Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the National Forests in Idaho, 61456-61496 [E8-24285]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 201 (Thursday, October 16, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61456-61496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24285]



[[Page 61455]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 61456]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 294

RIN 0596-AC62


Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the 
National Forests in Idaho

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule and record of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA or Department) is 
adopting a state-specific, final rule establishing management direction 
for designated roadless areas in the State of Idaho. The final rule 
designates 250 Idaho Roadless Areas (IRAs) and establishes five 
management themes that provide prohibitions with exceptions or 
conditioned permissions governing road construction, timber cutting, 
and discretionary mineral development.
    The final rule takes a balanced approach recognizing both local and 
national interests for the management of these lands. The Department 
and Forest Service are committed to the important challenge of 
protecting roadless areas and their important characteristics. The 
final rule achieves this through five land classifications that assign 
various permissions and prohibitions regarding road building, timber 
cutting, and discretionary mineral activities. The final rule also 
allows the Forest Service to continue to be a good neighbor and reduce 
the risk of wildland fires to at-risk communities and municipal water 
supply systems. The rule does not authorize the building of a single 
road or the cutting of a single tree; instead it establishes 
permissions and prohibitions that will govern what types of activities 
may occur in IRAs. Any decision to build a road, allow mineral 
activities, harvest a tree, or conduct any other activity permissible 
under this final rule will require appropriate site-specific analysis 
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable 
laws. Projects will also be consistent with the applicable land 
management plan (LMP) components.
    This final rule supersedes the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule 
(2001 roadless rule) for National Forest System (NFS) lands in the 
State of Idaho.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective October 16, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Idaho Roadless Rule Team Leader Brad 
Gilbert at (208) 765-7438. Individuals using telecommunication devices 
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern Standard 
Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document serves as both notice of final 
rule and record of decision.

Decision

    For the reasons set out below, the Department hereby promulgates a 
regulation establishing IRAs as described in Alternative 4 of the 
``Roadless Area Conservation National Forest System Lands in Idaho 
Final Environmental Impact Statement,'' USDA Forest Service, 2008, and 
the supporting record. This decision is not subject to Forest Service 
appeal regulations.

Outline

    The following section outlines the contents of the preamble.

Introduction and Background
Roadless Area Inventories in Idaho
Purpose and Need for the Idaho Roadless Rule
Public Involvement on the Proposed Rule
     How Was Public Involvement Used in the Rulemaking 
Process?
     How Did the RACNAC Participate in the Rulemaking 
Process?
Alternatives Considered
     Alternatives Considered by the Department
     The Environmentally Preferred Alternative
Comments on the Proposed Rule and Changes Made in Response
     General Comments Not Related to Particular Rule 
Provisions
     Summary of Changes and Comments Related to Particular 
Rule Provisions
Regulatory Certifications

