21272 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

umbrella, constitutes time that must be 

included in the calculation of duty time 

to determine the rest required under 

§ 121.377, whether or not that unit itself 

must adhere to the requirements of 

§ 121.377. An employee using accrued 

vacation or credit time is not ‘‘on duty’’ 

even though the employee may receive 

compensation for that time. 

Nevertheless, the regulation aims to 

require repair stations to give its 

maintenance personnel at least one day 

off every week without requiring that 

employee to use accrued vacation time 

to be free from any responsibility for 

work. 

Once Pratt relieves the employee from 

duty, the regulation does not require 

Pratt to monitor the employee’s 

activities. The scenario where an 

employee uses the time off from Pratt to 

work at another maintenance facility 

does not implicate Pratt’s compliance 

with § 121.377. Unlike the regulations 

governing crewmember duty time, 

§ 121.377 does not contain a limit on an 

employee’s total accumulated working 

hours within a specified period of time. 

The FAA does not recommend this 

practice, however, for the reasons 

discussed in AC 120–72 related to 

fatigue. Thus, an employee relieved 

from duty by Pratt may perform other 

aviation related maintenance, even for 

other facilities which themselves are 

bound by § 121.377, provided the 

employee is provided the requisite time 

off by each facility for which the 

employee works. Pratt must use caution, 

however, not to create the appearance of 

requiring an employee to work during 

off hours for another facility that is just 

a corporate sister to the Pratt facility. 

You also raise the question of whether 

a facility can schedule employees to 

work more than six consecutive days, 

thereby grouping required days off, and 

still remain in compliance with 

§ 121.377. The regulatory standard 

requires 24 consecutive hours off duty 

during any seven consecutive days but 

also contains some flexibility in the 

phrase ‘‘or the equivalent thereof within 

any one calendar month.’’ The FAA 

intended that the regulation allow 

employees to work in excess of six 

consecutive days in the event of a 

national emergency or unusual 

occurrence in the air carrier industry. 

See Legal Interpretation 1987–15 (June 

14, 1987). The regulatory flexibility 

found in § 121.377 allows maintenance 

personnel to work a schedule that 

maintains the ‘‘equivalent’’ to one day 

off every week even though that 

schedule might provide for more than 

six consecutive days of work. 

The equivalent standard, however, 

does have limits. The tenants of 

statutory and regulatory interpretation 

suggest that the specific standard of one 

day off every week cannot be rendered 

completely inoperative by the more 

general equivalent standard. A previous 

interpretation allowed that a work 

schedule that provides for personnel to 

have a group of 4 days off followed by 

up to 24 days of work, or vice versa, 

would still meet the standard of being 

‘‘equivalent’’ to one day off in every 

seven within a month. Legal 

Interpretation to Ron Webb from Donald 

P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, 

Regulations (June 21, 1991). That 

interpretation, however, was issued 

prior to the findings relating fatigue to 

maintenance related errors in the air 

carrier industry discussed in AC 120– 

72. Webster’s dictionary defines 

‘‘equivalent’’ as having logical 

equivalence, or corresponding or 

virtually identical in effect or function. 

Today, we would not view as compliant 

a schedule that provides over the course 

of eight weeks for four days off followed 

by 48 straight days of duty followed by 

four more days off. Such a work 

schedule that generally provides for an 

average of one day off over several 

weeks cannot be said to be ‘‘equivalent’’ 

to the more specific standard requiring 

one day off out of every seven days. 

Lastly, you correctly note that the 

regulation does not address the length of 

the work day, only the length of the 

required time off work. The legal 

interpretation from Mr. Byrne to Mr. 

Webb also makes clear that the general 

equivalency provision in § 121.377 does 

not apply to the specific requirement to 

give 24 consecutive hours of time off. 

Time off may not be provided in smaller 

increments over several days even 

though the total time off over any seven 

day period may equal or exceed 24 

hours. 

We appreciate your patience and trust 

that the above responds to your 

concerns. If you need further assistance, 

please contact my staff at (202) 267– 

3073. This response was prepared by 

Anne Bechdolt, Attorney in the 

Operations Law Branch of the 

Regulations Division of the Office of the 

Chief Counsel, and coordinated with the 

Aircraft Maintenance and Air 

Transportation divisions of Flight 

Standards Service. 

Rebecca B. MacPherson, 

Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division 

[FR Doc. 2011–9236 Filed 4–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

36 CFR Part 294 

RIN 0596–AC74 

Special Areas; Roadless Area 

Conservation; Applicability to the 

National Forests in Colorado 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), is 

proposing to establish a State-specific 

rule to provide management direction 

for conserving and managing 

inventoried roadless areas on National 

Forest System (NFS) lands in Colorado. 

A proposed rule was published in the 

July 25, 2008, Federal Register. In 

response to public comment on the 2008 

Proposed Rule and a revised petition 

submitted by the State of Colorado on 

April 6, 2010, the Forest Service is 

publishing a new proposed rule. 

The Agency is inviting public 

comment on this new proposed rule and 

accompanying revised draft 

environmental impact statement 

(RDEIS). The Agency is interested in 

public comments on the changes to 

exceptions and prohibitions on 

activities in roadless areas that have 

been developed in response to public 

comments on the 2008 Proposed Rule. 

The Agency is particularly interested in 

receiving public comments on the 

concept, management, and rationale for 

designation of specific areas within 

Colorado Roadless Areas identified as 

‘‘upper tier.’’ In this proposed rule, these 

areas are provided a higher level of 

protection than the 2001 Roadless Rule, 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by July 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent via 

e-mail to COComments@fsroadless.org. 

Comments may also be submitted via 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Written comments 

concerning this notice should be 

addressed to: Colorado Roadless Rule/ 

EIS, P.O. Box 1919, Sacramento, CA 

95812. 

All comments, including names and 

addresses, are placed in the record and 

are available for public inspection and 

copying. The public may inspect 

comments received at http:// 

roadless.fs.fed.us. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colorado Roadless Rule Team Leader 

Ken Tu at (303) 275–5156. Individuals 

using telecommunication devices for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21273 

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: 

Background 

As a leader in natural resource 

conservation, the Forest Service 

provides direction for the management 

and use of the Nation’s forests, 

rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems 

under its jurisdiction. Similarly, the 

State of Colorado is committed to 

sustained natural resource use and 

conservation of State and Federal land 

within its borders. Furthermore, the 

Forest Service is charged to collaborate 

cooperatively with States and other 

interested parties regarding the use and 

management of the National Forest 

System (NFS). 

