Department of Agriculture - USDA Forest Service
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
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
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
VerDate Aug2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR261456 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 A notice of intent to prepare an
described in Alternative 4 of the
Agriculture (USDA or Department) is environmental impact statement (EIS)
‘‘Roadless Area Conservation National
adopting a state-specific, final rule was published in the Federal Register
Forest System Lands in Idaho Final
establishing management direction for April 10, 2007, (72 FR 17816). A notice
Environmental Impact Statement,’’
designated roadless areas in the State of of availability for the draft
USDA Forest Service, 2008, and the
Idaho. The final rule designates 250 environmental impact statement (DEIS)
supporting record. This decision is not
Idaho Roadless Areas (IRAs) and was published on December 21, 2007,
subject to Forest Service appeal
establishes five management themes (72 FR 72708). The Forest Service
regulations.
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
Roadless Area Inventories in Idaho
approach recognizing both local and 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
Department appropriate solution to address the
road building, timber cutting, and
• The Environmentally Preferred challenges of inventoried roadless area
discretionary mineral activities. The Alternative
final rule also allows the Forest Service Comments on the Proposed Rule and
management on NFS lands in the State
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
Administrative Procedure Act and Agency protect some of the most
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Idaho.
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 Aug2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2Federal 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
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
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 Aug2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR261458 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; approximately 140,000 responses. considered all input before making a
• 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 language, as well as suggestions for building new roads for forest health
• 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 critical need to go beyond past
regulations. Response to comments on
fires burned about 3.1 million acres in differences and focus on the on-the-
the DEIS are in Appendix R of the FEIS.
Idaho, of which about 1 million acres ground management issues for these
These comments played a key role in
were in IRAs. Wildland fire is a natural lands. This focus led to important
the development of modifications to the
component of these roadless areas; adjustments including: (1) Reducing
proposed rule and the decision made in
however, actions to reduce the risk of GFGR acres by 200,000; (2) increasing
this record of decision.
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.
• How Did the RACNAC Participate the RACNAC throughout the rulemaking
areas was needed. process.
in the Rulemaking 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
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
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 Aug2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2Federal 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
comments including: Alternative natural areas; wild and scenic rivers
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
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
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 Aug2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR261460 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
acres), the Agency’s best estimates The Department received
acres of IRAs. These lands are in the approximately 140,000 comments in
indicate only about 0.1 percent of IRAs
WLR, Primitive, and SAHTS themes. All response to the proposed rule and DEIS.
would likely see any changes in
road construction and reconstruction is A detailed analysis and response to
roadless characteristics over the next 15
prohibited, except when provided by public comment is set out in Appendix
years.
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,
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
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 Aug2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2Federal 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
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
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 Aug2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR261462 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
and formally consulted with the FWS decommissioning, and uncharacteristic
best defines the management intended
and NOAA. The biological opinions can wildland fire effects. Most of these
and the redundant definitions in the
be found at http://roadless.fs.fed.us/ definitions were added to improve
proposed rule were unnecessary and led
idaho.shtml and effects are discussed in clarity on the use of the exemptions
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
management classification themes have 294.22). Paragraphs (b) and (c) have
Proposed Section 294.20 Purpose been reordered to improve continuity.
been removed. Significant risk is now
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.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
VerDate Aug2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2Federal 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
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
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
ER16OC08.000
prohibited by the final rule. Examples of assignments for specific IRAs. changed from BCR to Primitive.
VerDate Aug2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR261464 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. by which new roads could be
Comment: Primitive theme. A
Response: The 2001 roadless rule constructed were left undefined and
respondent suggested the Primitive
made no wilderness recommendations. potentially could vary from the purpose
The Forest Service makes preliminary theme should be avoided because areas
designated as Primitive would fall short of the 2001 roadless rule. Specifically,
wilderness recommendations through several respondents felt that new road
the land management planning process. of the wilderness suitability criteria
because of the proposed rule’s permitted construction to facilitate timber cutting
Recommendations to Congress should only be done in cases of
concerning wilderness activities.
imminent threat to people and property,
recommendations are an authority Response: This rule is not designed to
although others felt significant risk was
reserved to the Secretary. However, the address potential wilderness
too restrictive and did not have enough
suggested approach of directing that designations. However, agency
flexibility to address forest health issues
preliminarily recommended areas be wilderness evaluation criteria associated
in IRAs. Based on public comments and
managed in accordance with existing with LMPs provide that although a
advice from the RACNAC, the
LMP direction would essentially be forest road or other permanently
Department saw a need to refine the
achieved through the approach authorized road is one criteria for not
scope and conditions by which
described in FEIS Alternative 2. The considering an area for potential
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
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
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 Aug2005 16:40 Oct 15, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2You can also read