Introduction and Background

    On October 5, 2006, Idaho Governor James Risch submitted a petition 
to the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) to establish new management 
for Idaho's inventoried roadless areas on NFS lands. Idaho's petition 
divided roadless areas into five broad management themes: Wild Land 
Recreation (WLR); Special Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance 
(SAHTS); Primitive; Backcountry/Restoration (BCR); and General Forest, 
Rangeland, and Grassland (GFRG). The petition was submitted under 
section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act and Department 
regulations at 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1.28. The Roadless 
Area Conservation National Advisory Committee (RACNAC) (72 FR 13469) 
reviewed the Idaho petition on November 29 and 30, 2006, in Washington, 
DC. The committee issued a unanimous, consensus-based recommendation on 
December 19, 2006, that the Secretary direct the Forest Service, with 
the State of Idaho as a cooperating agency, to proceed with rulemaking. 
The Committee's report provided specific advice and suggested 
clarifications regarding particular issues. After considering the 
advisory committee's review and report, the Secretary accepted the 
petition and directed the Forest Service to initiate rulemaking on 
December 22, 2006.
    A notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 
(EIS) was published in the Federal Register April 10, 2007, (72 FR 
17816). A notice of availability for the draft environmental impact 
statement (DEIS) was published on December 21, 2007, (72 FR 72708). The 
Forest Service published a proposed rule for conservation of NFS 
inventoried roadless areas within Idaho on January 7, 2008, (73 FR 
1135). The notice of availability for the final environmental impact 
statement (FEIS) was published on September 5, 2008, (73 FR 51815). 
Additional information, maps, and other materials concerning the FEIS, 
IRAs, and roadless areas nationally, can be found at https://
roadless.fs.fed.us/.
    The Department is committed to conserving and managing inventoried 
roadless areas. The Department considers the final rule as the most 
appropriate solution to address the challenges of inventoried roadless 
area management on NFS lands in the State of Idaho. Collaborating and 
cooperating with states and other interested parties regarding the 
long-term strategy for the conservation and management of inventoried 
roadless areas allows recognition of both national values and local 
situations.
    The Department believes that the final Idaho Roadless Rule 
collaboratively resolves an issue of great importance to the people of 
Idaho and the nation. The management of large tracts of undeveloped 
land has been a contentious issue since the founding of the Forest 
Service in 1905. The Forest Service has engaged in numerous approaches 
and periodic reviews to address how to best manage these lands. The 
Idaho Roadless Rule represents a unique effort to address these 
difficult questions. How can the Agency best conserve open space? How 
can the Agency protect some of the most magnificent areas in Idaho and 
the nation? How much active management, including reducing fuel levels 
through timber harvest, should the Agency consider allowing to reduce 
the risk of

[[Page 61457]]

unwanted wildland fire effects on adjacent private and other public 
lands?
    The State of Idaho petition included specific information and 
recommendations for the management of individual inventoried roadless 
areas in the State. Additionally, the State of Idaho examined roadless 
areas sharing boundaries or overlapping with all neighboring states and 
determined coordination with Montana and Utah was necessary to ensure 
consistency of management themes assigned to these inventoried roadless 
areas.
    The unique perspectives and knowledge provided by the State and its 
citizens was of great assistance throughout this rulemaking. Many of 
these roadless areas form the backdrop for Idaho communities and have 
become part of their identity. They are used for hiking, camping, 
hunting, and motorized recreation on backcountry trails. Local 
communities are also sensitive to the economic consequences of Federal 
land management, whether for recreation or other multiple-use purposes. 
Although this rule does not provide management direction for recreation 
and access management, its emphasis on retaining the roadless 
characteristics over the vast majority of IRA acres will address 
recreation and scenery concerns from both national and local 
perspectives.
    Recently, there have been several attempts to resolve the roadless 
issue nationally and in the State of Idaho. Since the Forest Service 
Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II), the Agency has used 
locally driven forest plans to manage inventoried roadless areas. While 
these plans accounted for the comments of local communities by 
considering the characteristics of each individual roadless area, some 
felt these plans lacked a national perspective and allowed too much 
modification of roadless characteristics.
    The 2001 roadless rule sought to answer these questions from a 
national perspective, but many felt that the rule's approach would 
cause undue harm to local communities. Some states and communities felt 
disenfranchised by the process.
    The State of Idaho indicated that its decision to petition was 
precipitated by the State's belief that it was not provided an adequate 
opportunity to participate in the development of the 2001 roadless 
rule. The State expressed concern that the rule could be interpreted as 
not allowing adequate protection for communities and municipal water 
supplies from the threat of unwanted wildland fire effects. 
Additionally, the State indicated its belief that the 2001 roadless 
rule could negatively affect some local communities that are dependent 
on use of resources from NFS lands.
    On August 12, 2008, the Federal District Court for the District of 
Wyoming declared that the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 
roadless rule) was promulgated in violation of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Wilderness Act. The court held 
``the roadless rule must be set aside'' and that ``[t]herefore, the 
Court ORDERS that the Roadless Rule, 36 CFR 294.10 to 294.14, be 
permanently enjoined, for the second time.'' Previously, another 
Federal district court in California had issued an order that 
reinstated the 2001 roadless rule, including the Tongass-specific 
amendment, and specified that ``federal defendants are enjoined from 
taking any further action contrary to the [2001] Roadless Rule * * *.'' 
Both these orders have been appealed and the Forest Service has sought 
relief in both Federal district courts. For purposes of this 
rulemaking, however, nothing in the pending litigation limits the 
Secretary from conducting state-specific rulemaking regarding roadless 
area management or from evaluating the 2001 roadless rule as one 
alternative in the FEIS.
    The Department has continued to seek a middle ground to resolve 
this issue by using forest plans, the locally driven state petition 
process, and integrating the national perspective provided by RACNAC. 
While the proposed rule made strides in accomplishing this objective, 
several respondents and RACNAC expressed concern whether some 
provisions could be read to allow portions of the BCR areas to be 
managed in a way that varied from the Governor's stated intent to 
manage the BCR similar to the way the area would be managed under the 
2001 roadless rule while providing for limited stewardship activities. 
This was not the intent.
    This final rule refines provisions and represents a compromise that 
balances the nationally recognized need for conservation of IRAs with 
being more responsive to local communities and citizens. Specifically, 
the final rule conserves the undeveloped/unroaded character for the 
vast majority of the IRAs; allows limited fuel treatment activities to 
reduce the risk of wildland fire effects to private and public property 
and municipal water supply systems; and accommodates limited exceptions 
for some communities highly dependent on the natural resources found on 
NFS lands.
    These undeveloped lands will become increasingly important as 
sources of public drinking water, plant and animal diversity, natural 
appearing landscapes, and other unique resources as the nation 
continues to grow in population and faces increasing demands for the 
various multiple-use resources available from NFS lands.

