theme areas; phosphate is only known to occur on associated with post-rule mineral leases (3) no road construction or about 14,460 acres in IRAs. Many in GFRG theme areas, except for reconstruction for mineral leases in comments pertained to public concern phosphates. Currently, the known oil GFRG theme areas except for activities for the phosphate mining-related effects and gas potential is low and some LMPs associated with phosphate deposits; and of selenium on water quality. Some restrict or prohibit new exploration. (4) in the BCR and GFRG theme areas, Tribes shared this concern and also Geothermal development is currently the use and sale of common variety expressed concern over the potential speculative in IRAs and a major part of mineral materials, and associated road loss of trust resources. Respondents the areas with potential for its construction access these mineral requested clarification about how far development is outside IRAs. Therefore, materials may occur only when the use road construction and development an exception for oil and gas or of these mineral materials is incidental would extend outside of existing leases geothermal leasing is not warranted. to an activity otherwise permissible by into roadless areas. The BLM suggested The final rule also clarifies that surface this rule. the rule allow for a one-half mile occupancy is permissible within GFRG Comment: Saleable minerals. One expansion buffer around existing leases theme areas unless prohibited by the respondent suggested that sale of as there are some leases outside the applicable LMP. This is consistent with common variety minerals should be known phosphate lease areas (KPLAs) the approach taken by the 2001 roadless restricted within BCR theme areas. and the rule should not restrict access

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 Roadless Area but are not specified on under leasable minerals should be clarifications and urged the Department figure 3–20. Therefore, roads may not be included for locatable minerals. to provide flexibility to administer constructed to access any of these areas. Response: The final rule is clear that existing leases to ensure maximum The Agency also agreed with the it does not intend to regulate mining recovery of the resource by allowing the BLM’s recommendation that, consistent activities conducted pursuant to the building of roads, water wells, power with local land management plan General Mining Law of 1872. The lines, and other supporting facilities on components, the KPLAs should have a Agency has separate requirements off-lease sites. Other respondents stated one-half mile buffer to allow for any relating to road construction and that the rule should clarify whether uncertainties about where the ore body maintenance for locatable minerals at 36 modifications of existing leases in an is located. For leases obtained after the CFR 228.8(f) that adequately provide for IRA, which are part of the KPLA, are effective date of this rule, road these protections. Recently, the Agency allowed and how existing lease rights construction and other associated proposed a revision of its locatable are dealt with in the Primitive activities can only occur in areas mineral regulations; questions designation. One respondent felt that all designated as GFRG theme to access concerning access to locatable minerals KPLA and existing leases should be phosphate deposits identified in Figure will be governed by that final rule. moved to the GFRG theme. Other 3–20 in the FEIS. This rule does not Therefore, it was determined that no respondents felt phosphate leases grant automatic access across the GFRG further adjustment of this regulation is should be confined to KPLAs and not to theme to ore bodies depicted in the necessary. the entire BCR theme. Another map. However, it does allow Comment: Energy resources. Several respondent suggested known and high consideration and review of the merits respondents suggested that the rule potential KPLA areas should be moved of individual applications which will should not include an exemption for oil to the GFRG theme, and all other KPLAs undergo site-specific environmental and gas or geothermal development as moved to BCR where their development analysis, including consideration of there is currently no known potential should not be allowed. Another access options. for their development. These respondent felt the rule should include The Department believes maintaining respondents further asserted that future requirements for mine clean up and the future options within the select GFRG energy exploration should be dealt with prevention of any future selenium theme areas are important to under the proposed change clause, and pollution before any expansion of communities in Southeast Idaho and to that there are sufficient places outside phosphate mining areas. One the nation because of the increasing roadless areas where alternative energy respondent felt there should be no demand for phosphate. The Department sources like wind, biomass, and expansion of phosphate mines under believes these permissions and geothermal can be developed. any circumstances. restrictions provide a balance between Response: As identified in the FEIS, Response: Mineral activities were one providing access to a limited portion of there is low potential for oil and gas of the areas where the Department made a significant national resource and development in Idaho but there is some a specific request for public comment in protecting roadless area values. Of potential for geothermal energy. Wind the preamble to the proposed rule (73 course, any future development energy is more developed in southern FR 1139). The RACNAC could not come proposals would themselves require Idaho and there appears to be ample to consensus on the issue of phosphate site-specific environmental analysis. opportunities for expansion outside mining within IRAs. However, during Additionally, the final rule directs the roadless areas. The Western Energy RACNAC’s deliberations, several responsible official to review other Corridor study was also considered committee members recommended that access options and assure consistency during development of this rule and no if the Agency were to allow road with applicable LMP components before corridors have been identified in IRAs. construction and reconstruction for authorizing any new road construction There is currently one geothermal leases obtained after the effective date of associated with mineral activities in facility in Idaho generating electricity. this final rule, that those activities be IRAs. Similar to the proposed rule, the Because the development of this limited to areas managed pursuant to final rule also directs that temporary resource is in its infancy and would be the GFRG theme. road construction must be conducted in widely available on private and the The Department agrees, and believes a way that minimizes effects on surface roaded portion of NFS lands, the that with fine tuning of the allocations, resources, is consistent with LMP Department has determined there is not all new road construction or components, and may only be used for a need to allow roads for developing reconstruction associated with post-rule specified purposes. Like the 2001 geothermal energy in IRAs at this time. phosphate leases can be limited to the roadless rule, this final rule honors If the State or other parties believe new GFRG theme. After careful review of valid existing leases. In this situation, information or circumstances warrant KPLAs and the specific classifications the Forest Service will permit necessary an adjustment, a change of the rule’s in the proposed rule, the Agency road construction, road reconstruction, restrictions can be sought and changed the proposed designation of and surface occupancy for existing considered though the rule’s some BCR theme areas in the proposed leases regardless of the theme. modification process. For now, the final rule to the GFRG theme in the final. Not The issue of phosphate mining and rule prohibits new road construction or all KPLAs with phosphate potential selenium pollution is discussed in the reconstruction within any theme for proposed as BCR theme were changed to FEIS at pp. 186, 187, 205, 208, 210, 211, post-rule oil and gas, and geothermal the GFRG theme. Several areas 216, 259, 262, 264, 267, 277, 291, and leasing. Surface use and occupancy including the Bear Creek IRA, retain 294. The Department has determined would still be permitted in the BCR and their BCR theme designation because that requirements for mine clean up and GFRG themes so long as the LMP those areas exhibit other high resource the prevention of any future selenium components do not expressly prohibit values. Approximately 1,280 acres of pollution is best handled at the site- such activities. unleased phosphate are retained in the specific project level. Comment: Consultation with mining Primitive theme and 6,500 acres in the Comment: Locatable minerals. One and energy interests. A respondent BCR theme. In addition, about 910 acres respondent suggested language allowing suggested the Agency should consult are in the GFRG theme in the Bear Creek access similar to the language proposed with State of Idaho agencies and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2 61470 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

mining, energy, and geothermal to the Department’s, Forest Service’s, added in a new paragraph (d) based on industry representatives to assure the and State’s desire to provide protections input from RACNAC and the public. rule does not restrict or confuse similar or beyond those provided by the Comment: Limits on timber cutting. development. 2001 roadless rule without sacrificing One respondent suggested limiting Response: The Department necessary flexibility for the protection of timber cutting, sale, or removal in the highlighted its desire for public critical community interests. Instead of Primitive theme to only those timber comment concerning mineral and splitting limitations on these activities activities that will improve one or more energy issues in the proposed rule. With across multiple paragraphs as in the of the roadless characteristics. Several regard to phosphates, as noted above, proposed rule, section 294.24(b)(2) lists respondents suggested timber cutting the Agency and State have coordinated all limitations. The final rule also should be limited in the Primitive with BLM, representatives of the clarifies that when assessing whether theme to instances where it would affected industry, Tribal representatives, actions maintain or improve roadless improve one or more roadless environmental groups, and other characteristics, responsible official’s characteristics and maintain the quality interested parties to identify the IRAs evaluations examine long term effects of game and fish habitat and recreation that possess resource values other than rather than only immediate experience. Other respondents phosphate development and placed consequences. suggested that an exception be included those areas in themes that would Several refinements have been made for the Primitive theme allowing preclude future development. The to the provisions concerning timber treatment for human health and safety Forest Service also worked with the cutting in the BCR theme. The final rule near trails or other recreation sites. For BLM to ensure that both agencies includes new provisions in section the BCR theme, it was suggested the understood the extent of phosphate 294.24(c)(1)(i–ii) to refine instances cutting, selling, or removing of timber development that would be permissible where timber cutting can be conducted be limited to where it will maintain all in IRAs. to reduce hazardous fuel conditions. roadless characteristics or improve one Comment: Project-by project The rule now distinguishes between or more of the roadless characteristics. approach. One respondent cutting for fuel reduction purposes Another respondent felt the rule should recommended that decisions regarding inside and outside CPZs and requires disclose the controversy over the use of mineral exploration and development additional protections and findings for logging as a fuels reduction method. should be made project-by-project rather actions taken outside a CPZ. The final Another felt that the proposed rule than rule classifications for BCR and rule clarifies that significant risk will be exceptions were ambiguous and that the GFRG themes. addressed in terms of landscape DEIS underestimated potential effects. Response: A project-level approach condition and fire event probability. Other respondents wanted to know why would effectively be the same as the Consistent with the concepts of the 2006 language in the 2001 roadless rule system examined in Alternative 2— Cohesive Strategy, the regulation now concerning generally small diameter Existing Plans, which is analyzed in identifies and defines the factors that go and the range of variability were are not detail in the draft and final EISs. The into that determination—history of fire carried forward into the proposed rule. Department believes that the final rule occurrence along with fire hazard and Similarly, other respondents asked for (Alternative 4) presents a better risk. These adjustments parallel changes clarification about whether large approach blending local understanding made in the road construction provision diameter trees can be logged and of these regional interests along with in the final rule discussed above. consideration of a limitation to small national interest in roadless area The RACNAC and some respondents diameter trees and/or an old-growth, management, minerals management, expressed concern regarding whether large tree retention requirements. and energy security. Additionally, the temporary roads should be constructed Response: Based on these comments, modification provision set out in section for facilitating forest health or other the Department has elected to follow the 294.27 is available for adjustments as permissible timber cutting, sale, or approach used in the Healthy Forests needed for individual projects. removal activities in BCR theme areas. Restoration Act (HFRA) with The Department agrees that new roads, modifications recommended by the Proposed Section 294.25 Timber even temporary roads, should not be RACNAC. In the Primitive theme, Cutting, Sale, or Removal in Idaho developed to undertake these types of timber cutting under the final rule Roadless Areas timber cutting activities because of their would be prohibited unless existing Summary of Changes in Proposed potential to diminish roadless roads or aerial systems are used and the Section 294.25 (Final Rule Section characteristics. However, the final rule cutting, selling, or removing of timber 294.24). Paragraph (a) has been recognizes that with appropriate would: (1) Improve threatened, reworded for clarity but retains the same limitations, such as maximizing the endangered, proposed, or sensitive limitations on timber cutting in WLR retention of large trees, these activities species habitat; (2) maintain or restore presented in the proposed rule. The could make use of roads that already ecosystem composition, structure, and proposed rule’s use of significant risk in exist and roads authorized under the processes; or (3) reduce the risk of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) in the Primitive and various provisions of this rule uncharacteristic wildfire to at-risk SAHTS themes has been eliminated and (including temporary roads until communities and municipal water has been revised with language that decommissioned). By allowing the use supply systems. Such cutting, selling, or better describes a narrower exception of existing and permissible roads to removing of timber would also have to focusing on protection for at-risk support limited timber cutting activities, maintain or improve one or more of the communities and municipal water the ability to accomplish limited forest roadless characteristics over the long- supply systems from uncharacteristic health objectives can be met without term. Some additional requirements for wildland fire effects. As explained in diminishing roadless characteristics timber cutting were added, including: the FEIS at section 3.3, Fuels over the long-term. Such roads would (1) Timber cutting, selling, or removing Management, these fuel treatments are not be available to support further must be approved by the regional necessary to reduce potential direct and timber cutting operations once they are forester; (2) retention of large trees as indirect effects of wildland fires to these decommissioned. General instructions appropriate for the forest type to the communities. This aligns more closely regarding temporary roads have been extent the trees promote fire-resilient