Colorado’s Roadless Areas are of great 

importance to the people of Colorado 

and the Nation. These magnificent 

landscapes provide a variety of 

resources and open space opportunities 

for all Americans. They provide the 

setting and backdrop for recreational 

experiences of all kinds, including nonmotorized and/or motorized recreational 

trail use. They are sources of clean and 

safe public drinking water. They contain 

intact habitat for species dependent on 

large, undisturbed areas of land. The 

scenic quality of these naturally 

appearing landscapes is among the 

highest in the Nation. These areas serve 

as bulwarks against the spread of nonnative invasive plant species and 

provide reference areas for study and 

research. The USDA, Forest Service, and 

State consider these areas an important 

component of the NFS and are 

committed to the conservation and 

protection of Colorado Roadless Areas 

(CRAs). 

The unique perspectives and 

knowledge provided by the State and 

the public was of great assistance 

throughout the development of this 

proposed rule. Many of the CRAs form 

the setting and backdrop for Colorado 

communities and have become part of 

their identity. These areas help provide 

a high quality of life for local residents. 

They are also the backdrop for worldclass skiing, hunting and fishing, and 

backcountry experiences for nonresidents. Local communities are 

sensitive to the economic consequences 

of Federal land management, whether 

for tourism or other purposes. 

The new proposed rule addresses 

both local and national interests in the 

management of Colorado Roadless 

Areas. Recommendations from the 

USDA Secretary’s Roadless Area 

Conservation National Advisory 

Committee (RACNAC) and public 

comment on the 2008 Proposed Rule 

both provided a national perspective. 

The RACNAC was specifically designed 

as an advisory committee composed of 

national interests to provide a national 

perspective, and it no longer exists. The 

vast majority of respondents to the 2008 

Proposed Rule expressed a desire for a 

rule that protects roadless area 

characteristics now and for future 

generations. However, some 

respondents suggested alternative, less 

restrictive roadless regulations. This 

proposed rule includes prohibitions on 

tree-cutting, sale, or removal; road 

construction/reconstruction; and linear 

construction zones, all with limited 

exceptions tailored to address specific 

issues. This proposed rule requires, in 

many cases, the Regional Forester to 

make specific determinations prior to 

authorizing exceptions. 

In this proposed rule, substantially 

altered acres have been removed from 

the roadless inventory and new acres 

with high level of roadless 

characteristics have been added. In the 

standard tier, 20,000 acres are in the 

North Fork coal mining area, where 

there is an exception for temporary 

roads for underground coal activities 

such as methane drainage wells. 

Existing ski areas (8,300 acres) have 

been removed from the roadless 

inventory, although only 1,700 acres 

would be currently restricted by the 

2001 Rule due to the fact that there are 

existing permits on the other 6,600 ski 

area acres. 

Linear construction zones are 

prohibited with some exceptions. There 

is no prohibition of linear construction 

zones in the 2001 Rule. 

In the proposed rule, there are 

exceptions for temporary roads for fuels 

treatment and for ecosystem 

maintenance and restoration, but these 

are restricted to locations within one 

half mile of communities. Road 

construction for these purposes is not 

allowed in the 2001 Rule. There is an 

exception for roads for authorized water 

conveyance structures operated 

according to a State water court decree 

in existence at the time of the 

promulgation of the final rule. There is 

no exception for roads for water 

conveyance structures in the 2001 Rule. 

In the proposed rule, the tree cutting 

exceptions for fuel treatment and 

ecosystem maintenance and restoration 

are restricted spatially in this proposed 

rule to a maximum of one and a half 

miles from communities. The only 

condition in which tree cutting could 

occur outside the community protection 

zone (CPZ) requires a Regional Forester 

determination that there is a significant 

risk from wildfire to a municipal water 

supply system. The 2001 Rule exception 

for ecosystem maintenance and 

restoration allows tree cutting anywhere 

within roadless areas. 

In the proposed rule, an upper tier of 

protection has been designated with 

fewer exceptions than the 2001 Rule for 

road construction and reconstruction 

and tree cutting. Exceptions are not 

allowed for road reconstruction and 

realignment, and temporary roads for 

public health and safety. The 2001 Rule 

tree-cutting exceptions for maintenance 

and restoration of ecosystem 

characteristics, and for habitat 

improvement for endangered, 

threatened or sensitive species are not 

allowed in the upper tier of the 

proposed rule. 

State of Colorado Petitions 

On July 14, 2005, the State of 

Colorado announced it would submit a 

petition requesting specific regulatory 

protections for the inventoried roadless 

areas within the State. The State’s 

commitment to participate was 

evidenced by Colorado Senate Bill 05– 

243, the Roadless Areas Review Task 

Force legislation signed into Colorado 

law on June 8, 2005. The law identified 

membership and responsibilities of a 

13-member bipartisan task force to make 

recommendations to the Governor 

regarding inventoried roadless areas in 

Colorado. The law also identified the 

Federal 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule) 

as the starting point for the task force. 

The task force held nine public 

meetings throughout the State, reviewed 

and considered over 40,000 public 

comments, and conducted a 

comprehensive review of Colorado’s 4.4 

million acres of inventoried roadless 

areas included in the 2001 Roadless 

Rule. 

Colorado’s petition (2006 Petition) 

was submitted by then-Governor Owens 

on November 13, 2006, to the Secretary 

of Agriculture for consideration under 

section 553(e) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act and USDA regulations at 

7 CFR 1.28. On April 11, 2007, Governor 

Ritter resubmitted the 2006 petition 

with additions (2007 Petition). After 

reviewing the recommendation from the 

RACNAC, the Secretary of Agriculture 

accepted the 2007 Petition on August 

24, 2007, and directed the Forest 

Service to initiate rulemaking based on 

the petition. The State of Colorado was 

granted cooperating agency status for 

purposes of compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6 of 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations in a memorandum of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
21274 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

understanding dated January 8, 2008. A 

notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

was published in the Federal Register 

on December 26, 2007 (72 FR 72982). 

The public comment period ended on 

February 25, 2008. The Forest Service 

received about 88,000 responses. 

On July 25, 2008, the Forest Service 

published the 2008 Proposed Rule to 

establish State-specific management 

direction for conserving roadless areas 

on NFS land in Colorado in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 43544). A notice of 

availability for the draft EIS was 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 1, 2008 (73 FR 44991). The 

availability of the regulatory risk 

assessment for the 2008 Proposed Rule 

was published in the Federal Register 

on September 18, 2008 (73 FR 54125). 

The comment period for all three 

documents closed on October 23, 2008. 