Roadless Area Inventories in Idaho

    This rulemaking relies on the most recent inventory available for 
roadless areas within each national forest in the State of Idaho. Land 
management plans were used, as well as other assessments and the 
inventories associated with the 2000 Roadless Area Conservation Final 
Environmental Impact Statement. Using these inventories, the Forest 
Service has identified approximately 9.3 million acres of inventoried 
roadless areas that are the subject of this rule.
    The Agency has sought to be particularly sensitive to concerns over 
the accuracy of the inventories. The 2001 roadless rule used the 
inventories of record from late 1999 as their basis for boundaries. 
This final rule uses these inventories as a starting point but also 
looked at updates identified through land management plan (LMP) 
revisions, most notably on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest (NF) in 
1998 and the southwest Idaho forests (Boise, Payette and Sawtooth NFs) 
in 2003. New inventories for northern Idaho forests (Idaho Panhandle, 
Clearwater, and Nez Perce NFs) currently in LMP revision were also 
used. These inventories are based on agency direction in Forest Service 
Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, section 70. The oldest inventory used is from 
the Salmon-Challis NF, which dates to their LMP from mid-1980.
    Changes to the roadless inventory reflect improvements in mapping 
and elimination of some areas that had been developed since the last 
inventory of record and inclusion of some areas after review. 
Inventories used for this final rule have all received review and 
comment by the public during the LMP revision process prior to this 
rulemaking.

Purpose and Need for the Idaho Roadless Rule

    The purpose of the Idaho Roadless Rule is to respond to the State's 
petition to recommend State-specific direction for the conservation and 
management of inventoried roadless areas within the State of Idaho. The 
final Idaho Roadless Rule integrates local management concerns and the 
need to protect these areas with the national objectives for protecting 
roadless area values and characteristics.
    Collaborating with the State of Idaho on the long-term strategy for 
the