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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) use of stand thinning, strategic fuel 294.24(c)(2)(i) now provides that actions projects must be consistent with breaks, and prescribed fire where should maintain or improve roadless applicable plan components. With these possible to reduce the forest fuel characteristics over the long-term. The limitations, timber cutting activities on loading. Similarly, the language ‘‘within final rule includes additional these lands is expected to be limited the range of variability that would be definitions and clarifications addressing and infrequent. The cutting of hazard expected to occur under natural when and where actions undertaken for trees near trails and recreation sites for disturbance regimes of the current maintaining or restoring the human health and safety is allowed climatic period’’ found in the 2001 characteristics of ecosystem under section 294.24(b)(v) as it is roadless rule is not used in this rule composition, structure, and processes; incidental to a management activity not because it does not easily account for or significant risk situations may occur. otherwise prohibited by this final rule. species like lodgepole pine that Agency procedures already require For the BCR theme, the final rule routinely experiences stand replacement responsible officials to identify the modifies the proposed rule’s timber fires, and although it may not be outside reasons for their decisions and the cutting provisions (section of its natural disturbance regimes, it scientific and other source material 294.25(c)(1)(ii)) to be more specific could pose a significant risk to at-risk relied upon for agency conclusions. about where and under what conditions communities. Therefore, additional requirements are timber cutting is permissible. The final Comment: Restrictions on logging not necessary. rule identifies that timber cutting would methods. One respondent suggested that Comment: Wildland urban interface only be allowed as follows: (1) To only selective logging by helicopter (WUI). Many respondents requested reduce hazardous fuel conditions within should be allowed in themes where clarifications and definition concerning the CPZ; (2) to reduce the significant timber cutting is allowed because it WUIs and communities. One risk of wildland fire effects to an at-risk would allow for better quality wood respondent felt that a roadless area by community or municipal water supply without habitat destruction. Another definition is not part of the urban system outside the CPZ; (3) to improve respondent felt that the rule should interface and should not be included in threatened, endangered, proposed, or clarify whether maintaining roadless WUI areas. Some respondents suggested sensitive species habitat; (4) to maintain character means that there will be no expanding the radius beyond one mile, or restore the characteristics of clear-cutting or seed tree harvest while others suggested reducing the ecosystem composition, structure, and methods. radius to 200 feet. Still others wanted process; (5) to reduce the risk of Response: The Department believes more application of science when uncharacteristic wildland fire effects; (6) selection of logging methods to meet determining WUI boundaries. for personal or administrative use; (7) silvicultural treatment objectives is best Response: The proposed rule did not where incidental to implementation of a left to project-specific decisionmaking. specifically use WUI as a condition for management activity not otherwise A general prohibition on particular road construction or timber cutting. The prohibited by this rule; or (8) in a harvest systems, like clear-cutting or proposed rule permitted road substantially altered portion of an IRA. seed tree harvest methods, could construction or reconstruction and Additional conditions were added for preclude necessary and otherwise timber cutting, sale, or removal in the actions undertaken to reduce significant permissible activities for treating areas. BCR theme to reduce the significant risk risk of wildland fire effects outside of a Some areas with low commercial value, of wildland fire effects. Significant risk CPZ; to maintain or restore like lodgepole pine stands, may be in was defined as ‘‘a natural resource characteristics of ecosystem need of treatment to protect local condition threatening an at-risk composition, structure, and process; and communities and municipal water community or municipal water supply to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic supplies. Restricting logging methods system.’’ WUI as defined by the HFRA wildland fire. These actions must also would unnecessarily endanger these at- includes an area within or adjacent to maintain or improve one or more of the risk communities and municipal water an at-risk community that is identified roadless characteristics over the long- supplies. in a community wildfire protection plan term; maximize the retention of large Comment: Timber cutting and (CWPP) or is based on default criteria if trees as appropriate for the forest type, vegetative treatments to improve a CWPP does not exist. CWPPs are to the extent the trees promote fire- roadless characteristics. Several completed for all counties in Idaho. resilient stands; are consistent with respondents felt it was confusing to Based on public comment and LMP components; and are approved by allow timber cutting under proposed RACNAC recommendations, the timber the regional forester. section 294.25 if it will maintain or cutting section was modified to be more The 2001 roadless rule used the improve one or more of the roadless precise about where and under what phrase generally small diameter. The characteristics and suggested changing conditions timber cutting could be requirement to retain large trees as the standard to be an assurance that done. Timber cutting, sale, or removal appropriate for the forest type replaces timber cutting does not degrade roadless could be done in the CPZ as described that terminology. This language was character. One respondent suggested as an at-risk community in HFRA. The recommended by the RACNAC and has more rationale is needed before CPZ is an area extending one-half mile been part of the Agency’s conducting vegetative treatments to from the boundary of an at-risk implementation of HFRA and the reduce significant risks or for forest community; or an area within one and Agency believes the language will be health activities in the Primitive and a half miles of the boundary of an at-risk better understood by field personnel. BCR themes. Other respondents felt community, where any land (1) has a The new language reflects the site- language was needed that requires sustained steep slope that creates the specific flexibility needed to treat scientific documentation before potential for wildfire behavior certain forest types in Idaho (e.g., activities for the maintenance and endangering the at-risk community; (2) lodgepole pine). A definition of forest improvement of threatened, endangered, has a geographic feature that aids in type has been added in the final rule and sensitive species can be authorized creating an effective fire break, such as that is drawn from the definition of that in roadless areas. a road or a ridge top; or (3) is in term in the Dictionary of Ecology. The Response: The final rule language has condition class 3 as defined by HFRA Agency will continue to emphasize the been modified and section meaning areas where fire regimes on

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 could be used to facilitate timber cutting health should not be confined to the from historical ranges; there exists a to reduce significant risk outside the health of trees but other parts of the high risk of losing key ecosystem CPZs. Responsible officials can consider ecosystem. components from fire; fire frequencies information from CWPPs as in many Response: The final rule has been have departed from historical instances they may be a useful tool for designed to address vital forest health frequencies by multiple return intervals, determining whether a significant risk needs. The final rule removes the resulting in dramatic changes to: (1) The situation exists. proposed criteria that a road could be size, frequency, intensity, or severity of Comment: Vegetation treatments in constructed ‘‘to facilitate forest health fires; and (2) landscape patterns; and the BCR theme. One respondent activities.’’ The final rule does not vegetation attributes have been suggested that documentation should be include a definition for forest health significantly altered from the historical required for maintenance or because the term is not used. The BCR range of the attributes. The final rule’s improvement of habitat for threatened, theme in the final rule does not permit definition of an at-risk community endangered, proposed, indicator, and road building for the purpose of comes from the HFRA. sensitive species. Another respondent conducting limited forest health Comment: Use of community wildfire recommended inclusion of aspen as a activities. However, these limited forest protection plans (CWPPs). Several type of restoration project. One health activities may proceed using respondents raised concerns over the respondent felt that the rule should be other means, including the use of aerial legality of using CWPPs in the rule to more flexible in the BCR theme to allow systems and existing roads, including define the WUI because the for management treatments outside of those temporary roads authorized by development of a CWPP is not solely in WUI and municipal watersheds. this rule until the road is the control of the Federal Government. Another respondent questioned if decommissioned. This adjustment is Some felt the Proposed Rule’s references timber cutting activities in the BCR intended to add a small degree of to HFRA may unintentionally broaden theme would maintain all roadless flexibility under special circumstances forest fuels treatments in roadless areas characteristics or improve one or more while maintaining essentially the same beyond limited community protection of the roadless characteristics. management regime for these lands as Response: Agency planning needs. Others suggested adding directed under the 2001 rule. The final procedures (i.e., NFMA, NEPA, ESA) language to cover any updates to the rule does not impose restrictions on already require analysis, documentation HFRA Interim Field Guide. They also forest health activities for the betterment and disclosure of the scientific and noted the field guidance is not limited of the ecosystem beyond those expressly to community protection and includes other information relied upon for addressed by the regulation. For municipal watersheds, ecosystem agency conclusions regarding wildlife example, stream habitat improvements components, and forest/rangeland habitat. Therefore, additional like willow planting for shade resources. requirements are not necessary. Response: CWPPs were not Treatments in aspen stands are allowed improvement are unaffected by the rule. specifically referenced in the proposed as long as they conform to the Proposed Section 294.26 Other rule. However, consideration of CWPPs requirements of the rule. For a Activities in Idaho Roadless Areas was implied in provisions regarding discussion of activities outside of WUI, timber cutting and road construction to see the discussions above under Summary of Changes in Proposed reduce significant risk. The CWPPS significant risk and under Summary of Section 294.26 (Final Rule Section were considered when developing the Changes in Proposed Section 294.25 294.26). The rule language concerning final rule as a way to define a (Final Rule Section 294.24). As a motorized travel, motorized equipment, geographic area for projects that reduce clarification, the final rule limits timber and mechanical transport has been significant risks to communities and cutting in the BCR theme to situations simplified with no change in intent. municipal water supply systems. that (1) maintain or improve one or Along with other minor wording However, this concept was not more of the roadless characteristics over changes, the grazing provision now uses considered in detail because it is too the long-term; (2) maximize the permit rather than allotment. The difficult to define. Each CWPP is retention of large trees as appropriate for proposed and final rules both indicate developed based on a variety of the forest type to the extent the trees that future grazing operations will information, some more scientific than promote fire-resilient stands; (3) are conform to the rule, but that current others; and a set distance may not work consistent with LMP components other operations are not affected. Standard in many cases. While CWPPs can than those inconsistent with this final Forest Service grazing permits have a provide helpful information, they are rule; and (4) are approved by the maximum ten-year term. Allotment not developed and controlled solely by regional forester. management planning occurs the Federal Government, and can vary Comment: Forest health activities. periodically and has no set term. The widely. In some instances, the county’s Some respondents were concerned over Department’s intention for bringing CWPP indicates the entire county is a the possible abuse of this exception and future grazing operations into WUI including all IRAs within the thought the language should be struck conformance with the rule county. Therefore, the Department from the rule. One respondent thought classifications is more readily decided that reliance exclusively on the two exceptions in proposed section accomplished through the mandatory CWPPs was not appropriate. After 294.25(c)(1) should stand on their own term permit system than through the consideration of public comments and and the reference to forest health should optional allotment management the RACNAC’s recommendation for be removed. Others felt that a definition planning system as not all operations allowing road building in certain was needed for the term forest health are covered by an existing allotment circumstance described above, the and that further parameters should be management plan. Department has decided to use a included. Another respondent thought Comment: Public involvement during combination of specific geographic forest health projects should not be transportation planning. A respondent criteria (the CPZs) and added allowed in the BCR theme, making the suggested the rule should require that requirements for the situations when proposed rule more like the 2001 any present or future roads analysis road construction and reconstruction roadless rule. One respondent felt forest conducted in an Idaho roadless area

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 294.27 and 294.28). Several adjustments provide management direction to reduce commissioners. were made to the scope and or minimize adverse effects to Response: The Governor’s petition applicability provisions set out in the threatened and endangered species. and final rule at section 294.26(a) proposed section 294.27. First, a new This direction is not inconsistent with identify that decisions concerning the paragraph 294.28(a) was added to the final rule. Therefore, these future management and/or status of respond to requests that the rule clarify conditions would still apply to actions existing roads or trails in IRAs under the relationship of this subpart to the permissible under the final rule and if this rule will be made during the 2001 roadless rule. Paragraph (a) of the the project cannot comply with the plan applicable travel management final rule is intended to make clear that requirements, the proposed project processes. Forest Service responsible this rule supersedes the 2001 roadless would have to be modified, abandoned, officials are already directed to rule. Therefore the 2001 roadless rule or the specific LMP component coordinate with counties when engaged shall have no effect within the State of amended. There are some IRAs where in travel management decisionmaking Idaho regardless of the legal the management theme direction regarding designation or revision of NFS uncertainties of the 2001 roadless rule established in the final rule would be roads, trails, and areas on NFS land as because of pending litigation as noted more permissive than existing LMPs, for directed in 36 CFR 212.53. No above. The Department has reexamined example allowing the use of a temporary additional regulatory direction is management direction for these lands road for fuels treatment within a CPZ needed. under various regimes, considering while the existing LMP does not allow Comment: Ski areas. A respondent national and local interests, and for roads in the area. In these few suggested ski areas should be taken out determined that the final rule represents instances, the rule would override the of roadless area designations, including a balanced solution that best meets the plan’s general allocation and road the Primitive theme. Several needs of the American public for these construction could be permitted. respondents felt ski areas should be lands. A clarification has been added However, any such road building must moved into the Forest Plan Special Area about the relationship of this final rule still be consistent with all LMP (FPSA) designation. Another respondent and LMPs in section 294.28(d). A direction that provides specific criteria requested a re-evaluation of the ski area further clarification of the relationship for designing projects or activities. In permit boundaries in LMPs and the ski between the rule and plans was made by the example above, the road must still area master development plan to adding paragraph 294.28(f) in the final meet requirements found in INFISH, consider the actual ski use boundaries. rule that expressly states that the final PACFISH, southwest Idaho Group Response: The status and theme rule is not intended to overwrite Forest-wide requirements, the Final assignment for all ski areas was further management direction applicable within Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly evaluated based on public comment. FPSAs. Paragraphs 294.28(g) and (h) are Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area, Based on the review, it was determined added to expressly note that nothing in the Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment, that some existing LMP prescriptions the rule waives any applicable or other species-specific direction. did not match the authorized ski area requirements regarding site-specific Comment: Administrative corrections permit boundary. In the proposed rule, environmental analysis, public and modifications. Several respondents not all the developed winter recreation involvement, consultation with Tribes felt that more clarity was needed on the sites had been placed into the FPSA and other agencies, or compliance with procedures for boundary changes to the category. In the final rule, all developed applicable laws; nor modifies the IRA maps identified in proposed section winter recreation sites, based on their relationship between the United States 294.21. Others requested further permit boundaries are placed into and Indian Tribes. Finally, the clarification regarding the proposed FPSA. These areas would be managed corrections and modifications process significance determination for according to the applicable LMP. has been simplified to improve modifications. Several respondents For example, the potential for future readability and placed in a separate recommended public involvement no expansion of Brundage Mountain has section (294.27). matter the magnitude of change even if been acknowledged in its master Comment: Role of LMP components the proposed change is perceived by the development plan, including during implementation of the rule. Agency to be non-significant or an approximately 7,000 acres in the Patrick Several respondents raised concerns administrative correction. In addition, Butte Roadless Area. The final rule that the proposed rule was silent on respondents requested a 30-day public identifies these lands as a FPSA and, as meeting LMP standards and guidelines comment period before any change is such, the lands will be managed in or other interagency standards made. One respondent expressed accordance with the local land established to meet resource objectives, concern that the change clause would management plan and standard for example INFISH. allow incremental erosion of IRA administrative and environmental Response: The final rule (section protections. A Tribal respondent felt review processes for evaluation of ski 294.28(d)) makes it clear that applicable that the change clause would result in areas will apply. The final rule is LMP components (desired conditions, the categorical exclusions of public neutral regarding potential expansion, objectives, suitability, guidelines, and input and Tribal government-to- neither assuring nor baring the outcome standards) must be adhered to during government consultation. Other of future decisionmaking. the planning and implementation of a respondents felt that the revision of Classifications for ski areas, or parts of project. For example, in the GFRG boundary lines for the themes and ski areas, where only snowcat skiing is theme, LMP components generally roadless areas should be made simpler. authorized were not adjusted as no rule permit road construction. However, Response: The Department identified related activities are associated with some components set sideboards or the correction and modification process these uses. conditions for road construction (e.g., as an aspect of the proposed rule where roads may not be constructed in riparian public input was most desired. To Proposed Section 294.27 Scope and areas unless certain conditions are met improve readability, the final rule Applicability or may not be constructed in grizzly establishes a separate provision for Summary of Changes in Proposed bear habitat unless certain road corrections and modifications. Although Section 294.27 (Final Rule Sections densities are met). In particular LMPs there was widespread agreement that a