Information applying to the 2008 

Proposed Rule was provided to the Ute 

Mountain Ute and Southern Ute Indian 

Tribes, located in Colorado, prior to the 

release of the NOI. An introductory 

letter, the NOI, background information 

on the 2008 Proposed Rule, and an offer 

for additional information or meetings 

were sent to the Tribes. The 2008 

Proposed Rule and DEIS were sent to 

each Tribe and each was contacted by 

phone to determine interest in meeting 

or obtaining information. The Tribes did 

not request additional government to 

government involvement, and no formal 

comments from any of the Tribes were 

received. A letter was sent to the Tribes 

with a draft version of this revised 

proposed rule and the Forest Service 

met with those Tribes requesting further 

consultation. In accordance with 

Executive Order 13175, consultation 

efforts will continue throughout the 

process and preparation of a final Rule. 

As a result of its July, August, and 

September 2008 notices, the Forest 

Service received approximately 106,000 

responses of which 105,000 were form 

letters. Responses included advocacy for 

a particular outcome or for specific 

regulatory language, and calls for 

compliance with laws and regulations. 

Some responses contained suggestions 

on further analyses and changes to 

issues, alternatives, and CRA 

boundaries. 

The RACNAC held public meetings in 

Washington, DC, and Salt Lake City, 

Utah, and submitted recommendations 

to the Secretary of Agriculture on 

December 5, 2008, to be considered in 

the development of the rule. 

Throughout the public involvement 

process, the USDA, Forest Service, and 

State repeatedly heard comments 

requesting a reduction in the scope of 

the Colorado State Petition’s proposed 

exceptions for tree-cutting, sale, or 

removal and road construction and 

reconstruction. Based on the comments, 

the State requested the USDA postpone 

further rulemaking efforts until the State 

considered revision of its 2007 Petition. 

On August 3, 2009, the State of 

Colorado released a proposed revision 

of rule language to be used for its 

formulation of a revised petition to the 

public. The State received 

approximately 22,000 comments during 

the 60-day comment period, the 

majority of which were form letters. The 

State considered the public comments 

and submitted a revised petition to the 

Secretary on April 6, 2010 (2010 

Petition). 

Upon receipt of the revised petition 

and consideration of the public 

comments submitted on the petition, 

Secretary of Agriculture Thomas J. 

Vilsack instructed the Forest Service to 

‘‘analyze the potential of adding 

substantially to the number of acres 

receiving a higher level of protection’’ 

(upper tier lands) than the 2001 

Roadless Rule. The 2010 Petition 

contained 257,000 upper tier acres. 

Based on the Secretary’s direction, acres 

were added such that there are now 

562,200 upper tier acres in this 

proposed rule. These areas were 

selected to become upper tier based on 

their roadless characteristics, and that 

they were already designated for higher 

levels of protection in either draft or 

final forest plans. 

The Forest Service analyzed four 

alternatives for managing roadless areas 

in this RDEIS. Alternative 1 uses 

provisions of the 2001 Roadless Rule 

and applies them to the 2001 roadless 

area inventory. Alternative 2 is the 

proposed rule, applies the rule to 

inventoried Colorado Roadless Areas, 

and includes 562,200 acres in the upper 

tier. Alternative 3 uses forest plan 

direction to manage roadless areas, and 

alternative 4 uses the proposed rule 

direction, applies the direction to 

Colorado Roadless Areas, and includes 

approximately 2.6 million acres of 

upper tier. The RDEIS may be found at 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us. Following 

Secretarial instructions, as well as 

reviewing public comments received to 

date, and the RACNAC 

recommendations, the Forest Service in 

consultation with the State, made 

additional adjustments and 

clarifications to this proposed rule. 

Roadless Area Inventories in Colorado 

Finally, the proposed rule includes an 

updated inventory of roadless areas. The 

2007 State Petition proposed using the 

inventories used in the 2001 Roadless 

Rule. In some cases, these were based 

on inventories from the late 70s. Those 

inventories used mapping technologies 

that are now outdated, and also roads 

had been constructed between the time 

of the original inventories and their use 

in the 2001 Roadless Rule. The Forest 

Service has reviewed and updated the 

2001 inventories for the purpose of this 

rulemaking; making technical 

corrections, removing private property 

and making other boundary 

adjustments, including additions and 

deletions due to land exchanges. Newly 

congressionally-designated areas have 

also been removed from the CRA 

inventory. 

During the public comment period on 

the 2008 Proposed Rule, comments were 

received on many of the boundaries of 

individual CRAs. The Forest Service 

and Colorado Department of Wildlife 

field staff worked jointly to identify 

corrections to the inventories used for 

the 2008 Proposed Rule. Further 

information on the boundary changes 

and a description of the uniqueness of 

each CRA can be found at http:// 

roadless.fs.fed.us. 

CRA boundaries have been adjusted 

where they overlap with ski areas that 

have special use authorizations or land 

use management plan allocations for ski 

areas that allow road construction. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21275 

PROPOSED NET CHANGE IN ROADLESS ACRES DESIGNATIONS BY FOREST—INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREA ACRES TO

COLORADO ROADLESS AREA ACRES

2001 rule total 

IRA acres 

Corrected 

Colorado IRA 

acres 1

Corrected IRA 

acres not 

included 

within Colorado roadless 

areas 

Roadless 

acres added to 

Colorado 

roadless areas 

Total roadless 

acres to be 

managed 

under Colorado rule 

Proposed net 

change 

Region 2 Colorado 

Arapaho-Roosevelt ................................ 391,000 352,500 10,800 5,400 347,100 (5,400 ) 

GMUG .................................................... 1,127,000 1,058,300 280,800 124,200 901,900 (156,500 ) 

Pike San Isabel ...................................... 688,000 667,300 63,000 170,300 774,600 107,300 

Rio Grande ............................................. 530,000 529,000 14,300 3,800 518,500 (10,500 ) 

Routt ....................................................... 442,000 442,300 10,300 1,700 433,700 (8,600 ) 

San Juan ................................................ 604,000 543,600 76,600 98,900 565,900 22,300 

White River ............................................ 640,000 639,500 7,500 4,700 636,700 (2,800 ) 

Region 4 Colorado 

Manti La Sal ........................................... 11,000 11,000 3,800 500 7,700 (3,300 ) 

TOTAL STATE of COLORADO ...... 4,433,000 4,243,600 467,100 409,500 4,186,000 (57,600 ) 

Column 1 acres rounded to nearest 1,000 acres; others rounded to nearest 100 acres. Totals may not add due to rounding. 

1 Net acres after technical corrections to 2001 rule IRA map acres. 

Land Management Planning Efforts 

The Agency is continuing land 

management planning efforts at the 

national level as well on several forests 

in Colorado concurrent with this 

rulemaking. The Rocky Mountain 

Region is presently conducting a 

revision of the San Juan National Forest 

land management plan and the revision 

schedule may be found at http:// 

ocs.fortlewis.edu/forestplan. A complete 

schedule of plan revisions is posted at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/ 

includes/LRMPschedule.pdf. At the 

national level, the Agency is engaging in 

a revision of its land management 

planning regulations. Information is 

posted at http://www.fs.usda.gov/ 

planningrule. Some provisions of this 

proposed rule use terminology and 

concepts from existing plans and 

planning regulations (e.g. ‘‘sensitive 

species’’). The use of such terminology 

is potentially subject to adjustment. 