[[Page 61458]]

management of IRAs recognizes national values and local situations and 
resolves unique resource management challenges. Collaboration with 
others who have a strong interest in the conservation and management of 
inventoried roadless areas also helps ensure balanced management 
decisions that maintain the most important characteristics and values 
of those areas.
    The management direction established by the rule is based on 
individual roadless characteristics for lands containing outstanding or 
unique features where there is minimal or no evidence of human use; 
culturally significant areas; general roadless characteristics where 
human uses may or may not be apparent; as well as some areas displaying 
high levels of human use. The Department also recognizes there is 
compelling interest in--
     Reducing the threat to communities, homes, and property 
from the risk of severe wildfire or other risks associated with 
adjacent Federal lands;
     Reducing the threat to forests from the negative effects 
of severe wildfire and insect and disease outbreaks; and
     Assuring access to property, for the State, Tribes, and 
citizens that own property within roadless areas.
    Between 2001 and 2007, wildland fires burned about 3.1 million 
acres in Idaho, of which about 1 million acres were in IRAs. Wildland 
fire is a natural component of these roadless areas; however, actions 
to reduce the risk of wildland fire effects to communities and 
municipal water supply systems may be needed in some situations. In 
2003, Congress recognized the need to improve the capacities of the 
Departments of Agriculture and Interior to conduct hazardous fuel 
reduction projects, by passing the Healthy Forests Restoration Act 
(HFRA) (Pub. L. 108-148).
    Aware of all of these concerns and the long unresolved debates over 
conserving and managing inventoried roadless areas in the absence of 
wilderness legislation for the State of Idaho and after considering the 
State's petition, the advice and recommendations of the RACNAC, Tribes, 
and public; the Secretary determined that regulatory direction for 
managing Idaho's roadless areas was needed.

Public Involvement on the Proposed Rule

     How Was Public Involvement Used in the Rulemaking Process?
    A notice of intent to prepare an EIS on ``Roadless Area 
Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho'' was published in 
the Federal Register, April 10, 2007, (68 FR 17816). The public comment 
period ended on May 10, 2007. The Forest Service received about 38,000 
comments, of which 32,000 were form letters. The remaining letters 
consisted of original comments or form letters with additional original 
text.
    A notice of availability for the DEIS was published in the Federal 
Register on December 21, 2007, (72 FR 72708). The Forest Service 
published a proposed rule for conservation of national forests 
inventoried roadless areas in Idaho on January 7, 2008, (73 FR 1135). A 
copy of the proposed rule and the DEIS has been available on the World 
Wide Web/Internet at https://roadless.fs.fed.us/ since January 7, 2008. 
A public meeting on the proposed rule was held in Washington, DC on 
January 14, 2008. Sixteen public meetings were held in Idaho between 
January 22 and February 28, 2008.
    In addition to the suggestions from the RACNAC, the Department 
received approximately 140,000 responses. Responses included advocacy 
for a particular outcome or regulatory language, as well as suggestions 
for analyses to conduct, issues to consider, alternatives to the 
proposed action, and calls for compliance with laws and regulations. 
Response to comments on the DEIS are in Appendix R of the FEIS. These 
comments played a key role in the development of modifications to the 
proposed rule and the decision made in this record of decision.
    It is noteworthy that many of the improvements between draft and 
final were made in response to requests made by Idaho Indian Tribes. 
Some of the theme changes were made in direct response to Tribal 
requests (see FEIS Appendix P). Chapters 3.15 (Cultural Resources) and 
3.16 (Idaho and Affected Indian Tribes) were modified in the FEIS based 
on Tribal input. Section 294.28(h) was added to Scope and Applicability 
assuring Tribes this rule would not affect any of their rights or 
Federal Government responsibilities to consult on projects in roadless 
areas. The Department and Forest Service are grateful for the insights 
and serious attention the Tribes have provided during this rulemaking.
     How Did the RACNAC Participate in the Rulemaking Process?
    The RACNAC held open meetings in various locations across the 
country. The meetings helped the RACNAC develop recommendations to the 
Secretary to be considered in the development of the final rule. The 
RACNAC submitted their final recommendations to the Secretary in a 
letter dated May 30, 2008.
    Through the public meetings as well as Tribal and public comments, 
the Agency and State repeatedly heard that any exception to the 2001 
roadless rule's road building prohibitions must be based on an actual 
on-the-ground need. Most notable among those needs was the protection 
of property and municipal water supply systems for at-risk communities, 
and phosphate development.
    The Agency and State sought the RACNAC's advice concerning a 
framework for better achieving the objectives laid out in the proposed 
rule. The RACNAC recognized that a one-size-fits-all management regime 
for the BCR theme was unrealistic. The committee provided advice on a 
framework for protecting at-risk communities and their water systems 
after several public meetings and careful deliberation. The Department 
adopted most of these recommendations in the final rule. The Department 
carefully considered all input before making a decision in areas where 
the RACNAC could not reach consensus; for example, building new roads 
for forest health activities.
    The RACNAC served a critical role in advising the Department 
regarding the critical need to go beyond past differences and focus on 
the on-the-ground management issues for these lands. This focus led to 
important adjustments including: (1) Reducing GFGR acres by 200,000; 
(2) increasing BCR acres by 280,000, primarily in recognition of high 
fish and wildlife values; (3) lowering the determination threshold for 
temporary roads and timber cutting within the community protection zone 
(CPZ), which increases opportunities for the Forest Service to address 
local communities' concerns with wildfire risks; (4) defining more 
clearly the permissions for hazardous fuel treatments outside CPZ to 
clarify that the vast majority of these acres will be subject to 
management direction that is similar to the 2001 roadless rule; and (5) 
defining with greater precision where phosphate mining, a nationally 
strategic mineral, may occur.
    The Department recognizes the invaluable work and advice provided 
by the RACNAC throughout the rulemaking process.