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2 61474 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

modification provision is needed, rule. Other roadless areas increased in with an action taken or planned by respondents sought clarifications size due to lands gained through land another agency, nor raise legal or policy regarding two particular points: the exchanges or a new inventory during a issues. This final rule will not alter the public comment process and the LMP revision found more adjacent lands budgetary impact of entitlements, significance threshold for modifications. qualifying for consideration FSH grants, user fees, or loan programs or the The proposed rule identified that all 1909.12 Land Management Planning, rights and obligations of recipients of changes, except correcting typographic Chapter 70 requirements. Additionally, such programs. However, due to the or mapping errors, would be subject to some minor changes were made to level of interest in roadless area an opportunity for public comment. The correct mapping errors found since the management, this final rule has been extent of public involvement was 2001 roadless rule. designated as significant and is intended to vary depending on whether Comment: Several respondents raised therefore subject to Office of a proposed change was deemed a concerns that the proposed theme Management and Budget (OMB) review significant modification. Some designations for the propose rule did under E.O. 12866. respondents found the proposed rule’s not correctly reflect current LMP A regulatory impact analysis has been approach overly complicated or direction for the area. In addition, some prepared for this final rule. OMB confusing. Several respondents, respondents felt that too many acres are circulars as well as guidance regarding including the RACNAC, urged that an being placed in the GFRG theme. E.O. 12866 indicate that regulatory opportunity for public comment be Response: As previously noted, the impact analysis should include a benefit provided for all changes. Therefore, the GFRG theme was reduced by 203,700 cost analysis and an assessment of Department has simplified the process. acres (from 609,600 to 405,900 acres) in distributional effects. The benefits, The final rule directs the Chief to the final rule as described in FEIS, costs, and distributional effects of four provide notice and comment for all Appendices E and P. The Forest Service alternatives referred to as follows: 2001 changes, including corrections for reviewed current LMP direction for each Roadless Rule (2001 Rule), existing typographic or mapping errors. Further, IRA. Based on public comment and forest plans (Existing Plans), the the significance test has been eliminated Forest Service review, several changes Proposed Rule and the final rule are and the Agency will provide a 30-day were made to place some additional analyzed over a 15-year time period comment period for corrections and a areas into the forest plan special area from 2008 to 2022. For the purpose of minimum 45-day comment period for (FPSA) category as this category better regulatory impact analysis, the 2001 all other modifications. Adjustments reflects the management intent of the Rule is assumed to be the no action will comply with applicable rule for these areas. They include small alternative to represent baseline administrative and environmental developed or designated dispersed sites analysis requirements. conditions or goods and services on the Caribou-Targhee, Payette, and provided by national forests and Proposed Section 294.28 List of Sawtooth NFs, and the ski areas of grasslands in the near future in the Designated Idaho Roadless Areas Brundage Mountain discussed above. A absence of the final rule. The baseline change was also made to remove assumption is consistent with no action Summary of Changes in Proposed potential wild and scenic river corridors Section 294.28 (Final Rule Section alternative used in the final from the FPSA in the Idaho Panhandle 294.29). The final rule designations environmental impact statement for the NFs. Similarly, a change was made on reflect adjustments to area boundaries final rule. The IMPLAN modeling the Challis NF where Management and assigned classifications for specific framework is used to estimate the Areas 11 and 12 had been placed into IRAs based upon further review by economic impacts of the regulatory the Primitive theme based on the Forest Service field units, the State, and action. interpretation of LMP direction. in response to public comment since However, after further review by the Summary of the Results of Impact publication of the 2001 roadless rule. Challis NF of the road construction or Analysis The FEIS Appendix A lists each reconstruction activities that have adjustment and identifies the reason the The regulatory impact analysis change was made. These roadless areas occurred in these management areas, it examines four alternatives establishing are based on the most current inventory, was determined that the appropriate regulatory direction for the management found either in existing forest plans, theme for these two areas is the BCR of the 9.3 million acres of Idaho proposed forest plans, or the 2001 theme. More information on these Roadless Areas (IRAs): roadless rule. In most cases, the changes can be found in Appendix E of the FEIS. (1) Direction based on the 2001 boundaries from the three sources are Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 the same. Regulatory Certifications Rule); Most of the Idaho’s 2001 roadless rule (2) Direction based on existing land roadless area boundaries were based on Regulatory Planning and Review management plans for national forests forest plan inventories completed in the This final rule was reviewed under in Idaho (Existing Plans); mid-1980s. Most of these inventories USDA procedures, Executive Order were not updated for the 2001 roadless (E.O.) 12866 issued September 30, 1993, (3) Direction based on the proposed rule to reflect activities that had as amended by E.O. 13258 and E.O. rule (Proposed Rule). occurred in the 1990s. During LMP 13422 on Regulatory Planning and (4) Direction based on this final rule revisions since the 2001 roadless rule, Review and the major rule provisions of (Final Rule). national forests in Idaho updated their the Small Business Regulatory The purpose of the Final (and inventories. Some roadless areas have Enforcement and Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. Proposed) Rule is to provide State- decreased in size from the inventories 800). This final rule is not an specific direction for the conservation used by the 2001 roadless rule due to economically significant rule. This final and management of Idaho’s inventoried road construction and timber sales that rule will not have an annual effect of roadless areas. The Final Rule integrates occurred between the mid-1980 $100 million or more or adversely affect local management concerns with the inventory and prior to the the economy or economic sectors. This national objectives for protecting implementation of the 2001 roadless final rule is not expected to interfere roadless area values and characteristics.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61475

The 2001 Rule Department section in this preamble road construction and reconstruction). The 2001 Rule is the baseline and FEIS Chapter 2 (http:// Distributional effects are also discussed roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/ in relation to revenue sharing, small alternative. The 2001 Rule alternative _ _ _ presents a roadless area management idaho roadless/feis/feis vol 1.pdf). entities, and to the resource dependent regime based on prohibitions with The final rule establishes five communities (counties) most likely to exceptions. This alternative prohibits management themes to clarify direction be affected by the rule. Table 3 road construction and reconstruction in in IRAs in contrast to the single summarizes distributional effects and roadless areas with exceptions. Timber management strategy assigned to all economic impacts of the final rule and cutting, sale, or removal, is prohibited IRAs under the 2001 Rule alternative. alternatives. The precision of these with exceptions. Unless an exemption The five themes are Wild Land estimates are unknown since a formal applied, road construction would not be Recreation (WLR), Primitive, Special analysis of uncertainty has not been allowed for discretionary (leasable and Areas of Heritage and Tribal undertaken. Discussion of estimated saleable) mineral activities. Significance (SAHTS), Backcountry/ economic impacts therefore focuses on Restoration (BCR), and General Forest, the direction of change and the relative Existing Plans Rangeland, and Grassland (GFRG). In differences in impacts across The Existing Plans alternative general, these themes vary according to alternatives, not absolute values of represents an Idaho Roadless Area the degree to which road construction, impacts. management regime based on each timber cutting, and discretionary Details about the environmental forest’s land management plan (LMP). minerals activity are prohibited in IRAs, effects of the rule are in the Roadless Generally, LMPs would allow timber with the WLR theme being the most Area Conservation; National Forest cutting and road construction or restrictive and the GFRG theme being System Lands in Idaho Final reconstruction on 1.26 million acres of the least restrictive. Management Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). the 9.3 million acres of IRAs. Road direction under the 2001 Rule In general, projected activity levels construction and timber cutting would alternative is most similar to the BCR associated with future road construction be allowed on an additional 4.48 theme under the final rule. The final and timber cutting are anticipated to be million acres over the baseline. rule does not prescribe site-specific greater for the final rule, relative to the Permissions for mineral activity vary by activities on the ground nor does it 2001 Rule alternative baseline each National Forest land management irreversibly commit resources. Direct conditions. For example, the final rule plan from limited to full development. effects of site-specific activities would projects an increase in road construction be disclosed through NEPA project-level by 18 miles over the next 15 years. Proposed Rule analysis when site-specific decisions are Reasonably foreseeable levels of The proposed Idaho Roadless Area made. Table 1 compares roadless acres activities such as road construction can Conservation Rule is programmatic in by theme, across alternatives. be projected, but the effects of permitted nature and consists of five management Because the rule does not prescribe activities on resource conditions or themes. The themes provide a site-specific activities, it is difficult to roadless characteristics are more management spectrum intended to meet quantify the benefits and costs of the difficult to predict. As a consequence, the purpose of the rule. Depending on alternatives. It should also be the agency is often limited to describing the theme, road construction or emphasized that the types of benefits the extent to which particular resource reconstruction, timber cutting, and derived from roadless characteristics conditions (e.g., highly sensitive soils) discretionary mineral activities are and the uses of roadless areas are far overlap with roadless areas where allowed or prohibited with or without ranging and include a number of non- opportunities for activities (e.g., road exceptions. market and non-use benefit categories. construction) exist under the different Consequently, benefits and costs are not alternatives. The actual extent of Final Rule monetized, nor are net present values or resource effects would be significantly The Final Rule refines and clarifies benefit cost ratios estimated. Instead, smaller than the area of overlap because parts of the Proposed Rule based on increases and/or losses in benefits are reasonably foreseeable activities are comments received on the Proposed discussed separately for each resource projected to occur on very small Rule from the public, Tribes, the State area in a quantitative or qualitative way. fractions of the total area where of Idaho, and recommendations from Benefits and costs are organized and activities are permitted under the the RACNAC. The major modifications discussed in the context of local alternatives. In addition, other between the Proposed Rule and Final resource concerns and roadless requirements to minimize or reduce Rule include: characteristics to remain consistent with adverse effects, such as management • The amount and type of roadless overall purpose of the rule, recognizing direction found in land management areas placed in the various themes. that benefits associated ‘‘with local plans would apply. • Clarifications on the permissions concerns may trigger indirect benefits in Local Resource Concerns and restrictions associated with road roadless characteristics in some cases construction and reconstruction and (such as, forest health).’’ Table 2 Local resource concerns include timber cutting, sale, or removal with summarizes the potential benefits and protecting communities, property, and fuel treatments in areas associated with costs of the final rule, the 2001 Rule, the resources from risk of wildland fire, as at-risk communities and municipal Proposed Rule, and Existing Plans well as protecting forests from the water supplies. alternatives. adverse effects of wildfire, insects and • Restrictions on road construction in Distributional effects or economic disease, and ensuring access (see Table association with leasable minerals other impacts, in terms of jobs and labor 2). than phosphate. income, are quantified for Idaho’s five Projected levels of timber cutting for • The public comment requirements economic areas (EAs) using regional reducing hazardous fuels and/or to make changes in the future. impact models (IMPLAN). Economic reducing the risks from insects and For more information on the impacts are evaluated only for changes disease in roadless areas over 15 years, alternatives, see discussion under in activities directly affected by the rule are greatest under Existing Plans Alternatives Considered by the (timber cutting, minerals extraction, and alternative (40,500 acres) followed by