Specific Request for Public Comment 

The Agency is particularly interested 

in receiving public input regarding 

specific areas within the CRAs that 

should or should not be included in the 

upper tier lands including the reason for 

the inclusion or exclusion (see RDEIS, 

Appendix B and map packet); and what 

exceptions to the prohibitions on treecutting, sale, or removal, and road 

construction/reconstruction should 

apply to upper tier lands. In addition, 

the Agency is interested in receiving 

comments on effective means of 

managing linear facilities, such as 

electric power lines and 

telecommunications lines, within 

roadless areas in context of this 

proposed rule. 

Section by Section Highlights of 

Changes From the July 2008 Proposed 

Rule 

This proposed rule replaces the 

proposed rule published in July 2008. 

The section numbers of this proposed 

rule do not correspond with the 

numbering used in the 2008 Proposed 

Rule. Minor changes, edits, or 

corrections are not discussed. 

Section 294.40 Purpose 

The purpose remains to provide Statespecific direction for the protection of 

roadless areas on NFS land in Colorado 

that sustains roadless area 

characteristics now and for future 

generations. 

Section 294.41 Definitions 

Several terms have been added for 

clarification and some terms have been 

removed where no longer needed. 

The term at-risk community as 

defined in section 101 of the Healthy 

Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) has been 

added. 

The term Colorado Roadless Area 

upper tier acres has been added. These 

are specific portions of or entire CRAs 

identified in the set of CRA maps. The 

proposed rule prohibits all tree-cutting, 

sale, or removal on these acres, except 

where incidental to the implementation 

of a management activity not otherwise 

prohibited by the rule, or as needed and 

appropriate for personal or 

administrative use. The proposed rule 

would prohibit all road construction or 

reconstruction on these lands, except 

where needed pursuant to reserved or 

outstanding rights or as provided for by 

statute or treaty. All 562,200 acres 

analyzed in alternative 2 of the RDEIS 

are part of the preferred alternative 

(proposed rule). 

The term Wildland Urban Interface 

(WUI) is removed and replaced by the 

term Community Protection Zone (CPZ). 

A CPZ is defined as either an area onehalf mile from the boundary of an at-risk 

community or an area up to 1c miles 

from the boundary of an at-risk 

community where: the land has a 

sustained steep slope that creates the 

potential for wildfire behavior 

endangering the at-risk community; or 

has a geographic feature that aids in 

creating an effective fire break, such as 

a river or a ridge top; or where the trees 

are in condition class 3 as defined by 

the HFRA. The CPZ is measured from 

the boundary of the at-risk community 

and not from the boundary of the CRA. 

The term hazardous fuels has been 

added. Hazardous fuels are defined as 

excessive live or dead wildland fuel 

accumulations that increase the 

potential for intense wildland fire and 

decrease the capability to protect life, 

property and other resources. 

The term roadless area characteristics 

has been retained, but modified from 

the definition offered in the 2008 

Proposed Rule. The 2008 definition 

indicated that the enumeration of the 

various resources and features was not 

intended to constitute in any way the 

establishment of any legal standard, 

requirement, or cause for any 

administrative appeal or legal action 

related to any project or activity 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
21276 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

otherwise authorized by this rule. The 

2010 State Petition recommended 

removing that language from the 

definition and inserting interpretive 

language in the scope and applicability 

section of the regulation. The proposed 

rule states in § 294.40 that the intent of 

this regulation is to protect roadless 

areas. Activities must be designed to 

conserve the roadless area 

characteristics listed in § 294.41, 

although the proposed rule 

acknowledges that applying the 

exceptions in § 294.42, § 294.43, and 

§ 294.44 may have effects to some 

roadless area characteristics. 

The terms catchment, native cutthroat 

trout, and water influence zone have 

been added to describe requirements 

that provide additional protection for 

native cutthroat trout species when a 

road construction/reconstruction or 

linear construction zone exception is 

authorized. 

The term linear construction zone has 

been added. 

The term utility has been removed, 

and replaced by linear facility which 

includes pipelines, electrical power 

lines, and telecommunication lines. 

The definition for water conveyance 

structures has been modified to include 

reservoirs to clarify that they are 

included under the exception for 

construction, reconstruction or 

maintenance of roads for authorized 

water conveyance structures. This 

exception in the proposed rule applies 

only to those water conveyance 

structures operated pursuant to a water 

court decree existing as of the date of 

the final rule. 

The term Pre-existing Water Court 

Decree has been defined. 

Section 294.42 Prohibition on TreeCutting, Sale, or Removal 

On lands designated as upper tier, 

tree-cutting, sale, or removal would be 

prohibited except when the Responsible 

Official determines that the activity is 

consistent with the applicable land 

management plan (LMP), and incidental 

to the implementation of a management 

activity not otherwise prohibited, or as 

needed and appropriate for personal or 

administrative use. Upper tier areas 

provide for a higher level of protection 

than the 2001 Roadless Rule because the 

exceptions in the 2001 Roadless Rule to 

allow tree-cutting, sale or removal for 

species habitat and for maintenance and 

restoration of ecosystem composition 

and structure, including the reduction 

of risk of uncharacteristic wildfire 

effects, are not applied to upper tier in 

this proposed rule. 

On the remaining CRA lands, the 

proposed rule would require the 

Responsible Official to determine 

whether any proposed tree-cutting, sale, 

or removal project would be consistent 

with the applicable LMP, would 

maintain or improve one or more 

roadless area characteristic over the 

long-term, and would qualify as a listed 

exception. Tree-cutting incidental to a 

management activity otherwise 

authorized by this proposed rule or for 

personal or administrative use would 

not be required to maintain or improve 

one or more of the roadless area 

characteristics over the long-term. 

The exceptions concerning treecutting, sale, or removal allowed to 

reduce fuel loadings to moderate the 

potential effects of a catastrophic 

wildland fire have been refined. The 

proposed rule takes into account that 

homes that have been constructed 

adjacent to Colorado’s national forests 

and the increasing threat of fire to these 

at-risk communities. Treating hazardous 

fuels, and creating safety zones for fire 

crews in areas around communities can 

make a difference in the ability of 

firefighters to control wildfire moving 

toward an at-risk community. Such 

conditions have been a major 

consideration in developing the 

proposed rule language. 