Alternatives Considered

Alternatives Considered by the Department

    The FEIS examines four fully developed alternatives based on public 
comments: No Action, Existing Plans, Proposed Idaho Roadless Rule, and 
Modified Idaho Roadless Rule.

[[Page 61459]]

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

[[Page 61460]]

    (1) The amount and type of roadless areas placed in the various 
themes;
    (2) The permissions and restrictions for road construction and 
reconstruction, and timber cutting, sale, and removal in the BCR theme;
    (3) Management of lands containing phosphate deposits in BCR areas;
    (4) Tribal interests regarding activities in roadless areas and 
future consultations; and
    (5) Public comment requirements for corrections and modifications.
    The Final Rule alternative reflects consideration of other 
adjustments beyond these principal issues as well.
    Overall, Alternative 4 provides more protections from development 
than the 2001 Rule alternative on 3.25 million acres of IRAs. These 
lands are in the WLR, Primitive, and SAHTS themes. All road 
construction and reconstruction is prohibited, except when provided by 
statute or treaty, or pursuant to valid existing rights or other legal 
duty of the United States. In addition, Alternative 4 prohibits surface 
use and occupancy and road construction or reconstruction to access new 
mineral leases. Similarly, Alternative 4 provides the same or more 
restrictions than the 2001 Rule alternative for cutting, selling, or 
removing timber for lands in the Primitive and SAHTS themes. By 
reassigning acres to the WLR, Primitive, or SAHTS themes, Alternative 4 
provides greater protection from development for 76,400 acres more than 
the Existing Plans alternative and 199,500 acres more than the Proposed 
Rule alternative.
    As to lands managed under the BCR theme, Alternative 4 provides 
similar management direction as the 2001 Rule alternative for 5.26 
million acres, although an estimated 442,000 acres would be subject to 
special consideration of specific situations involving reducing the 
risk of wildland fire to at-risk communities within the CPZ. Outside 
the CPZ, temporary roads could be constructed only where, in the 
regional forester's judgment, such roads are the only reasonable way to 
meet the objectives of reducing the significant risk of wildland fire 
effects to an at-risk community or municipal water supply system, and 
the activity is developed in a way that maintains or improves one or 
more roadless characteristics over the long-term. Infrequent use of 
this provision, with its conditions, is anticipated due to resource 
conditions, agency budgets, and regional forester approval and 
oversight. CPZ status will be confirmed at the project level, based on 
the definition of CPZ provided in section 294.21.
    Alternative 4 reduces the lands managed under the GFRG theme to 
405,900 acres. These areas are mainly managed according to forest plan 
direction except that roads may not be constructed to access new 
mineral or energy leases other than to access specific areas of 
phosphate deposits. Design of projects in these areas will consider 
roadless characteristics and will meet all environmental laws, and the 
area will remain on the roadless inventory.
    In sum, Alternative 4 assures retention of the roadless 
characteristics of approximately 8.5 million acres of roadless lands. 
On the remaining 0.8 million acres (community protection zones in the 
BCR theme and GFRG acres), the Agency's best estimates indicate only 
about 0.1 percent of IRAs would likely see any changes in roadless 
characteristics over the next 15 years.

The Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    Under NEPA, the Department is required to identify the 
environmentally preferred alternative (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). This is 
interpreted to mean the alternative that will promote the national 
environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's section 101 and that would 
cause the least damage to the biological and physical components of the 
environment. This alternative best protects, preserves, and enhances 
historic, cultural, and natural resources (Council on Environmental 
Quality, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National 
Environmental Policy Act Regulations (46 FR 18026).
    The Department believes the alternative that best meets these 
criteria is Alternative 1 (No Action, 2001 Rule). Alternative 1 
generally protects all inventoried roadless areas from adverse 
environmental impacts associated with limited exceptions for road 
construction, reconstruction, and tree cutting for commodity purposes 
and discretionary mineral activities and is projected to result in the 
least road construction (15 miles) and fewest harvested acres (9,000 
acres) over the next 15 years.
    Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 allow for an array of vegetation 
management activities potentially needed to maintain or improve 
roadless characteristics or restore ecological structure, function, 
composition, or processes; including reducing the risks of 
uncharacteristic or unwanted wildland fire effects. In addition, these 
alternatives provide additional protections to certain lands with 
outstanding roadless characteristics. However, these alternatives 
provide varying levels of road construction and reconstruction to 
facilitate timber cutting and also provide differing levels of limited 
tree cutting for commodity purposes and mineral resource development. 
The total projected road construction or reconstruction over the next 
15 years is 15 miles (Alternative 1, 2001 Rule), 180 miles (Alternative 
2, Existing Plans), 61 miles (Alternative 3, Proposed Rule), and 50 
miles (Alternative 4, Modified Rule). Alternative 1 projects the fewest 
ground disturbing activities and is deemed the environmentally 
preferred alternative.

Comments on the Proposed Rule and Changes Made in Response

    The Department received approximately 140,000 comments in response 
to the proposed rule and DEIS. A detailed analysis and response to 
public comment is set out in Appendix R of the FEIS. The Forest Service 
considered all comments as part of the rulemaking. The discussion of 
public comment below is divided between general comments and those that 
involve particular regulatory provisions, as well as providing a 
summary of changes made in the final rule.

General Comments Not Related to Particular Rule Provisions

    Comment: State role in rulemaking. Some respondents expressed 
concerns over the legality of the State of Idaho's efforts to submit a 
petition to change current Federal land management or that the State 
would have undue influence on the outcome of the rule.
    Response: This is a Federal rule and the Department has, in no way, 
abdicated or delegated its authority or responsibility for management 
of these NFS lands. The Governor of Idaho, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(e) 
and 7 CFR 1.28 filed a petition to conduct rulemaking for these 
immensely valuable lands. The Forest Service has worked cooperatively 
with the State of Idaho during consideration of the petition and during 
the development of this final rule as is expected under numerous 
statutes, regulations, and Executive orders.
    Pursuant to NEPA's implementing regulations, State, local, and 
Tribal governments are frequently granted cooperating agency status. 
State governments are especially important partners in management of 
the nation's land and natural resources. States, particularly in the 
West, own and manage large tracts of land with tremendous social and 
biological value. State governments frequently pioneer innovative land 
management programs