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 Existing Plans alternative provides Proposed Rule and Existing Plans acres), the final rule (15,000 acres), and flexible opportunities to treat high risk alternatives respectively. the 2001 Rule alternative (9,000 acres). acres through timber cutting on lands There is some potential for spreading Projected timber cutting is estimated to assigned to BCR and GFRG themes of noxious weeds under the Existing generate approximately 3.0 million without constraints associated with Plans alternative, with decreasing board feet (MMBF) per year for the 2001 roadless characteristic retention potential under the Proposed and final Rule alternative, 13.36 MMBF per year requirements under the Proposed and rules due to projected amounts of road for Existing Plans alternative, 5.8 MMBF final rules. construction or reconstruction, timber per year for the Proposed Rule Approximately 731,000 acres (8 cutting, and mineral activity. However, alternative, and 5.0 MMBF per year for percent) of IRAs are in the Wildland the limited extent of projected activities the final rule and would account for 2 Urban Interface (WUI), and about would minimize the potential for percent, 11 percent, 5 percent, and 4 418,900 acres (57 percent) of those acres spreading noxious weeds. percent respectively of the average are in high priority fire risk areas as The environmental consequences annual harvests from NFS land in Idaho. defined by fire regime and condition associated with climate change have A majority of the volume under the final class. Projected harvests for hazardous been considered in the context of carbon rule is projected for the Idaho fuel reductions could treat the dioxide releases associated with Panhandle National Forest (NF) in the equivalent of approximately 4 percent of projected activity levels and the varying northern EA. high priority areas in the WUI under the capability to respond to climate change Approximately 1.44 million acres in Proposed and final rules over a 15 year under the alternatives. Details about Idaho Roadless Areas (IRAs) are period. In contrast, approximately 10 these consequences are provided in the estimated to be at risk of 25 percent or percent of high priority WUI areas could vegetation and forest health section of more tree mortality (i.e., high risk) over be treated under Existing Plans chapter 3 in the final environmental the next 15 years. Under the 2001 Rule alternative. An insignificant amount of impact statement (FEIS) for the final alternative, a majority of the high-risk high priority WUI acreage would be rule. Phosphate mining activity on existing areas would remain untreated. Under treated under the 2001 Rule alternative. leases will be similar across the the final rule, opportunities for As noted above, the final rule is more treatment increase as a result of acreage alternatives over the next 15 years. prescriptive about where road However, 13,190 acres of unleased IRAs assigned to the GFRG and BCR themes. construction is permitted in association Approximately 39,600 of the 1.44 with known phosphate reserves (593 with treatments compared to the million tons) will be made available for million acres at risk are in the GFRG Proposed Rule alternative, thereby under the final rule. An estimated future leasing or lease expansion under clarifying the intent to focus projected the Proposed Rule alternative that 877,000 at-risk acres are in the BCR treatments and tree-cutting in areas at theme, of which 56,600 acres are in would not be accessible under the 2001 high risk of wildland fire, including the community protection zones (CPZs). Rule alternative. Areas of unleased WUI. The final rule specifies that road reserves accessible under the final rule construction under the BCR theme is Opportunities to use a full range of decrease to 5,770 acres (260 million primarily limited to areas in CPZs (or treatment methods to address severe tons) due to additional road areas determined to be at significant wildland fire risk, particularly in the construction prohibitions. risk) with the intent of focusing WUI, are substantially greater under the Opportunities to recover phosphate treatment opportunities in those areas Proposed and final rules relative to the from unleased areas are negligible under where reductions in wildfire to at-risk 2001 Rule alternative. Treatment the 2001 Rule alternative. Unleased communities and/or community water flexibility expands only slightly under areas with known phosphate reserves supplies can be obtained. The areas at the Proposed and final rules compared accessible under the Existing Plans high risk of tree mortality that are to the Existing Plans alternative. alternative are estimated to be 13,620 located in the GFRG theme (39,600 Approximately 66 percent of WUI acres (613 million tons). Development of acres) or in CPZs under the BCR theme acreage in IRAs is assigned to these areas is expected to occur over an (56,600 acres) therefore have the most management themes that permit flexible extended period of time (50+ years). potential to be treated under the final treatment methods (mechanical or There are negligible opportunities for rule. prescribed fire) with road construction geothermal development under the 2001 Compared to the final rule, the under the final rule, compared to 67 Rule alternative as well as the final rule Proposed Rule alternative decreases the percent under the Proposed Rule due to road construction prohibitions. amount of high risk acreage assigned to alternative, and 65 percent under the Geothermal opportunities increase the GFRG theme to 25,600 acres and Existing Plans alternative. under the Proposed Rule alternative increases high risk acreage assigned to Under the final rule, approximately where a total of 382,400 acres of land the BCR theme to 939,400 acres. The 16 percent of community public water suitable for leasing (less than 40 areas identified in the GFRG theme system acreage that overlaps roadless percent) are assigned to the GFRG would have the most potential to be areas is assigned to themes that permit theme, though roadless acres (7,033 treated given treatment flexibility. flexible treatments with road acres) under current lease applications Timber cutting in the BCR theme would construction. Flexible treatments with would not be accessible using road be limited and would be done to retain road construction are conditionally construction. Under the Existing Plans roadless characteristics. In contrast to permitted on an additional 42 percent of alternative, opportunities increase to the final rule, the Proposed Rule community public water systems include a total of 3,091,900 acres under alternative does not specify that road acreage under the final rule when the BCR and GFRG themes. Roadless construction is limited to CPZs or areas significant risk conditions are met; these areas under current lease applications at significant risk under the BCR theme. areas are located primarily outside of would be accessible under the Existing Under the Existing Plans alternative, the CPZs. In contrast, flexible treatments Plans alternative. All future phosphate high risk acreage assigned to the GFRG with road construction are permitted on and geothermal lease proposals are theme increases to 187,500 acres while 58 percent and 47 percent of community subject to NEPA review. There are 755,800 acres are assigned to BCR. The public water systems areas under the currently no existing geothermal leases

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 System, but the changes in activities Approximately 257,700 acres were information is not available to project permitted in IRAs under the final rule reassigned from the GFRG theme to the reasonably foreseeable geothermal have the potential to affect visitor BCR theme under the final rule to activity in roadless areas. experience in adjacent wilderness and provide greater protection of big game The final rule is not expected to have the degree to which IRAs are considered habitat compared to the Proposed Rule a significant impact on other local for future wilderness designation. The alternative. resource issues or concerns including final rule and Proposed Rule Opportunities for developed livestock grazing, saleable minerals, alternatives significantly reduce GFRG recreation are limited under the other leasable minerals (oil, gas, and theme acreage located adjacent to Proposed and final rule alternatives but coal), locatable minerals, energy existing wilderness (9,400 GFRG acres) increase to some extent under the corridors, or wind or biomass energy. compared to the Existing Plans Existing Plans alternative, though reasonably foreseeable development is Roadless Characteristics alternative (158,300 GFRG acres adjacent to wilderness); thereby limiting minimal (there are no foreseeable Roadless characteristics include: high the potential for impacts on wilderness developments planned). Opportunities quality soil, water (including drinking experience in adjacent areas. There for maintaining dispersed recreation water), air; plant and animal diversity; would be little or no impact on opportunities are high under the 2001 habitat for sensitive species; reference wilderness experience under the 2001 Rule alternative with little potential for landscapes and high scenic quality; Rule alternative. increases in developed recreation primitive and semi-primitive recreation; opportunities. The potential for shifts in Approximately 1,320,500 acres are cultural resources; and other locally recreational opportunity spectrum recommended for wilderness under the identified unique characteristics (see classes is slight across the alternatives Existing Plans alternative. There is no Table 2). Shifts in the number of acres due to relatively limited activity level change or effect on recommended assigned to more permissive projections and the focus on temporary wilderness expected under the 2001 management themes can increase the roads that are not accessible for Rule alternative. Under the final rule, potential for adverse effects to roadless recreation. Concerns about access and parts of three of the recommended characteristics. However, reasonably designations for motorized versus non- wilderness areas would be managed foreseeable effects in the next 15 years motorized recreation were raised in under less protective themes (Primitive, are likely to be limited by the levels of comments during scoping; however, the road construction or reconstruction, BCR); however, eight areas would final rule does not provide direction on timber harvest, and leasable minerals benefit from a net increase in protection where and when off-highway vehicle activity that are projected to be under theme assignments under the (OHV) use would be permissible and reasonably foreseeable during that time. final rule. Overall, a total of 1,479,700 makes clear that travel planning-related Based on activity prohibitions and the acres would be managed under the WLR actions should be addressed through relative acreage assigned to different theme under the final rule, implying travel management planning and management themes (e.g., GFRG), the 159,200 acres of additional protection of individual forest plans. final rule creates greater potential for wilderness-type characteristics. The Existing special use permits for reductions in scenic integrity compared Proposed Rule alternative also offers outfitters and guides would be to the 2001 Rule alternative but lower additional overall protection (1,378,000 unaffected by the final rule. The potential relative to the Proposed Rule acres assigned to the WLR theme) but to potential for adverse effects to outfitter and Existing Plans alternatives. Based a lesser extent compared to the final and guide opportunities are expected to on projected levels of timber harvest rule. Parts of three recommended be limited because the projected extent over the next 15 years, reasonably wilderness areas would be assigned to of activities or development would be foreseeable reductions in scenic less protective themes with seven areas relatively small and localized in any integrity from high to moderate levels benefiting from a net increase in outfitter’s area of operation. Likewise, are expected to occur on 15,000 acres protection under the Proposed Rule existing permits for ski areas would not under the final rule compared to 40,500 alternative. No measurable differences be affected by the final rule. There are acres under the Existing Plans in dispersed recreation opportunities no foreseeable ski area expansions or alternative and 18,000 acres under the are expected across alternatives. Losses developments into roadless areas over Proposed Rule alternative. Reasonably in dispersed recreation associated with the next 15 years for which an EIS does foreseeable reductions in scenic development of existing phosphate not already exist. Future ski area integrity from high to low levels from leases are equal for all alternatives over expansion into roadless areas with road long-term development (50+ years) of the next 15 years. Development of future construction would not be permitted the Caribou-Targhee NF’s unleased leases may affect dispersed recreation under the 2001 Rule alternative. Under phosphate reserves are also lower under associated with 13,620 and 13,190 acres the Existing Plans alternative, ski area the final rule (5,770 acres) compared to under the Existing Plans and the expansion or development could occur the Proposed Rule alternative (13,190 Proposed Rule alternatives respectively. as permitted by the forest plan. Under acres) and the Existing Plans alternative Potential impacts decrease to 5,770 the Proposed and final rules, existing (13,620 acres). Development within a acres under the final rule. Perceptions of ski areas with development and any half-mile buffer around long-term future remoteness and solitude may be affected additional development authorized in phosphate activity could affect in dispersed recreation areas where their master development plans are in additional acres (e.g., estimated 812 timber cutting and road construction the forest plan special area theme and acres under the final rule). Reductions occur under all alternatives, but effects the applicable land management plan in scenic integrity associated with are constrained by projected levels of direction would apply. development of existing phosphate these activities. No adverse effects to The overall effects of the 2001 Rule leases are similar across the other three hunting and fishing are expected under alternative on endangered, threatened, alternatives. the final rule with the exception of candidate, or sensitive species are The final rule does not directly affect potential effects to opportunities in expected to be beneficial, as are the wilderness designations in the context areas associated with development effects derived from assigning roadless of the National Wilderness Preservation linked to phosphate leases. areas to the WLR, Primitive, and SAHTS

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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. bodies; however, mine development or cutting, though changes in harvest are There is some potential for adverse expansion would be required to use a relatively small and may not result in effects from activities permitted under variety of environmental commitments significant changes to aggregate volumes the BCR and GFRG themes, with relative and best management practices (BMPs) from all NFS lands. Net revenue may risks being highest under the Existing to reduce the potential for exceeding decrease under the Proposed and final Plans alternative and lowest under the environmental standards for selenium. rules relative to the Existing Plans final rule. Eleven threatened or The EIS for the Smoky Canyon mine alternative. candidate plant and 339 to 345 sensitive expansion predicts that water quality Vegetation treatments for forest health plant populations are known to occur in criteria will not be exceeded. Operators or fuel reductions can be challenging in the BCR and GFRG themes under the would also be required to monitor for roadless areas because of the potential Proposed Rule and Existing Plans selenium impacts and migration. costs of accessing sites and alternatives. These populations decrease The final rule is expected to have implementing treatment practices in to six and 51 in the GFRG theme and in negligible adverse effects on other areas that are remote or otherwise the CPZ areas within the BCR theme resources associated with roadless dominated by roadless characteristics. under the final rule. In general, characteristics including cultural Current trends in silvicultural practices foreseeable effects to sensitive resources, air quality, and non-timber often require thinning and other populations and biodiversity are products based on reasonably treatments with greater frequency, thus constrained by projected activity levels. foreseeable activity projections. Any needing road access more often. No measurable changes in populations adverse impacts to these resources and Thinning to remove excessive forest are expected across the alternatives; services would be addressed through fuels, before using prescribed fire, or to however, activities may impact analysis conduced in accordance with treat diseased or insect-infested stands individuals. NEPA and minimized through is often economically feasible only if a Road building associated with timber compliance with forest plan standards road system is present. Allowing road cutting will have a negligible effect on and guidelines. construction for harvesting timber in the high hazard soils under all alternatives. GFRG theme and to a limited degree in Agency Costs and Revenues Acres of high sensitivity soils assigned the BCR theme under the Proposed and to themes where road construction is Under all alternatives, road final rules reduces the cost of using permitted decreases from approximately construction or reconstruction likely treatment methods that may contribute 2 million acres under the Existing Plans would not see an increase in the to forest health objectives. Fuel and Proposed Rule alternatives to foreseeable future (next 15 years) treatments are likely to be more 253,500 acres under the final rule. Land because the appropriated road budget is expensive and less efficient to management plan direction that expected to be flat or declining. implement under the 2001 Rule provides guidance on road construction Reasonably foreseeable changes in alternative because road construction or across sensitive soils would apply agency costs associated with roads are reconstruction is prohibited, and across all alternatives. Road not likely to be significant under the mechanical treatments would generally construction is conditionally Proposed or final rules relative to the occur near the limited number of permissible on 1,786,400 acres of high Existing Plans alternative given the existing roads. sensitivity soils under the final rule. types of roads constructed (e.g., Based on a qualitative comparison of Road construction is not permitted in temporary, single-purpose, and/or built relative treatment cost per acre, areas that overlap with highly sensitive by the user) and relative levels of treatments in the WUI are potentially soils under the 2001 Rule alternative. construction or reconstruction most costly per acre for the 2001 Rule Road building is likely to affect high projected. None of the alternatives alternative, followed by the Existing hazard soils in areas associated with would restrict or limit road Plans alternative, the Proposed Rule existing phosphate leases but effects are maintenance. Given the current backlog alternative and final rule. Relative equivalent across alternatives. Similar of road maintenance, there is no treatment costs per acre in areas with effects associated with future leases are emphasis on constructing new roads community public water systems ranked possible but not likely to occur within that need to be maintained. New roads highest for the 2001 Rule alternative, the next 15 years under the Proposed under the Proposed and final rules must followed by the Existing Plans and Rule and Existing Plans alternatives be temporary unless certain exceptions Proposed Rule alternatives. Relative (future leases are not feasible under the are met. Many roads under the Existing costs under the final rule are expected 2001 Rule alternative). Plans alternative are expected to be to be similar to the Proposed Rule if all Road construction and timber cutting single-purpose, closed between uses, community public water systems are under the 2001 Rule alternative, the and/or temporary. As a result, road treated using a significant risk Proposed Rule alternative, and the final maintenance costs are not expected to determination, thereby allowing greater rule are expected to have negligible be significantly different across treatment flexibility. Otherwise, final effects on the water quality of 303(d)- alternatives. rule treatment costs are likely to fall listed (i.e., impaired water quality) Timber sales are often used as a least- between the 2001 Rule alternative and streams and drinking water. Unleased cost method (revenue is returned to the the Existing Plans alternative. known phosphate areas with potential Federal treasury to offset the costs of for development over a period of 50 or preparing and carrying out the timber Distributional Effects more years under the Existing Plans harvest) of managing vegetation to meet Distributional effects, as represented alternative, the Proposed Rule resource objectives or to achieve desired by changes in employment and income alternative, and the final rule are ecosystem conditions. Net revenues contributed under the final rule, are a estimated to overlap with three 303(d)- associated with reasonably foreseeable function of projected levels of road listed streams, one of which is impaired volumes may increase under the construction, timber cutting, and by selenium, and 640 acres of Proposed and final rules relative to the discretionary minerals activity in community water supplies 2001 Rule alternative, primarily for the roadless areas under the different (groundwater). Development of these Idaho Panhandle NF and the northern alternatives. Employment and income areas could affect the listed water EA based on projected levels of timber impacts (Table 3) are quantified for

