This is a handy table from the DEIS:
Things Common to All Alternatives
1. No changes are proposed to state-specific rules for Idaho and Colorado
2. No alternatives would compel the amendment or revision of any land management plan. While the rulemaking would not require such changes, plans may be amended in any manner whatsoever and are revised periodically (16 U.S.C. 1604(f)). Local responsible officials (forest supervisors and regional foresters) would continue to have discretion to amend or revise a land management plan as deemed necessary.
Thank Gaia for that one!
3. Any future administrative changes, amendments, or revisions to land management plans would comply with NFMA and planning regulations (36 CFR 219 or the planning directives at FSM 1920 and FSH 1909.12).
It sounds as if, for Alternative 1, forests who wanted to go into the Areas Formerly Known as IRAs would have to do a plan amendment because the management as an IRA was incorporated into post-2001 plans and pre -2001 plans would automatically revert? Others probably understand more.
4. No alternatives would compel or authorize site-specific ground disturbing activities.
5.The reasonable exercise of reserved or outstanding rights for access, occupancy, and use of National Forest System lands within inventoried roadless areas would not be affected. The rights include those that exist by law or by treaty. They include, but are not limited to, the right to provide reasonable access across National Forest System lands to private property, mining claims for locatable minerals under the 1872 Mining Law, land uses protected by Native American treaty rights, and uses under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
I know some folks have raised red flags about strategic minerals. Those are (almost all) locatable and subject to the 1872 Mining Act. So the 2001 is no protection against folks mining them.
6. All alternatives would allow for the continuation, transfer, or renewal of existing land-use authorizations for activities in roadless areas. “Authorizations” refer to land uses allowed under a special use permit, contract, or similar legal instrument. Numerous types of lands and recreation-related authorizations are issued for occupancy and use of National Forest System lands.
7. Other Forest Activities that are not otherwise prohibited are permissible in inventoried roadless areas under all alternatives, if not restricted by land management plans or other law, regulations,and policies.These activities include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Maintaining existing roads;
• Constructing or maintaining motorized and non-motorized trails;
• Engaging in hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, and other recreational uses;
• Using a motorized vehicle, such as an off-highway vehicle, on a trail open to motorized use;
• Riding a bike on a trail open to mechanized use;
• Implementing prescribed burning; and
• Grazing livestock.
I’m not sure that this list is complete, I would think firewood cutting and other non-commercial (but permitted) tree cutting activities are also OK? What the 2001 says is .. “The cutting, sale, or removal of timber is needed and appropriate for personal or administrative use, as provided for in 36 CFR part 223; ”
36 CFR part 294.13 (b)(3)
Maybe there are others?
Maybe you could ask Gaia what #2 and #3 mean – they don’t answer the question I asked in my comment on the prior post about forest planning. Is what is written here just restating the application of NFMA or the Planning Rule, or are they saying that forest planning has always been able to eliminate Roadless Rule requirements (which I don’t believe is true), or that the chosen alternative would allow this? Which takes me back to the question of, if forest planning can do this, why are they doing national decisions about individual forests at all?
As a general principle, what a forest plan says governs unless overriden by rules or laws. If the rule of law is removed, you’re left with what the forest plan says. If what the forest plan says incorporates the rule or law, I think that language still applies to the forest plan unless the plan is amended (because that was what the effects analysis was based on). But I could see a lawsuit about that.