[[Page 61461]]

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

[[Page 61462]]

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
Fisheries and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), have oversight 
responsibilities for implementation of the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA). Informal consultation and conferencing on the proposed rule 
began with frequent discussions among Forest Service, FWS, and NOAA 
Fisheries biologists. The Agency has prepared a biological assessment 
on the final rule and formally consulted with the FWS and NOAA. The 
biological opinions can be found at https://roadless.fs.fed.us/
idaho.shtml and effects are discussed in the FEIS at sections 3.7 
Botanical Resources, 3.8 Aquatic Species, and 3.9 Terrestrial Animal 
Habitat and Species.

Summary of Changes and Comments Related to Particular Rule Provisions

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

[[Page 61463]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16OC08.000

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

[[Page 61464]]

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

[[Page 61465]]

IRAs. Therefore, the Department is limiting the scope of temporary road 
building for fuels treatments outside the CPZ to projects that can 
demonstrate significant risk of wildland fire effects to an at-risk 
community or a municipal water supply system while positively 
determining that one or more roadless characteristics will be 
maintained or improved over the long-term. The long-term perspective is 
especially important because a temporary road may have the potential 
for immediate short-term effects to an area's roadless characteristics, 
but stand thinning, strategic fuel breaks, and other activities 
accomplished by building a temporary road could have long-term 
beneficial effects. The final rule also emphasizes the importance of 
maximizing the retention of large trees, as appropriate for the forest 
type, to the extent the trees promote fire resilient stands and 
exercises restraint by permitting projects that cannot reasonably be 
accomplished without a temporary road. Notably, the final rule does not 
permit new road construction for the purpose of conducting limited 
forest health activities. Under the final rule, the vast majority of 
the BCR acres will be managed comparable to the 2001 roadless rule with 
a small amount of additional timber cutting and temporary road 
construction to allow fuel treatments to better protect vital community 
interests.
    Comment: General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland (GFRG) theme. A 
respondent suggested elimination of the GFRG theme. Another suggested 
any small strips of GFRG lands should go into adjacent BCR and felt 
that the GFRG theme should be eliminated to avoid the conflict of the 
rule allowing for activities not permissible in LMPs. A respondent 
thought the Agency should reconsider the roadless character for some of 
the GFRG designations based on the Idaho Conservation League maps.
    Response: The FEIS considered the request to eliminate the GFRG 
theme in, section 2.3, Consideration of Comments and determined that 
this request was effectively accomplished through examination of the 
2001 Rule alternative (Alternative 1). Based on public comment, 
including Idaho Conservation League's maps, some areas were changed 
from GFRG to BCR to better retain the roadless character in these areas 
to respond to Tribal interests and to provide important big game 
habitat. For example, several small strips adjacent to the outer 
boundaries of roadless areas were changed to BCR, including lands 
associated with the East Cathedral, Magee, Mallard Larkins, and Upper 
Priest Roadless Areas on the Idaho Panhandle NF and the Scotchmans Peak 
Roadless Area on the Idaho Panhandle and Kootenai NFs. Some developed 
lands, which are areas that have been previously roaded and harvested, 
were changed from the BCR theme to the GFRG theme. In total, the land 
area encompassing the GFRG theme was reduced by approximately 203,700 
acres. See Appendices E and P of the FEIS.
    Comment: Forest Plan Special Areas. Several respondents asked for 
clarification about whether wild and scenic river management areas and 
other LMP special areas have precedence over the rule.
    Response: Under section 294.28(f), Forest Plan Special Areas 
(FPSA), like wild and scenic river management areas, a