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61479

reasonably foreseeable levels of southeastern EA, suggesting that to the 2001 Rule alternative. When activities over the next 15 years. distributional effects are relatively small comparing the opportunities under the Phosphate mining on existing leases or insignificant under the final rule. final rule to those of the Existing Plans is estimated to contribute the greatest Employment and income are estimated alternative, nine counties are identified number of jobs and income, but jobs to decrease by 53 jobs and $1.49 million for the northern EA, while five such from this sector are not projected to per year under the final rule compared counties are located in the central EA, differ by alternative. Timber cutting is to conditions expected under the one of which is located in the State of primarily responsible for differences in Existing Plans alternative. Impacts Washington. One additional county is jobs and income across alternatives. relative to the Existing Plans alternative located in the southeastern EA. Under baseline or no-action conditions, are likely to occur within the northern, as represented by the 2001 Rule southeastern, and central (Clearwater Payments to counties are expected to alternative, timber harvest and road NF) EAs but are again expected to be remain the same under all alternatives construction are estimated to contribute relatively small compared to current as long as the Secure Rural Schools and 19 jobs per year. Projected harvest and employment levels in these economic Community Self-Determination Act accompanying road construction under areas. Employment and income (SRSA) remains in effect. Mineral-based the final rule is estimated to contribute decreases by only 5 jobs and $134,500 payments to states are a function of an additional 15 jobs and $371,900 in per year under the final rule relative to receipts from leasable minerals, labor income per year, relative to the Proposed Rule alternative. including receipts from phosphate baseline conditions. These contributions Timber-dependent counties where operations, but no differences in are expected to occur in the northern changes in harvest opportunities and phosphate production are projected (Idaho Panhandle NF) and southeastern corresponding jobs and income may across alternatives. Opportunities for (Caribou/Targhee NF) EAs where have the most significant impact on mining-dependent counties (e.g., current employment in agriculture, local economies are identified by EA. Caribou, Oneida, Power, and Bannock) mining, and construction sectors is Timber cutting or harvest opportunities are therefore expected to remain the approximately 41,000 jobs in the increase or remain constant for all same in the reasonably foreseeable northern EA and 32,000 jobs in the counties under the final rule compared 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).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 Opportunities for treatment Opportunities for treatment Opportunities for treatment acres currently at risk of of high-risk forests: of high-risk forests: of high-risk forests: 25 percent mortality or 187,500 acres of high- 25,600 acres in GFRG; 39,600 acres in GFRG; significant growth loss risk forests in GFRG; 939,400 acres in BCR. 877,000 acres in BCR, (i.e., high-risk forests) 755,800 acres in BCR. Opportunities to treat of which 56,600 acres would remain untreated. Projected treatments on GFRG. Opportunity for are in the CPZ. Projected treatments on 40,500 acres likely to be treatment in BCR if done Opportunities to treat 9,000 acres likely to be effective over 15 years. for forest health or to re- GFRG. Opportunity for effective over 15 years. duce hazardous fuels. treatment in BCR if done Projected treatments on in the CPZ or to reduce 18,000 acres likely to be significant risk of effective over 15 years. 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 Spreading is unlikely given Some potential for spread- Some potential for spread- Some potential for spread- for noxious weed spread. limited potential for soil ing based on acreage ing based on acreage ing based on acreage disturbance. assigned to GFRG (1.26 assigned to GFRG assigned to GFRG 42,250 acres of weeds million acres); the limited (609,600 acres); the lim- (405,900 acres); the lim- currently in IRAs. degree of projected road ited degree of projected ited degree of projected construction, timber cut- construction, harvest, construction, harvest, ting, and mineral activity and mineral activity and mineral activity would minimize the po- would minimize the po- would minimize the po- tential for spreading. tential for spreading. tential for spreading. 5,170 acres of weeds 2,750 acres of noxious 3,070 acres of noxious currently in GFRG. weeds currently in weeds currently in GFRG. GFRG.

Fuels Management

Ability to treat Wildland Road construction not per- Treatments (mechanical Treatments (mechanical Treatments (mechanical Urban Interface (WUI) mitted in conjunction and prescribed fire) per- and prescribed fire) per- and prescribed fire) per- and Community Public with treatments on 100 mitted on 89% of the mitted on 89% of the mitted on 87% of the Water System (CPWS) percent of the WUI or WUI and 93% of CPWS. WUI and 92% of CPWS. WUI and 92% of CPWS. areas. CPWS that overlap Treatments with road con- Treatments with road con- Treatments with road con- roadless areas. struction permitted on struction permitted on struction permitted on Treatments more expen- 65% of WUI and 47% of 67% of WUI and 58% of 66% of WUI and 16% of sive; insignificant acre- CPWS. CPWS. CPWS. age treated relative to Projected harvests could Projected harvests could Mechanical treatments acres at risk. Limited ca- treat 10 percent of high- treat 4 percent of high- with road construction pacity to treat high-pri- priority areas (Fire Re- priority areas (Fire Re- are permitted in 42 per- ority Condition class 2 gimes I, II, and III; Con- gimes I, II and III, Condi- cent of the CPWS areas and 3 areas. dition class 2 and 3) tion class 2 and 3) with- only when the significant Projected harvests could within WUIs or 1 percent in WUIs or less than half risk conditions are met. treat 2 percent of high- of high-priority areas a percent of high-priority Projected harvests could priority areas (Fire Re- overall. areas overall. treat 4 percent of high- gimes I, II, and III; Con- May permit timber cutting Directly permits timber cut- priority areas (Fire Re- dition class 2 and 3) to reduce risk of un- ting to reduce risk of un- gimes I, II, and III; Con- within WUIs or less than wanted wildland fires. wanted wildland fires in dition class 2 and 3) half a percent of high- May permit fuel reduction the Primitive, BCR, and within WUIs or less than priority areas overall. to reduce wildland fire GFRG themes. half a percent of high- Does not directly permit risks to municipal water Permits fuel-reduction ac- priority areas overall. timber cutting to reduce supply systems. tivities to reduce Directly permits timber cut- risk of unwanted wildland fire risks to ting to reduce significant wildland fire. CPWSs in the Primitive, risk of unwanted BCR, and GFRG wildland fires in the BCR themes. and generally permitted in GFRG themes. Permits fuel-reduction ac- tivities to reduce wildland fire risks to CPWS in the Primitive, BCR, and GFRG themes.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 No increase ...... Potential for increase ...... No measurable increase ... No measurable increase. human-caused fire starts.

Timber Cutting—Projected

Timber harvest (Acres over 9,000 ...... 40,500 ...... 18,000 ...... 15,000. 15 years). Harvest (MBF/year)1 ...... 3,000 (2% of annual avg.) 13,360 (11% of annual 5,840 (5% of annual avg.) 5,040 (4% of annual avg.). 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 No opportunities on 38% No opportunities on 93% Negligible opportunities for development. of acreage. of acreage. development. Development opportunities Development opportunities on 53% of BCR theme on 63% of GFRG theme (2,354,100 suitable (382,400 suitable acres) and on 58% of acres) 3. GFRG theme (737,800 7,033 under current lease suitable acres) 3. applications would not 7,033 under current lease be accessible. applications accessible.

Phosphate—Reasonably Projected output is equal (2,000,000 tons per year) across all alternatives because (i) none of the alternatives pro- foreseeable output (short hibit road construction and reconstruction associated with existing leases and (ii) existing leases are expected to term within 15 years). meet demand in reasonably foreseeable future. Phosphate—Reasonable 1,100 acres of road construction and mining disturbance proposed in Sage Creek and Meade Peak Roadless foreseeable development Areas; development over next 15 years. in roadless areas. Phosphate—Additional 6,100 acres of remaining unmined phosphate currently under lease in seven roadless areas; development ex- acres under lease in pected to be spread out over 50 or more years. roadless areas.

Phosphate—Long term Opportunities to recover Estimated 613 million tons Estimated 593 million tons Estimated 260 million tons leasing of unleased phosphate from IRAs of phosphate deposits of phosphate deposits of phosphate deposits phosphate deposits (50 are negligible. from 13,620 unleased from 13,190 unleased from 5,770 unleased or more years). acres available for de- acres available for de- acres available for de- velopment. 1⁄2 mile buff- velopment. 1⁄2 mile buff- velopment. 1⁄2 mile buff- er could affect additional er could affect additional er could affect additional 1,910 acres. 1,850 acres. 812 acres. Road construction prohib- Road construction prohib- ited in WLR, SAHTS, ited in WLR, SAHTS, Primitive, BCR theme Primitive, BCR themes, acres. 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 proc- esses will regulate management direction related to grazing (allotments and permitted use). Leasable Minerals: Oil, Differences in activity and revenue associated with oil, gas, and coal development are expected to be minimal gas, and coal. based on existing trends and inventories. Locatable Minerals: Gold, None of the alternatives would affect rights of reasonable access to prospect and explore lands open to mineral silver, lead, etc. entry and develop valid claims under the General Mining Law of 1872. Rights to reasonable access continue. Saleable minerals (sand, Differences in production of saleable minerals are projected to be minimal across alternatives because of the rel- stone, gravel, pumice, ative inefficiencies of providing saleable minerals from IRAs. etc.).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 con- ducted independently. Road Construction allowed Road construction to address CERCLA violations is allowed in all alternatives. for CERCLA violations.

ROADLESS CHARACTERISTICS

Physical Resources—Soils

Acres of highly sensitive 0 ...... 2,049,300 ...... 2,121,300 ...... 253,500 (GFRG and BCR/ soils where road CPZ). construction/ reconstruc- tion is permitted (BCR and GFRG themes). Acres of highly sensitive 0 ...... 0 ...... 0 ...... 1,786,400. soils where road con- struction is conditionally permissible.

Effects from road construc- Land management plan direction that provides guidance on road construction on sensitive soils would apply across tion on high-hazard soils. all alternatives; therefore although road construction could be permitted land management plans may provide de- sign criteria to minimize effects, such as avoidance or mitigation practices. No or negligible effect from road build- ing 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 like- ly under the Existing Plans and the Proposed Rule, but limited risk under the Final and 2001 Rules.

Physical Resources—Water

Effect of road construction, Negligible effect ...... Minimal effect ...... Negligible effect ...... Negligible effect. reconstruction, and tim- ber harvest on listed streams and drinking water. Effect of mining on listed Overlap with unleased Overlap with unleased Overlap with unleased Overlap with unleased streams and drinking phosphate in roadless phosphate in roadless phosphate in roadless phosphate in roadless water. areas: areas: areas: areas: Three 303(d) streams (one Three 303(d) streams (one Three 303(d) streams (one Three 303(d) streams (one in roadless areas due to in roadless areas due to in roadless areas due to in roadless areas due to selenium); selenium); selenium); selenium); 640 acres of community 640 acres of community 640 acres of community 640 acres of community water supplies (ground- water supplies (ground- water supplies (ground- water supplies (ground water); water); water); water); Possible effect on 303(d) Possible effect on 303(d) Possible effect on 303(d) Possible effect on 303(d) streams from sele- streams from sele- streams from sele- streams from sele- nium—mitigation re- nium—mitigation re- nium—mitigation re- nium—mitigation re- quired at time of anal- quired at time of anal- quired at time of anal- quired at time of anal- ysis. ysis. ysis. ysis.

Selenium Mitigation ...... Mine development or expansion would use a variety of environmental commitments and Best Management Prac- tices to reduce the potential for selenium mobilization and migration from the mine site. Operators required to mon- itor impacts on water, soils, vegetation, wildlife, and fisheries. Analysis for preferred alternative for Smoky Canyon predicts that groundwater quality protection standards or surface water quality standards would not be exceeded.

Sensitive Species and Biodiversity

Effects on terrestrial and Projected activities may impact individuals, but no measurable change in populations is expected. Projects and de- aquatic animal species velopment would be subject to NEPA and other regulatory requirements related to monitoring and mitigation for or habitat. sensitive species.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:04 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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, Primi- Beneficial in WLR, Primi- Beneficial in WLR, Primi- tive, or SAHTS; some tive, or SAHTS; limited tive, or SAHTS, BCR potential risk of adverse potential risk of adverse outside CPZ; limited po- effects in management effects for activities oc- tential risk of adverse ef- prescriptions similar to curring in BCR; some fects for activities occur- BCR and GFRG. potential risk in GFRG, ring in BCR CPZ; some but less than Existing potential risk in GFRG, Plans. but less than Existing Plans or the Proposed Rule. Effects on biodiversity of Beneficial ...... Beneficial in WLR, Primi- Beneficial in WLR, Primi- Beneficial in WLR, Primi- botanical species. tive, or SAHTS. Some tive, or SAHTS. Some tive, or SAHTS, BCR potential risk of adverse potential risk of adverse outside CPZ. Some po- effects for activities con- effects for activities con- tential risk of adverse ef- ducted in the GFRG and ducted in the GFRG and fects for activities con- BCR themes. BCR themes, but less ducted in GFRG and than Existing Plans. 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 9,228,000 ...... 9,242,980 ...... 9,234,740 ...... 9,276,230. Very High scenic integ- rity. Acres likely to change to 9,000 ...... 40,500 ...... 18,000 ...... 15,000. High or Moderate scenic integrity from timber cut- ting or road construction or reconstruction.