In Colorado, about 340 of the HFRA 

at-risk communities listed in the 

Federal Register (66 FR 753, January 4, 

2001) are within 11⁄2 miles of a CRA. In 

the period between 1980 and 2008, over 

1,700 ignitions affecting over 45,000 

acres occurred within roadless areas in 

Colorado. Over 45 percent of these 

ignitions and 25 percent of the acres 

burned were within the 11⁄2 mile CPZ. 

The proposed rule allows flexible 

treatment prior to imminent fire activity 

and provides a more restrictive 

approach than the 2001 Rule by limiting 

fuel treatments to the CPZ. In addition, 

the proposed rule, by requiring 

treatment areas beyond one-half mile 

from an at-risk community to be 

identified in a Community Wildfire 

Protection Plan (CWPP), ensures 

consideration of community and 

practitioner knowledge about conditions 

in a specific area. 

Within the CPZ, tree-cutting, sale, or 

removal may occur within the first onehalf mile of a CPZ only when the 

Regional Forester determines it is 

needed to reduce the wildfire hazard to 

either an at-risk community or a 

municipal water supply system, 

including reservoirs and dams, 

diversion structures, headgates, canals, 

ditches, tunnels, pipelines, and other 

surface facilities and systems. 

Within the outer one mile of the CPZ, 

tree-cutting, sale, or removal, if 

determined to be needed by the 

Regional Forester, may only occur in an 

area identified in a CWPP. The CPZ 

would still be the maximum boundary 

for allowed treatments within CRAs. If 

the CPZ boundary exceeds the CWPP 

boundary, treatments would be limited 

to the CWPP area. 

Projects within the CPZ are to be 

focused on small diameter trees to 

create fuel conditions to modify fire 

behavior while retaining large trees to 

the maximum extent practical, as 

appropriate to the forest type. In forest 

types such as lodgepole pine, trees may 

be dead or dying, regardless of size, and 

may need to be removed, both to 

prevent hazards to firefighters from 

falling and fallen trees, and for 

successful hazardous fuel reduction. 

Tree-cutting, sale, or removal for the 

protection of municipal water supply 

systems outside of a CPZ is allowed 

only if the Regional Forester determines 

that a significant risk exists to the 

municipal water supply system or the 

maintenance of that system. This 

section states that a significant risk 

exists under conditions in which the 

history of fire occurrence and fire 

hazard and risk indicate a serious 

likelihood that a wildland fire 

disturbance event would present a high 

risk of threat to a municipal water 

supply system. 

Projects outside of the CPZ are to be 

focused on small diameter trees to 

create fuel conditions to modify fire 

behavior, while retaining large trees to 

the maximum extent practical as 

appropriate to the forest type. It is 

expected such projects will be 

infrequent. 

The requested exception that allows 

tree-cutting, sale, or removal to prevent 

or suppress an insect or disease 

epidemic has been replaced with an 

exception that allows tree-cutting, sale, 

or removal to restore the characteristics 

of ecosystem, composition, structure 

and processes. This exception is 

intended to be used infrequently. 

Tree-cutting, sale or removal for the 

purposes of wildlife habitat 

improvement is limited to Federally 

threatened, endangered, and proposed 

species or those listed as a regionally 

designated sensitive species by the 

Forest Service, instead of all wildlife 

and plant species as was allowed in the 

previously proposed rule. 

Tree-cutting that is incidental to a 

management activity that is otherwise 

not prohibited by the rule is allowed. 

Examples 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21277 

prescribed fire; survey and maintenance 

of property boundaries; or for road 

construction and linear construction 

zones where allowed by this rule. 

Tree-cutting for personal or 

administrative use is allowed and 

includes, but is not limited to, activities 

such as Christmas tree and firewood 

cutting. 

Section 294.43 Prohibition on Road 

Construction and Reconstruction 

The proposed rule revises the 

exceptions to the prohibitions on road 

construction or reconstruction from the 

previous proposal. Upper tier land 

designations have been added that 

prohibit all road construction/ 

reconstruction, except when pursuant to 

reserved or outstanding rights or as 

provided for by statute or treaty. Even 

in such a situation, the Responsible 

Official would be required to make a 

series of determinations to decide 

whether a proposal fits the exception 

within the upper tier lands. The 

determinations would include: 

consideration of technically feasible 

options without road construction; 

when proposing to construct a forest 

road, consideration of whether a 

temporary road would provide 

reasonable access; and within a native 

cutthroat trout catchment or identified 

recovery watershed, a determination 

whether road construction will 

diminish, over the long-term, conditions 

in the water influence zone and in the 

native cutthroat habitat. 

The rule provisions concerning 

proposed road construction or 

reconstruction for authorized water 

conveyance structures have been 

modified. The definition of water 

conveyances has been expanded to 

include reservoirs, and the exception is 

limited only to those conveyances 

operated pursuant to a pre-existing 

water court decree as of the effective 

date of a final rule. Water court decrees 

dated after the final date of the rule 

would not be eligible for roaded access 

in CRAs. Finally, the Regional Forester 

would be required to determine the 

need for the road access. 

The exception for temporary road 

construction associated with treecutting, sale, or removal to reduce the 

wildfire hazard to an at-risk community 

or municipal water supply system and 

tree-cutting associated with 

maintenance and restoration of 

characteristics of ecosystem 

composition, structure and processes, is 

limited to the first half mile of the CPZ 

and would require a determination by 

the Regional Forester. 

The road construction exception for 

the management of livestock grazing has 

been eliminated. New grazing 

authorizations would be limited to use 

of existing roads. 

Temporary road construction may be 

authorized when associated with 

exploration or development of an oil 

and gas lease that was issued prior to 

the effective date of the rule and when 

the lease and stipulations do not 

prohibit surface occupancy or roading. 

Approximately 9,000 acres of the 

Currant Creek CRA, have been removed 

from the North Fork Coal Mining Area 

exception due to public comments 

regarding the wildlife values of this 

particular CRA and the lack of existing 

coal leases in this area. In the remaining 

proposed 20,000 acres, temporary road 

construction would be allowed for coal 

exploration and coal-related surface 

support activities, such as the drilling of 

vent holes to extract methane gas to 

facilitate miner safety. These same 

temporary roads could also be used for 

the purpose of collecting and 

transporting coal mine methane to avoid 

venting methane into the atmosphere. 

The authorized road right-of-way would 

serve as the site for buried 

infrastructure, such as pipelines. The 

proposed rule allows for the 

opportunity to develop this important 

low-sulfur, cleaner-burning coal 

resource in a limited portion of the CRA 

inventory, with areas being returned to 

long term management for roadless area 

protection following the 

decommissioning of the associated 

temporary roads. 

Under all road exceptions, projects 

would have to be designed and 

completed to reduce unnecessary or 

unreasonable surface disturbance. All 

roads constructed would be 

decommissioned and the affected 

landscape restored when a road was no 

longer needed for the original purpose 

and/or when the authorization expired, 

whichever was sooner. These 

decommissioning requirements would 

be included in all related contracts or 

permits and could not be waived. 