Acres likely to change from 7,200 acres associated with development of existing phosphate mining leases under all alternatives. High to Low due to de- velopment of existing phosphate leases.

Acres likely to change to 0 ...... 13,620 ...... 13,190 ...... 5,770. Moderate or Low scenic integrity from phosphate mining over long-term (50 or more years).

Recreation

Dispersed Recreation (in- Feeling of solitude or remoteness may change in areas where projected road construction and timber cutting occur cluding Hunting and (see above for projected activity levels, by alternative). Fishing).

No measurable change to No measurable change to No measurable change to No measurable change to dispersed recreation op- dispersed recreation op- dispersed recreation op- dispersed recreation op- portunities. portunities, except if un- portunities, except if un- portunities, except if un- leased phosphate de- leased phosphate de- leased phosphate de- posits (13,620 acres) posits (13,190 acres) posits (5,770 acres) are are developed. are developed. developed.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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— There are no foreseeable developments under any of the alternatives. ability to construct or re- construct roads to ac- cess new or expanded developed recreation areas.

No road construction/re- Road construction/recon- Road construction/recon- Road construction/recon- construction permitted to struction generally per- struction permitted to ac- struction permitted to ac- access new developed mitted to access new cess new developed cess new developed recreation sites (9.3 mil- developed recreation recreation sites manage- recreation sites manage- lion acres). sites in management ment in GFRG (0.6 mil- ment in GFRG (0.4 mil- prescriptions similar to lion acres). lion acres). BCR and GFRG (5.7 million acres).

Recreation Opportunities2 In general, the magnitude of shifts in recreational opportunity spectrum classes is slight across the alternatives be- cause: (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 Greatest opportunity for High level of protection for High level of protection for maintaining existing dis- developed and road- dispersed recreation, dispersed recreation, persed recreation oppor- based recreation to foreseeable threats from foreseeable threats from tunities; little potential for occur and expand, but construction and devel- construction and devel- increasing developed magnitude of shift is opment are remote. opment are remote. recreation. tempered by limited amount of construction projected to occur.

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

Expansion or development Expansion or development Existing ski areas with development and any additional with roads not permitted. as permitted by the for- development authorized in their master development est plan. plans are in FPSA theme and the rule does not apply.

Special uses—Outfitters Existing permits are unaffected. None of the alternatives directly affect the processing or administration of special and Guides. 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 af- Opportunities could be af- Opportunities could be af- fected in locations of fected in locations of fected in locations of phosphate leasing and phosphate leasing and phosphate leasing. No geothermal develop- geothermal develop- effect from geothermal ment. No effect from ment. No effect from development. No effect timber cutting and lim- timber cutting and lim- from timber cutting and ited road construction. ited road construction. limited road construc- tion. Additional protections pro- vided to 257,700 acres moved from GFRG to BCR because of big game habitat.

Wilderness

Existing wilderness areas Limited to no indirect ef- 158,300 acres of GFRG 9,400 acres of GFRG ad- 9,400 acres of GFRG ad- (1,723,300 acres of IRAs fects to wilderness from adjacent to wilderness; jacent to wilderness; jacent to wilderness; adjacent to existing wil- activities in roadless 841,900 acres of BCR. 951,000 acres of BCR. 951,000 acres of BCR. derness). areas. Limited potential for im- Limited potential for im- Limited potential for im- pacts to wilderness ex- pacts on wilderness ex- pacts on wilderness ex- perience. perience. perience.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 Existing Plans recommend No change to rec- No change to rec- recommended wilder- 1,320,500 as wilderness. ommendations in Exist- ommendations in Exist- ness in Existing Plans. ing Plans. ing Plans. 1,378,000 acres in WLR, 1,479,700 acres in WLR, implying 57,500 acres of implying 159,200 acres additional protection of additional protection over existing plans. over Existing Plans. Seven recommended wil- Eight recommended wil- derness areas benefit derness areas benefit from increased protec- from increased protec- tion on a total of 93,100 tion on a total of acres. Net decreases in 172,200 acres. Net de- protection occur in three creases in protection areas (total of 35,600 occur in three areas acres). (total of 13,000 acres).

Roadless area characteris- Majority of roadless areas Areas developed could have reduced roadless area character. Activities in GFRG tics associated with wil- retain their existing char- may not change roadless character if prior activities are still evident. derness. acter.

Based on projections, 99.9 Based on projections, Based on projections, Based on projections, percent unaffected over 99.55% of roadless 99.9% of roadless areas 99.9% of roadless areas the next 15 years. areas unaffected over unaffected over the next unaffected over the next the next 15 years. 15 years. 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 inven- tories 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 mod- erate 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, mainte- nance) 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 re- construction projected, and flat budget expectations.

Timber and Vegetation/ Accessing sites and implementing treatments in remote areas, dominated by roadless characteristics can be costly. Fuel Treatments. 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 signifi- cant changes to aggregate volumes from all forest system lands.

Highest cost per acre and Second highest cost per Lowest cost per acre for Lowest cost per acre for less efficient treatments acre for treatments in treatments in the WUI treatments in the WUI due to road construction the WUI and community and CPWS areas (and (and equal to the Pro- prohibitions. public water system equal to the Final Rule posed Rule). (CPWS) areas. in the WUI). Lowest cost per acre for treatments in CPWS areas if using significant risk determination for CPWS; otherwise, cost per acre is second high- est for CPWS areas. 1 Percentage of average harvest on all NF land within Idaho that occurred between 2002 and 2006. Harvest primarily attributable to steward- ship and treatments for forest health and fuels management. 2 The alternatives do not provide direction on where and when OHV use would be permissible. 3 Suitability based on areas with acceptable slopes for leasing (<40% slope). CPZ = Community Protection Zone CPWS = Community Public Water System GFRG = General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland theme NF = National Forest SAHTS = Special Areas of Historical and Tribal Significance theme WUI = Wildland Urban Interface

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 Eco- Northern EA (Idaho Pan- Northern (Idaho Pan- Northern (Idaho Pan- Northern (Idaho Pan- nomic Areas (EA). handle NF). handle), Southeastern handle), and South- handle), and South- (Caribou/Targhee NF), eastern (Caribou/ eastern (Caribou/ and Central (Clearwater Targhee NF) EAs. Targhee NF) EA. and Nez Perce NF) EAs.

Leasable Minerals: Phosphate

Jobs and labor income per No changes in jobs (582/year) or labor income ($23.5 million) contributed by phosphate on existing leases within year (1). IRAs, due to the fact that none of the alternatives affect existing leases. No new leases in roadless Jobs and income from new leases on unleased phosphate reserves within IRAs in the areas likely to be fea- southeastern EA are expected to occur in the future over an extended period of time sible. (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 Eco- Northern and Southeastern Northern, Southeastern, Northern and Southeastern Northern and Southeastern nomic Areas (EA). EAs. and Central EAs. EAs. EAs.

Revenue Sharing and Resource-Dependent Counties

Resource-dependent coun- Opportunities increase for all timber-dependent counties under the Final or Proposed Rule relative to the 2001 ties where potential op- Rule. Opportunities for mining-dependent counties (e.g., Caribou, Oneida, Power, and Bannock) remain the same portunities decrease. based on reasonably foreseeable phosphate output (over next 15 years) that remains constant across alternatives. Potential opportunities decrease for the following timber-dependent counties under the Final and Proposed Rule relative to Existing Plans (2): Northern EA: Boundary, Bonner, Kootenai, Benewah, Latah, Ferry (WA), Pend Oreille (WA), Shoshone, and Stevens (WA). Central EA: Clearwater, Idaho, Lewis, Nez Perce, and Asotin (WA). Southeastern EA: Bear Lake. Revenue sharing ...... Payments to counties are expected to remain the same under all alternatives as long as the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act remains in effect. Mineral-based payments to states are a function of leasable receipts, but no differences in phosphate production are projected across alternatives over the next 15 years.

Adverse impacts to small Greatest potential given Least potential given few- Limited potential for losses of small entity opportunities. entities. prohibitions in roadless est prohibitions and Opportunity losses are not expected to result in signifi- areas; most protective of theme assignments; cant adverse economic impacts and/or affect substantial sectors that benefit from least protective of sec- numbers of small entities, including recreational special resource conditions as- tors that benefit from re- use permit holders that may benefit from resource con- sociated with roadless source conditions asso- ditions associated with roadless characteristics. areas. ciated with roadless areas. (1) Jobs and income contributed annually (2007$). Based on projected levels of timber harvest, road construction, and phosphate mining out- put per year, conversion of physical output to final demand ($) 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 because the final rule does not subject under the final rule. There is some small entities to regulatory potential for reasonably foreseeable This final rule has also been requirements. Therefore, a regulatory decreases in small entity opportunities considered in light of E.O. 13272 flexibility analysis is not required for to occur for special uses (recreation— regarding proper consideration of small this final rule. outfitters and guides) under the final entities and the Small Business For many activities and/or program rule, relative to the 2001 Rule Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of areas, small entity opportunities under alternative. When comparing the 1996 (SBREFA), which amended the the final rule are projected to increase, impacts to entities associated with wood Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 relative to the 2001 Rule alternative (i.e., products, the number of jobs under the et seq.). The Forest Service with the baseline or no-action alternative) as a final rule are projected to increase assistance of the State of Idaho has result of (1) easing of restrictions on relative to the 2001 Rule, though the determined that this action will not selected activities under the BCR magnitude of this increase is less than have a significant economic impact on management theme under the final rule, corresponding increases projected to a substantial number of small entities as and (2) adopting the less-restrictive occur under existing plans or the defined by the E.O. 13272 and SBREFA, GFRG theme for some roadless acres Proposed Rule. None of these

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 opportunities projected for roadless Given the stated permission for road in significant economic impacts and/or areas under the final rule suggest the construction for geothermal affect a substantial number of small potential for losses in desirable resource development under the Existing Plans entities. conditions and corresponding decreases and Proposed Rule alternatives, and the Jobs and income related to timber in small business opportunities for corresponding prohibition of road harvest are projected to increase under outfitters and guides for the construction for geothermal purposes the final rule relative to the 2001 Rule southeastern EA. However, the under the final rule, there is some for all EAs, in large part, because magnitude of these decreases is potential for decreases in opportunities prohibitions on road construction and expected to be small given minimal for geothermal development under the timber cutting are eased under the overlap between existing permit final rule. However, the absence of GFRG theme and some areas under the locations and the location of projected existing geothermal leases on NFS land BCR theme (e.g., CPZs). In contrast, jobs harvests on IRAs, as well as the in Idaho, combined with evidence that and income decrease under the final relatively small percentage of roadless 11 of 14 pending or authorized rule, relative to the Existing Plans areas projected to be affected by timber geothermal leases on BLM land in Idaho alternative primarily for the northern cutting (less than 0.01% of roadless area are held by a company that cannot be and central EAs, implying potential per year) within the southeastern EA. considered a small business per the decreases in small entity opportunities Economic impacts to small businesses definitions set forth by the Small associated with timber harvest are therefore not expected to be Business Administration, suggests that (opportunities are not expected to significant in this EA. Similar effects in these opportunity losses will not result decrease significantly in other EAs). the northern EA (approximately 0.02% in significant economic impacts nor However, the decrease in jobs associated of roadless areas affected by timber affect a substantial number of small with timber cutting in roadless areas cutting per year) are also not expected businesses in the reasonably foreseeable under the final rule is only 45 jobs to result in significant economic future. relative to the Existing Plans alternative. impacts, nor affect a substantial number Decreases in small entity This number of jobs is relatively small of small businesses (22 of the 320 opportunities under the final rule are (less than 1%) when compared to 4,581 outfitter and guide permits are expected to be minimal or negligible for workers employed by small business associated with the Idaho Panhandle NF other sectors, including construction establishments within the forestry/ in the northern EA). (i.e., roads), saleable minerals, oil and logging/sawmill sectors in Idaho. The Reasonably foreseeable opportunities gas, livestock, non-forest timber decreases in timber harvest projected for small businesses linked to phosphate products, ski areas, and other special under the final rule for these EAs are mining over the next 15 years are uses (energy corridors). representative of volumes from roadless expected to remain the same across all Thirty eight of Idaho’s 44 counties are acres only, and it should be noted that alternatives because projected considered small with population size recent harvests from IRAs, as phosphate output from existing leases is of less than 50,000. Thirty five of these represented by projected harvests under not projected to vary across alternatives. small counties are considered rural and the 2001 Rule alternative have been In the long-term, a greater number of are natural resource-dependent equal to or less than the volumes acres associated with unleased known counties. Opportunities increase for all projected under the final rule. As a phosphate reserves would be made timber-dependent counties under the consequence, reasonably foreseeable accessible under the final rule, relative final rule or Proposed Rule alternative opportunities for timber harvest from to the 2001 Rule, implying greater relative to the 2001 Rule alternative. roadless areas under the final rule are opportunities for small businesses. Opportunities for mining-dependent projected to be equal to or larger than Unleased phosphate acreage accessible counties (e.g., Caribou, Oneida, Power, timber volumes harvested from IRAs in under the Existing Plans alternative and Bannock) remain the same based on recent years or volumes projected under (13,620 acres) and the Proposed Rule reasonably foreseeable phosphate the 2001 Rule alternative. Timber sales alternative (13,190 acres) is greater than output (over the next 15 years) that to small businesses are currently corresponding acreage under the final remains constant across alternatives. exceeding established small business rule (5,770 acres), but the impacts of When comparing the final rule or the shares in all forest units within the these differences are expected to occur Proposed Rule alternative relative to the northern and central EAs, with the over a period of 50 years or more. It is Existing Plans alternative, potential exception of the Kanisku portion of the also noted that none of the companies opportunities may be decreased for the Idaho Panhandle NF. This suggests that currently operating phosphate mines in following timber-dependent counties: economic impacts to small businesses in Idaho can be classified as small Northern EA: Boundary, Bonner, the wood product sectors are not businesses. Adverse economic impacts Kootenai, Benewah, Latah, Ferry (WA), expected to be significant nor are a are therefore not expected to occur to Pend Oreille (WA), Shoshone, and substantial number of small businesses small entities associated with phosphate Stevens (WA); Central EA: Clearwater, likely to be adversely affected under the mining in the reasonably foreseeable Idaho, Lewis, Nez Perce, and Asotin final rule. future. (WA); and Southeastern EA: Bear Lake. In the context of special use permits There are no changes in small Revenue sharing with counties (i.e., for recreation (320 outfitter and guide business opportunities under the final secure payments to counties, payments permits are associated with Idaho’s NFs, rule compared to the 2001 Rule in lieu of taxes) is expected to remain as of fall 2006), none of the four alternative because opportunities for the same under all alternatives as long alternatives address the processing or geothermal development are negligible as the Secure Rural School and administration of special use permits under both alternatives due to Community Self-Determination Act directly. All decisions regarding existing prohibitions on road construction for (SRSA) remains in effect. Counties that and future special use permits will be this purpose. Under the Existing Plans may experience losses in funding project-specific and require compliance and Proposed Rule alternatives, road associated with 25% revenue-sharing, in with all environmental regulations. construction associated with geothermal the event that SRSA is not reauthorized, Relative to the 2001 Rule alternative, development is permitted primarily in are those counties that share land with increases in timber harvest acres assigned to the GFRG theme. national forests where revenue-