To prevent roads from affecting the 

landscape longer than intended, 

temporary roads authorized under this 

subpart would not be converted to a 

forest road (be designated as a 

permanent road), unless the specific 

exception under which the temporary 

road was constructed allows for forest 

road construction and reconstruction. 

All roads would also restrict use to the 

purpose for the road, limiting the traffic 

and overall impact to the area. 

Motorized use by the general public 

including use by off-highway vehicles 

would be prohibited. General use 

restrictions would not apply to 

administrative use by the Forest Service, 

motor vehicle use that is specifically 

under an authorization issued under 

Federal law or regulation, or use for 

public health and safety or law 

enforcement reasons. Maintenance of 

temporary or forest roads would be 

permitted. 

Section 294.44 Prohibition on Linear 

Construction Zones 

Prohibitions on linear construction 

zones (LCZs) have been added to the 

proposed rule. The 2001 Roadless Rule 

did not restrict the use of LCZs. LCZs 

would be prohibited in CRAs unless 

they meet one of three exceptions: water 

conveyance structures with a preexisting water court decree; electrical 

power or telecommunication lines; and 

pipelines associated with oil and gas 

leases that allow surface use within 

CRAs or an oil and gas lease outside of 

CRA that connects to infrastructure 

inside of CRAs. For all three LCZ 

exceptions, the Regional Forester would 

be required to determine that motorized 

access is not possible without an LCZ 

that the LCZ is consistent with 

applicable LMP, and that in the long 

term the LCZ will not diminish 

conditions in native cutthroat trout 

habitat. 

The Regional Forester may authorize 

a LCZ when needed for construction, 

reconstruction, or maintenance of an 

authorized water conveyance structure 

that was operated pursuant to a preexisting water court decree, as of the 

effective date of this rule. This 

exception is similar to the road 

construction/reconstruction for water 

conveyance structures, but can be 

selected when a road is not necessary. 

Colorado’s petition and public 

comment identify that the current 

electrical power line system, some of 

which is already located in CRAs, will 

need to be maintained and upgraded. 

Additionally, demand for additional 

lines is expected. The rule recognizes 

these possibilities and would allow 

LCZs, when appropriate, as the method 

requiring the least disturbance. For the 

construction, reconstruction, or 

maintenance of existing or future 

electrical power lines or 

telecommunication lines within a CRA, 

the Regional Forester would determine 

if a LCZ is needed. The rule further 

clarifies that any future electrical power 

lines or telecommunication lines could 

only be authorized within a CRA if there 

is no opportunity for the project to be 

implemented outside the CRA without 

causing substantially greater 

environmental damage. The agency is 

inviting public comments on this 

exception. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
21278 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

The rule similarly recognizes that it 

may be appropriate to authorize a LCZ 

within CRAs to allow the movement of 

product to market from within a preexisting oil and gas lease within the 

CRA. The proposed rule also allows an 

LCZ when a proponent requests to 

connect from outside the CRA to an 

existing infrastructure within a CRA in 

order to avoid creation of a duplicate 

pipeline system and unnecessary 

environmental harm. The Regional 

Forester would be required to determine 

that such a connection would cause 

substantially less environmental damage 

than alternative routes. An LCZ would 

not be allowed for new pipelines that 

would merely pass through a CRA. 

All LCZs would be constructed in a 

manner that minimizes ground 

disturbance, and would include a 

reclamation plan. After installation of 

the linear facility, the LCZ and all areas 

of surface disturbance would be 

reclaimed according to the reclamation 

plan, and those requirements would not 

be waived. 

Section 294.45 Environmental 

Documentation 

The Forest Service will comply with 

NEPA for activities within CRAs. The 

Forest Service NEPA regulations at 36 

CFR 220.5(a)(2) normally require 

preparation of an EIS for any proposal 

that would substantially alter the 

undeveloped character of an inventoried 

roadless area, including CRAs. 

The Forest Service would be required 

to offer the State of Colorado 

cooperating agency status for all 

proposed projects and planning events 

within CRAs. When the Forest Service 

is not the lead agency and does not have 

the authority to offer formal cooperating 

agency status to the State of Colorado, 

the Forest Service would offer to 

coordinate with the State. 

Section 294.46 Other Activities 

The proposed rule would prohibit 

temporary and permanent road 

construction and reconstruction 

associated with new oil and gas leases 

issued within a Colorado Roadless Area. 

Some comments suggested that the 

Colorado Roadless Rule establish 

restrictions to be applied retroactively to 

oil and gas leases within CRAs. The 

proposed rule does not implement that 

suggestion. Consistent with other past 

Department rulemakings concerning 

roadless area management, this 

proposed rule is not designed or 

intended to alter previously approved 

decisions but instead establishes 

prospective management direction for 

the protection and management of 

CRAs. Nevertheless, the proposed rule 

would establish requirements to limit 

future discretionary decisions 

concerning oil and gas leasing within 

CRAs. Specifically, the proposed rule 

would require that only temporary roads 

could be developed in association with 

pre-existing leases. In addition, the 

proposed rule would prohibit the 

Agency from authorizing the Bureau of 

Land Management to grant any request 

for a waiver, exception, or modification 

to any oil or gas lease, if doing so would 

result in any road construction within a 

Colorado Roadless Area beyond that 

authorized at the time of issuance of the 

lease. 

Comments were also received for and 

against establishment of a prohibition 

on new oil and gas leasing or surface 

occupancy within CRAs. Again, like 

prior rules, the proposed rule does not 

establish such prohibitions. Instead, the 

proposed rule would allow only such 

leasing that can be accomplished 

without road construction or 

reconstruction and would require 

mandatory and non-waiveable 

stipulations prohibiting road 

construction. The proposed rule 

identifies regulatory requirements in 36 

CFR 294.44 that would be imposed for 

any linear construction zone associated 

with new leases. 

The proposed rule also confirms that 

the forest travel management processes 

will continue to be used for all future 

decisions regarding motorized and non 

motorized use on trails within CRAs. 

Motorized access not involving the 

construction or reconstruction of roads 

would continue according to existing 

authorizations. CRA designation would 

not eliminate or preclude any lands 

from being available for livestock 

grazing. 

Section 294.47 Modifications and 

Administrative Corrections 

The Chief of the Forest Service would 

be able to modify CRA boundaries based 

on a changed circumstance such as, the 

inclusion or exclusion of lands due to 

land exchanges, and updated 

inventories. Such changes to the 

boundaries would require public notice 

and a minimum 90-day public comment 

period. Changes due to new 

congressional designations would not 

require a modification, and would be 

adjusted to conform to the applicable 

statute. 

The Chief of the Forest Service would 

be able to make administrative 

corrections to CRA boundaries. 

Administrative corrections would 

require public notice and a 30-day 

comment period. Administrative 

corrections include adjustments such as 

to correct clerical errors or to reflect 

improved field data due to updated 

imagery, global positioning data, or 

other collected field data. 

Rulemaking would be required for 

any modification to final rule language. 

The Secretary would provide for public 

notice and a minimum 90-day comment 

period, and the State would be 

consulted on any rulemaking proposals. 

Section 294.48 Scope and 

Applicability 

The proposed rule’s applicability 

would be limited to authorizations for 

occupancy and use of NFS lands issued 

after the effective date of a final rule. 

The proposed rule’s provisions would 

not affect project or activity decisions 

issued prior to the effective date of a 

final rule. 

Components of a LMP can be more 

restrictive than the rule and will 

continue to provide guidance and 

direction for projects within CRAs. The 

proposed rule does not compel 

amendment or revision of a LMP. A 

project decision or LMP amendment or 

revision may not waive or supersede the 

provisions of this proposed rule. 

The proposed rule does not waive any 

requirements during project analyses to 

consult with Tribes and other agencies, 

comply with applicable laws, and 

involve the public. 

If any provision of the rule or its 

application were held to be invalid, the 

Department’s intention is that the 

remainder of the regulation would 

remain in force. 

After promulgation of a final rule, the 

rule promulgated on January 12, 2001, 

would have no effect within the State of 

Colorado. 

Section 294.49 List of Designated 

Colorado Roadless Areas 

There are 363 Colorado Roadless 

Areas in the proposed rule; an increase 

of 18 CRAs from the July 2008 Proposed 

Rule. 

Regulatory Certifications 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

The proposed rule was reviewed 

under USDA procedures, Executive 

Order 12866 (E.O. 12866), and the major 

rule provisions of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness 

Act (5 U.S.C. 800). E.O. 12866 addresses 

regulatory planning and review and 

requires agencies conduct a regulatory 

impact assessment for economically 

significant regulatory actions. 

Economically significant regulatory 

actions are those that have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more, or adversely affect the economy 

or economic sectors. Total annual 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21279 

output associated with oil, gas, and coal 

production in the affected areas is 

projected to be approximately $970 

million under the proposed rule, 

compared to approximately $1,030 

million under baseline conditions, 

implying the annual impact of the 

proposed rule is estimated to be a 

decrease of approximately $60 million 

for energy mineral sectors. Due to the 

potential magnitude of economic 

impacts and the level of interest in 

inventoried roadless area management, 

this proposed rule has been designated 

as significant and is subject to Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) review 

under E.O. 12866. 

A regulatory impact assessment has 

been prepared for this proposed rule. 

OMB Circular A–4 as well as guidance 

regarding E.O. 12866 indicate that 

regulatory impact analysis should 

include an assessment of distributional 

effects. The benefits, costs, and 

distributional effects of four alternatives 

are analyzed over a 15-year time period. 

These four alternatives referred to as 

follows: Alternative 1—the provisions of 

the 2001 Roadless Rule (2001 rule); 

alternative 2—the proposed Colorado 

Roadless Rule (proposed rule); 

alternative 3—Forest Plans (no action); 

and alternative 4 (the proposed rule 

with public identified upper tier 

acreage). The difference between 

alternative 2 and 4 is the number and 

location of upper tier acres identified 

within the CRAs. For the purpose of 

regulatory impact assessment, the forest 

plan alternative represents baseline 

conditions or goods and services 

provided by NFS lands in the near 

future in the absence of the proposed 

rule. In August 2008, the Wyoming 

District Court set aside and enjoined the 

2001 Roadless Rule. Colorado is under 

the Wyoming Court’s ruling. In the 

revised DEIS the baseline conditions are 

therefore assumed to mean that IRAs in 

Colorado will be managed according to 

direction set forth in the applicable 

forest plan (alternative 3). 

The proposed rule is programmatic in 

nature and intended to guide future 

development of proposed actions in 

roadless areas. The proposed rule is 

intended to provide greater management 

flexibility under certain circumstances 

to address unique and local land 

management challenges, while 

continuing to conserve roadless values 

and characteristics. Increased 

management flexibility is primarily 

needed to reduce hazardous fuels 

around communities to allow access to 

coal reserves in the North Fork coal 

mining areas, and to allow access to 

future water conveyances. 

The proposed rule does not authorize 

the implementation of any grounddisturbing activities, but rather it 

describes circumstances under which 

certain activities may be allowed or 

restricted in roadless areas. Before 

authorizing land use activities in 

roadless areas, the Forest Service must 

complete a more detailed and sitespecific environmental analysis 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing 

regulations. 

Because the proposed rule does not 

prescribe site-specific activities, it is 

difficult to predict changes in benefits 

and costs or other changes under the 

different alternatives. It should also be 

emphasized that the types of benefits 

derived from uses of roadless areas in 

Colorado are far ranging and include a 

number of non-market and non-use 

benefit categories that are difficult to 

measure in monetary terms. As a 

consequence, benefits are not 

monetized, nor are net present values or 

benefit cost ratios estimated. Instead, 

increases and/or losses in benefits are 

discussed separately for each resource 

area in a quantitative or qualitative 

manner. Benefits and costs are 

organized and discussed in the context 

of local land management challenges or 

concerns (‘local challenges’) and 

‘roadless area characteristics’ in an 

effort to remain consistent with the 

overall purpose of the proposed rule, 

recognizing that benefits associated with 

local challenges may trigger or overlap 

with benefits associated with roadless 

area characteristics in some cases (e.g., 

forest health). Access and designations 

for motorized versus non-motorized 

recreation is a topic raised in comments, 

however, the proposed rule does not 

provide direction on where and when 

off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would 

be permissible and makes clear that 

travel planning-related actions should 

be addressed through travel 

management planning and individual 

forest plans. 

Distributional effects or economic 

impacts, in terms of jobs and labor 

income, are quantified for the oil and 

gas and the coal sectors for an economic 

area consisting of five Colorado counties 

(Delta, Garfield, Mesa, Montrose, and 

Rio Blanco) using a regional impact 

model. Fiscal impacts (i.e., mineral 

lease payments) are estimated for 

counties where changes in mineral 

activity are expected to be physically 

located (Delta, Garfield, Gunnison, 

Mesa, Montrose, and Pitkin). The 

distributional effects associated with 

reducing wildfire hazard are 

characterized by estimating the extent to 

which CPZ areas (i.e., 0.5 to 1.5 mile 

buffer areas surrounding communities 

at-risk from wildfire) overlap roadless 

areas where tree-cutting for fuel 

treatments has been identified as being 

likely to occur. Distributional effects or 

economic impacts are not evaluated for 

other economic sectors (e.g., timber 

harvest, recreation) due to evidence 

presented in Table 2 suggesting that the 

extent or magnitude of changes in 

output or services are not sufficient to 

cause significant changes in jobs and 

income for those economic sectors. 