VerDate 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 determined that this final rule does not does not have Federalism implications. decrease. These counties may include constitute a significant energy action as This rule is based on a petition timber-dependent counties in the defined in the Executive order. submitted by the State of Idaho under northern and central EAs when As explained in greater detail in the the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 comparing the final rule to the Existing FEIS, this final rule is not expected to U.S.C. 553(e) and pursuant to Plans or Proposed Rule alternatives. significantly affect energy supplies, Department of Agriculture regulations at However, reasonably foreseeable levels distribution, or use. The final rule does 7 CFR 1.28. The State’s petition was of revenue-sharing from timber harvest not disturb existing access or mineral developed with involvement of local from roadless areas under the final rule rights, restrictions on saleable mineral governments. The State has been a are expected to be equal to or larger than materials are narrow, and no oil and gas cooperating agency for the development revenue shares derived from harvest leasing is currently underway or of the EIS for this rule. State and local projected to occur under the 2001 Rule projected for these lands. The final rule governments were encouraged to or volumes harvested from roadless is not expected to have a significant comment on this rule in the course of areas in recent years. Revenue-sharing impact on wind or biomass energy. this rulemaking process. opportunities increase or remain the Opportunities for geothermal Consultation With Indian Tribal same for all counties under the final development are negligible under both Governments rule compared to the 2001 Rule, the final rule and the 2001 Rule indicating that the final rule is not alternative. Pursuant to E.O. 13175 of November expected to have a significant adverse No novel legal or policy issues 6, 2000, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination economic impact on small government regarding adverse effects to supply, with Indian Tribal Governments,’’ the entities. Mineral-based payments to distribution, or use of energy are Agency has assessed the impact of this states are a function of receipts from anticipated beyond what has already rule on Indian Tribal governments and leasable minerals, including receipts been addressed in the FEIS or the has determined the rule does not from phosphate operations, but no Regulatory Impact Analysis. None of the significantly or uniquely affect Indian differences in phosphate production are proposed corridors designated for oil, Tribal governments. The rule deals with projected across alternatives. gas, and/or electricity under section 368 future permitted road construction, Opportunities for mining-dependent of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 are timber cutting, and certain mineral counties (e.g., Caribou, Oneida, Power, within IRAs. development projects in IRAs and has and Bannock) are therefore expected to The final rule also provides a no direct effect on the current remain the same in the reasonably regulatory mechanism for consideration occupancy or use of these NFS lands. foreseeable future (15 years). of requests for modification of The rule does not waive any applicable Mitigation measures for small entity restrictions if adjustments are requirements regarding site-specific impacts associated with the final rule determined to be necessary in the environmental analysis, public are not relevant in many cases, because future. Therefore, this action is not a involvement, consultation with Tribes, the final rule eases restrictions on a significant energy action and no and other agencies or compliance with number of activities in many areas, Statement of Energy Effects is required. applicable laws. Nor does the rule implying increases in potential modify the unique relationship between Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the the United States and Indian Tribes that opportunities for small entities, as noted Public above. Mitigation measures associated requires the Federal Government to with existing programs and laws This rule does not call for any work with federally recognized Indian regarding revenue sharing with counties additional record keeping or reporting Tribes government-to-government as and small business shares or set-asides requirements or other information provided for in E.O. 13175. Nothing will continue to apply (e.g., SRSA). collection requirements as defined in 5 herein limits or modifies prior existing CFR part 1320 that are not already Tribal rights, including those involving Environmental Impact required by law or not already approved hunting, fishing, or gathering. The The Agency has prepared a FEIS in for use and, therefore, imposes no Agency has also determined this rule concert with this rule. In it, the direct, additional paperwork burden on the does not impose substantial direct indirect, and cumulative effects of the public. Accordingly, the review compliance costs on Indian Tribal final rule and alternatives are disclosed. provisions of the Paperwork Reduction governments. This rule does not The FEIS may be viewed at http:// Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and mandate Tribal participation in NFS www.roadless.fs.fed.us/idaho. its implementing regulations at 5 CFR planning. Rather, the rule recognizes the The Agency has prepared a biological part 1320 do not apply. responsibility of Forest Service officials assessment on the potential effects of to consult early with Tribal Federalism the final rule on threatened, governments and to work cooperatively endangered, and proposed species and The Department has considered this with them where planning issues affect formally consulted with the FWS and rule under the requirements of E.O. Tribal interests. NOAA. The biological opinions can be 13132 issued August 4, 1999, No Takings Implications found at http://roadless.fs.fed.us/ Federalism. The Department assessed idaho.shtml and effects are discussed in that the rule conforms with the This rule has been analyzed in the FEIS at sections 3.7 Botanical Federalism principles set out in this accordance with the principles and Resources, 3.8 Aquatic Species, and 3.9 Executive order; would not impose any criteria in E.O. 12630, Governmental Terrestrial Animal Habitat and Species. compliance costs on the states; and Actions and Interference with Civil would not have substantial direct effects Constitutionally Protected Rights. It has Energy Effects on the states, on the relationship been determined that the rule does not This final rule has been reviewed between the national government and pose the risk of a taking of private under E.O. 13211 of May 18, 2001, the states, nor on the distribution of property. The rule effects only NFS Actions Concerning Regulations That power and responsibilities among the lands and contains exemptions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, various levels of government. Therefore, prevent the taking of constitutionally Distribution, or Use. It has been the Department concludes that this rule protected private property.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 61489

Civil Justice Reform management, State-specific direction for uncharacteristically intense wildland This final rule has been reviewed the conservation of inventoried roadless fire and decrease the capability to under E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. areas in the national forests within the protect life, property, and natural The Department has not identified any State of Idaho. This subpart sets forth resources. State or local laws or regulations that the procedures for management of Idaho Idaho Roadless Areas: Areas are in conflict with this regulation or Roadless Areas consistent with the designated pursuant to this rule and that would impede full implementation Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of identified in a set of maps maintained of this rule. Nevertheless, in the event 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528–531). at the national headquarters office of the Forest Service. that such a conflict was to be identified, § 294.21 Definitions. the final rule, if implemented, would Municipal water supply system: As The following terms and definitions preempt the State or local laws or defined under section 101 of the apply to this subpart. regulations found to be in conflict. Healthy Forests Restoration Act, the At-risk community: As defined under term means the reservoirs, canals, However, in that case (1) no retroactive section 101 of the Healthy Forests effect would be given to this final rule ditches, flumes, laterals, pipes, Restoration Act (HFRA). pipelines, and other surface facilities and (2) the Department would not Community protection zone: An area require the use of administrative and systems constructed or installed for extending one-half mile from the the collection, impoundment, storage, proceedings before parties could file boundary of an at-risk community or an suit in court challenging its provisions. transportation, or distribution of area within one and a half miles of the drinking water. Unfunded Mandates boundary of an at-risk community, Responsible official: The Forest Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded where any land: Service line officer with the authority (1) Has a sustained steep slope that Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. and responsibility to make decisions creates the potential for wildfire 1531–1538), which the President signed about protection and management of behavior endangering the at-risk into law on March 22, 1995, the Idaho Roadless Areas pursuant to this community; Department has assessed the effects of subpart. (2) Has a geographic feature that aids this final rule on State, local, and Tribal Road: As defined at 36 CFR 212.1, the in creating an effective fire break, such governments and the private sector. term means a motor vehicle route over as a road or a ridge top; or 50 inches wide, unless identified and This rule does not compel the (3) Is in condition class 3 as defined expenditure of $100 million or more by managed as a trail. by HFRA. Road construction and any State, local, or Tribal governments Fire hazard and risk: The fuel or anyone in the private sector. reconstruction: As defined at 36 CFR conditions on the landscape. 212.1, the terms mean supervising, Therefore, a statement under section Fire occurrence: The probability of 202 of the Act is not required. inspecting, actual building, and wildfire ignition based on historic fire incurrence of all costs incidental to the List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 294 occurrence records and other construction or reconstruction of a road. information. National Forests, Navigation (air), Road decommissioning: As defined at Forest Plan Special Area: Certain Recreation areas, State petitions for 36 CFR 212.1, the term means activities lands identified on the Idaho Roadless inventoried roadless area management. that result in the stabilization and Area Maps, § 294.22(c) and listed in ■ Therefore, for the reasons set forth in restoration of unneeded roads to a more § 294.29 shall be managed pursuant to natural state. the preamble, the Forest Service applicable land management proposes to amend part 294 of Title 36 Road maintenance: The ongoing components. These lands include areas upkeep of a road necessary to retain or of the Code of Federal Regulations by such as research natural areas, adding new subpart C to read as follows: restore the road to the approved road designated and eligible wild and scenic management objective. PART 294—SPECIAL AREAS river corridors, developed recreation Road realignment: Activity that sites, or other specified management results in a new location of an existing Subpart C—Idaho Roadless Area purposes, as described in the Roadless road or portions of an existing road, and Management Area Conservation; National Forest treatment of the old roadway. System Lands in Idaho, Final Roadless characteristics: Resources or Sec. Environmental Impact Statement, features that are often present in and 294.20 Purpose. Appendix Q. characterize Idaho Roadless Areas, 294.21 Definitions. Forest road: As defined at 36 CFR 294.22 Idaho Roadless Areas. including: 294.23 Road construction and 212.1, the term means a road wholly or (1) High quality or undisturbed soil, reconstruction in Idaho Roadless Areas. partly within or adjacent to and serving water, and air; 294.24 Timber cutting, sale, or removal in the National Forest System that the (2) Sources of public drinking water; Idaho Roadless Areas. Forest Service determines is necessary (3) Diversity of plant and animal 294.25 Mineral activities in Idaho Roadless for the protection, administration, and communities; Areas. use of the National Forest System and (4) Habitat for threatened, 294.26 Other activities in Idaho Roadless the use and development of its endangered, proposed, candidate, and Areas. 294.27 Corrections and modifications. resources. sensitive species, and for those species 294.28 Scope and applicability. Forest type: A forest stand that is dependent on large, undisturbed areas 294.29 List of designated Idaho Roadless essentially similar throughout its extent of land; Areas. in composition under generally similar (5) Primitive, semi-primitive non- Authority: 16 U.S.C. 472, 529, 551, 1608, environmental conditions, including motorized, and semi-primitive 1613; 23 U.S.C. 201, 205. temporary, permanent, climax, and motorized classes of dispersed cover types. recreation; § 294.20 Purpose. Hazardous fuels: Excessive live or (6) Reference landscapes; The purpose of this subpart is to dead wildland fuel accumulations that (7) Natural appearing landscapes with provide, in the context of multiple-use increase the potential for high scenic quality;

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 Primitive if pursuant to statute, treaty, this provision will be dependent on sacred sites; and reserved or outstanding rights, or other forest type and is expected to be (9) Other locally identified unique legal duty of the United States. infrequent. characteristics. (b) Backcountry/Restoration. (1) Road (i) There is a significant risk that a Substantially altered portion: An area construction and reconstruction are wildland fire disturbance event could within an Idaho Roadless Area where only permissible in Idaho Roadless adversely affect an at-risk community or past road construction, timber cutting, Areas designated as Backcountry/ municipal water supply system or other uses have materially Restoration where the Regional Forester pursuant to § 294.24(c)(1)(ii). A diminished the area’s roadless determines: significant risk exists where the history characteristics. (i) A road is needed to protect public of fire occurrence, and fire hazard and Temporary road: As defined at 36 health and safety in cases of an risk, indicate a serious likelihood that a CFR 212.1, the term means a road imminent threat of flood, wildland fire, wildland fire disturbance event would necessary for emergency operations or or other catastrophic event that, without present a high risk of threat to an at-risk authorized by contract, permit, lease, or intervention, would cause the loss of community or municipal water supply other written authorization that is not a life or property; system. forest road and that is not included in (ii) A road is needed to conduct a (ii) The activity cannot be reasonably a forest transportation atlas. Temporary response action under the accomplished without a temporary road. roads are available for administrative Comprehensive Environmental (iii) The activity will maintain or use until decommissioned. Response, Compensation, and Liability improve one or more roadless Uncharacteristic wildland fire effects: Act (CERCLA) or to conduct a natural characteristics over the long-term. An increase in wildland fire size, resource restoration action under (c) General Forest, Rangeland, and severity, and resistance to control; and CERCLA, section 311 of the Clean Water Grassland. (1) A forest road may be the associated impact on people, Act, or the Oil Pollution Act; constructed or reconstructed or a property, and fire fighter safety (iii) A road is needed pursuant to temporary road may be constructed in compared to that which occurred in the statute, treaty, reserved or outstanding Idaho Roadless Areas designated as native system. rights, or other legal duty of the United General Forest, Rangeland, and States; Grassland, unless prohibited in § 294.22 Idaho Roadless Areas. (iv) A road realignment is needed to § 294.25(e). (a) Designations. All National Forest prevent irreparable resource damage (2) Forest roads constructed or System lands within the State of Idaho that arises from the design, location, reconstructed pursuant to § 294.23(c)(1) listed in § 294.29 are hereby designated use, or deterioration of a road and must be conducted in a way that as Idaho Roadless Areas. cannot be mitigated by road minimizes effects on surface resources (b) Management classifications. maintenance. Road realignment may and must be consistent with land Management classifications for Idaho occur under this subsection only if the management plan components as Roadless Areas express a management road is deemed essential for public or provided for in § 294.28(d). continuum. The following management private access, natural resource (d) Temporary roads. (1) Temporary classifications are established: management, or public health and road construction must be conducted in (1) Wild Land Recreation; safety; a way that minimizes effects on surface (2) Special Areas of Historic or Tribal (v) Road reconstruction is needed to resources, is consistent with land Significance; implement a road safety improvement management plan components as (3) Primitive; project on a road determined to be provided for in § 294.28(d), and may (4) Backcountry/Restoration; and hazardous based on accident experience only be used for the specified (5) General Forest, Rangeland, and or accident potential on that road; or purpose(s). Grassland. (vi) The Secretary of Agriculture (2) Temporary roads must be (c) Maps. The Chief shall maintain determines that a Federal Aid Highway decommissioned upon completion of and make available to the public a map project, authorized pursuant to Title 23 the project or expiration of the contract of each Idaho Roadless Area, including of the United States Code, is in the or permit, whichever is sooner. A road records regarding any corrections or public interest or is consistent with the decommissioning provision will be modifications of such maps pursuant to purpose for which the land was required in all such contracts or permits § 294.27. reserved or acquired and no other and may not be waived. (d) Activities in Idaho Roadless Areas reasonable and prudent alternative (e) Road maintenance. Maintenance shall be consistent with the applicable exists. of temporary and forest roads is management classification listed for (2) A responsible official may permissible in Idaho Roadless Areas. each area under § 294.29. authorize temporary road construction (f) Roads associated with mineral or road reconstruction for community activities. Road construction or § 294.23 Road construction and protection zone activities pursuant to reconstruction in Idaho Roadless Areas. reconstruction associated with mineral § 294.24(c)(1)(i) if in the official’s activities is provided for in § 294.25. (a) Wild Land Recreation, Special judgment the community protection Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance, objectives cannot be reasonably § 294.24 Timber cutting, sale, or removal or Primitive. Road construction and accomplished without a temporary road. in Idaho Roadless Areas. reconstruction are prohibited in Idaho (3) The Regional Forester may (a) Wild Land Recreation. The cutting, Roadless Areas designated as Wild Land approve temporary road construction or sale, or removal of timber is prohibited Recreation, Special Areas of Historic or road reconstruction to reduce hazardous in Idaho Roadless Areas designated as Tribal Significance, or Primitive. fuel conditions outside a community Wild Land Recreation under this However, the Regional Forester may protection zone where in the Regional subpart, except: authorize a road to be constructed or Forester’s judgment the circumstances (1) For personal or administrative use, reconstructed in an area designated as set out below exist. Temporary road as provided for in 36 CFR part 223; or Wild Land Recreation, Special Area of construction or road reconstruction to (2) Where incidental to the Historic or Tribal Significance, or reduce hazardous fuel conditions under implementation of a management

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 community or municipal water supply will not recommend, authorize, or subpart. system; consent to road construction, road (b) Special Areas of Historic or Tribal (iii) To improve threatened, reconstruction, or surface occupancy Significance and Primitive. (1) The endangered, proposed, or sensitive associated with mineral leases in Idaho cutting, sale, or removal of timber is species habitat; Roadless Areas designated as Wild Land prohibited in Idaho Roadless Areas (iv) To maintain or restore the Recreation, Special Areas of Historic or designated as a Special Area of Historic characteristics of ecosystem Tribal Significance, or Primitive themes. or Tribal Significance or as Primitive composition, structure, and processes; (2) After October 16, 2008, the Forest under this subpart, except: (v) To reduce the risk of Service will not authorize sale of (i) To improve threatened, uncharacteristic wildland fire effects; common variety mineral materials in endangered, proposed, or sensitive (vi) For personal or administrative Idaho Roadless Areas designated as species habitat; use, as provided for in 36 CFR part 223; Wild Land Recreation, Special Areas of (ii) To maintain or restore the (vii) Where incidental to the Historic or Tribal Significance, or characteristics of ecosystem implementation of a management Primitive themes. composition, structure, and processes; activity not otherwise prohibited by this (d) Backcountry/Restoration. (1) For (iii) To reduce the risk of subpart; or mineral leases, contracts, permits, and uncharacteristic wildland fire effects to (viii) In a portion of an Idaho Roadless other associated activities authorized an at-risk community or municipal Area designated as Backcountry/ after the effective date of this subpart, water supply system; Restoration that has been substantially the Forest Service will not recommend, (iv) For personal or administrative altered due to the construction of a authorize, or consent to road use, as provided for in 36 CFR part 223; forest road and subsequent timber construction or road reconstruction or cutting. Both the road construction and associated with mineral leases in Idaho (v) Where such cutting, sale or subsequent timber cutting must have Roadless Areas designated as removal is incidental to the occurred prior to October 16, 2008. Backcountry/Restoration. Surface use or implementation of a management (2) Any action authorized pursuant to occupancy without road construction or activity not otherwise prohibited by this paragraphs § 294.24(c)(1)(ii) through (v) reconstruction is permissible for all subpart. shall be approved by the Regional mineral leasing unless prohibited in the (2) Any action authorized pursuant to Forester and limited to situations that, applicable land management plan. paragraphs § 294.24(b)(1)(i) through (iii) in the Regional Forester’s judgment: (2) After October 16, 2008, the Forest shall be limited to situations that: (i) Maintains or improves one or more Service may authorize the use or sale of (i) Maintain or improve one or more of the roadless characteristics over the common variety mineral materials, and of the roadless characteristics over the long-term; associated road construction or long-term; (ii) Maximizes the retention of large reconstruction to access these mineral (ii) Use existing roads or aerial harvest trees as appropriate for the forest type materials, in Idaho Roadless Areas systems; to the extent the trees promote fire- designated as Backcountry/Restoration (iii) Maximize the retention of large resilient stands; and only if the use of these mineral trees as appropriate for the forest type, (iii) Is consistent with land materials is incidental to an activity to the extent the trees promote fire- management plan components as otherwise permissible in backcountry/ resilient stands; provided for in § 294.28(d). restoration under this subpart. (iv) Are consistent with land (3) The activities in paragraph (e) General Forest, Rangeland, and management plan components as § 294.24(c)(1) may use any forest roads Grassland. (1) For mineral leases, provided for in § 294.28(d); and or temporary roads, including those contracts, permits, and other associated (v) Is approved by the regional authorized under § 294.23(b)(2 and 3) activities authorized after October 16, forester. until decommissioned. 2008, the Forest Service will not (c) Backcountry/Restoration. (1) The (d) General Forest, Rangeland, and recommend, authorize, or consent to cutting, sale, or removal of timber is Grassland. Timber may be cut, sold, or road construction or reconstruction permissible in Idaho Roadless Areas removed within Idaho Roadless Areas associated with mineral leases in Idaho designated as Backcountry/Restoration designated as General Forest, Roadless Areas designated as General only: Rangeland, and Grassland but shall be Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland (i) To reduce hazardous fuel consistent with the land management theme; except such road construction or conditions within the community plan components as provided for in reconstruction may be authorized by the protection zone if in the responsible § 294.28(d). responsible official in association with official’s judgment the project generally phosphate deposits as described in retains large trees as appropriate for the § 294.25 Mineral activities in Idaho Figure 3–20 in section 3.15 Minerals forest type and is consistent with land Roadless Areas. and Energy in the Roadless Area management plan components as (a) Nothing in this subpart shall be Conservation; National Forest System provided for in § 294.28(d); construed as restricting mineral leases, Lands in Idaho Final Environmental (ii) To reduce hazardous fuel contracts, permits, and associated Impact Statement. Surface use or conditions outside the community activities authorized prior to October 16, occupancy without road construction or protection zone where there is 2008. reconstruction is permissible for all significant risk that a wildland fire (b) Nothing in this subpart shall affect mineral leasing unless prohibited in the disturbance event could adversely affect mining activities conducted pursuant to land management plan components. an at-risk community or municipal the General Mining Law of 1872. (2) After October 16, 2008, the Forest water supply system. A significant risk (c) Wild Land Recreation, Special Service may authorize the use or sale of exists where the history of fire Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance, common variety mineral materials, and occurrence, and fire hazard and risk, or Primitive. (1) For mineral leases, associated road construction or indicate a serious likelihood that a contracts, permits, and other associated reconstruction to access these mineral wildland fire disturbance event would activities authorized after the effective materials, in Idaho Roadless Areas present a high risk of threat to an at-risk date of this subpart the Forest Service designated as General Forest,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 § 294.27 Corrections and modifications. This subpart does not compel the use of these mineral materials is Correction or modification of amendment or revision of any land incidental to an activity otherwise designations made pursuant to this management plan. permissible in General Forest, subpart may occur under the following (e) The prohibitions and permissions Rangeland, and Grassland under this circumstances: set forth in the subpart are not subject subpart. (a) Administrative corrections. to reconsideration, revision, or (3) Road construction or Administrative corrections to the maps rescission in subsequent project reconstruction associated with mining of lands identified in § 294.22(c) decisions or land and resource activities permissible under this include, but are not limited to, management plan amendments or subsection may only be approved after adjustments that remedy clerical errors, revisions undertaken pursuant to 36 evaluating other access options. typographical errors, mapping errors, or CFR part 219. (4) Road construction or improvements in mapping technology. (f) This subpart shall not apply to reconstruction associated with mining The Chief may issue administrative Forest Plan Special Areas within Idaho activities permissible under this corrections after a 30-day public notice Roadless Areas. subsection must be conducted in a and opportunity to comment. (g) Nothing in this subpart waives any manner that minimizes effects on (b) Modifications. The Chief may add applicable requirements regarding site- surface resources and must be to, remove from, or modify the specific environmental analysis, public consistent with land management plan designations and management involvement, consultation with Tribes components as provided for in classifications listed in § 294.29 based and other agencies, or compliance with § 294.28(d). Roads constructed or on changed circumstances or public applicable laws. reconstructed must be decommissioned need. The Chief shall provide at least a (h) This subpart does not modify the upon completion of the project, or 45-day public notice and opportunity to unique relationship between the United expiration of the lease, or permit, or comment for all modifications. States and Indian Tribes that requires other authorization, whichever is the Federal Government to work with sooner. § 294.28 Scope and applicability. federally recognized Indian Tribes (a) After October 16, 2008 subpart B government-to-government as provided § 294.26 Other activities in Idaho Roadless of this part shall have no effect within for in treaties, laws or Executive orders. Areas. the State of Idaho. Nothing herein limits or modifies prior (a) Motorized travel. Nothing in this (b) This subpart does not revoke, existing tribal rights, including those subpart shall be construed as affecting suspend, or modify any permit, involving hunting, fishing, gathering, existing roads or trails in Idaho Roadless contract, or other legal instrument and protection of cultural and spiritual Areas. Decisions concerning the future authorizing the occupancy and use of sites. management of existing roads or trails National Forest System land issued (i) If any provision of the rules in this in Idaho Roadless Areas shall be made prior to October 16, 2008. subpart or its application to any person during the applicable travel (c) This subpart does not revoke, or to certain circumstances is held management process. suspend, or modify any project or invalid, the remainder of the regulations (b) Grazing. Nothing in this subpart activity decision made prior to October in this subpart and their application shall be construed as affecting existing 16, 2008. remain in force. grazing permits in Idaho Roadless (d) The provisions set forth in this Areas. Future road construction subpart shall take precedence over any § 294.29 List of designated Idaho Roadless associated with livestock operations inconsistent land management plan Areas. shall conform to this subpart. component. Land management plan The acronyms used in the list are (c) Motorized equipment and components that are not inconsistent Wild Land Recreation (WLR), mechanical transport. Nothing in this with this subpart will continue to Backcountry/Restoration (BCR), General subpart shall be construed as affecting provide guidance for projects and Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland the use of motorized equipment and activities within Idaho Roadless Areas; (GFRG), Special Areas of Historic or mechanical transport in Idaho Roadless as shall those related to protection of Tribal Significance (SAHTS) and Forest Areas. threatened and endangered species. 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 ......

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 ......

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 ......

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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 Wilder- ...... X ...... ness. 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

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 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

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2