Details about the environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

rule can be found in the RDEIS. Effects 

on opportunities for small entities under 

the proposed rule are discussed in the 

context of E. O. 13272 regarding proper 

consideration of small entities and the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), which 

amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

The results of the regulatory impact 

assessment for the proposed rule are 

summarized in the following tables. 

Table 1 provides information related to 

roadless area acreage, road miles, and 

tree-cutting. Table 2 summarizes the 

potential benefits and costs of 

alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4. Table 3 

summarizes distributional effects and 

economic impacts of the proposed rule 

and alternatives. 

TABLE 1—FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS: COMPARISON OF ROADLESS AREA ACREAGE, ROAD MILES, AND TREE-CUTTING

Alternative 1 

2001 Roadless Rule 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Rule 

Alternative 3 

Forest Plans 

Alternative 4 

Proposed Rule with Public 

Identified Upper Tier Acres 1

Roadless Areas ....................... Inventoried Roadless Areas 

(IRAs) = 4,243,600 acres.

Colorado Roadless Areas 

(CRAs) = 4,186,000 acres.

4,243,600 acres ....................... Colorado Roadless Areas 

(CRAs) = 4,186,000 acres. 

Total Existing Authorized Road 

Miles in Roadless Areas 1.

1,260 miles in IRAs ................. 8.5 miles in CRAs .................... 1,260 miles in IRAs ................. 8.5 miles in CRAs.


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
21280 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS: COMPARISON OF ROADLESS AREA ACREAGE, ROAD MILES, AND TREE-CUTTING— 

Continued 

Alternative 1 

2001 Roadless Rule 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Rule 

Alternative 3 

Forest Plans 

Alternative 4 

Proposed Rule with Public 

Identified Upper Tier Acres 1

Road Construction and Reconstruction Projected in the 

Analysis Area.

14 miles/year (11 miles in 

IRAs).

20 miles/year (16 in CRAs) ..... 28 miles/year ........................... 18 miles/year (14 in CRAs). 

Tree-cutting Projected in the 

Analysis Area.

2,300 acres/year (1,200 in 

IRAs).

7,000 acres/year (5,800 acres 

in CRAs).

16,900 acres/year .................... 3,000 acres/year (1,800 acres 

in CRAs). 

1Approximately 24 miles of roads are projected to be decommissioned in IRAs and 8 miles decommissioned in CRAs. Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 2 

with the exception that more roadless areas are assigned to the upper tier restrictions. 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BY ALTERNATIVE

Issue or affected 

resource 

Alternative 1 

2001 Roadless Rule 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Rule 

Alternative 3 

(No Action) 

Forest Plans 

Alternative 4 

Proposed Rule with Public 

Identified Upper Tier Acres 

Local Challenges and Resources: Roadless Area Management 

Fire and Fuels (Hazardous 

Fuel Reductions).

Tree-cutting projected for 

1,800 acres per year in the 

analysis area to reduce hazardous fuels (900 of which 

are within IRAs); this 

amounts to 3% of average 

annual fuel treatments on all 

NFS lands in CO.

Least flexibility to conduct hazardous fuel reduction and reduce fire risk to communities 

and municipal water supply 

systems.

Tree-cutting projected for 

5,900 acres per year in the 

analysis area to reduce fuels 

(5,300 of which are within 

CRAs); this amounts to 9% 

of annual fuel treatments on 

all NFS lands in CO.

More flexibility to conduct hazardous fuel reduction and reduce fire risk to communities 

and municipal water supply 

systems.

Unable to conduct hazardous 

fuels reduction on 12% of 

0.5 mile CPZ and 13% of 

1.5 mile CPZ due to upper 

tier acre prohibitions.

Tree-cutting projected for 

13,100 acres per year in the 

analysis area to reduce 

fuels; this amounts to 20% 

of annual fuel treatments on 

all NFS lands in CO.

Greatest flexibility to conduct 

hazardous fuel reduction and 

reduce fire risk to communities and municipal water 

supply systems.

Tree-cutting projected for 

2,200 acres per year in the 

analysis area to reduce fuels 

(1,600 of which are within 

CRAs); this amounts to 3% 

of annual fuel treatments on 

all NFS lands in CO. 

Within the CRAs that are not 

upper tier acres, the flexibility to conduct hazardous 

fuel reduction and reduce 

fire risk to communities and 

municipal water supply systems is identical to alternative 2, but there are more 

upper tier acres that cannot 

be treated. 

Unable to conduct hazardous 

fuels reduction on 48% of 

0.5 mile CPZ and 52% of 

1.5 mile CPZ due to upper 

tier acre prohibitions. 

Ecosystem Maintenance and 

Restoration Treatments.

500 acres per year in the analysis area have projected 

tree-cutting activities (300 

acres within IRAs). Fewest 

opportunities to maintain and 

restore ecosystem characteristics, including resilience to 

insect and disease outbreaks and climate-induced 

stressors.

1,000 acres per year in the 

analysis area have projected 

tree-cutting activities (400 

acres within CRAs). More 

opportunities than alternatives 1 and 4, but fewer 

opportunities than alternative 

4 to maintain and restore 

ecosystem characteristics, 

including resilience to insect 

and disease outbreaks and 

climate-induced stressors. 

Unable to treat upper tier 

acres.

3,500 acres per year within the 

analysis area have projected 

tree-cutting activities.

Greatest opportunities to maintain and restore ecosystem 

characteristics, including resilience to insect and disease outbreaks and climateinduced stressors.

800 acres per year in the analysis area have projected 

tree-cutting activities (200 

acres within CRAs). More 

opportunities to maintain and 

restore ecosystem characteristics, including resilience to 

insect and disease outbreaks and climate-induced 

stressors than alternative 1 

but less than alternative 3 

and alternative 2 due to 

upper tier acres. 

Timber ...................................... Tree-cutting (sale or removal) in the roadless analysis area is projected to occur in association with treatments on 2,300, 3,000, 

7,000, and 16,900 acres per year respectively under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4. However, average annual treatment acreage on all 

NFS land is not expected to be affected substantially by the alternatives, with the only change being the extent to which treatments 

occur in roadless versus non-roadless areas on NFS lands. Minimal impacts to the wood products sector are therefore expected. 

Oil and Gas .............................. Projections are for approximately 686 oil and gas wells in the 

analysis area with access to 1,046 bcfg over a 15-year period 

(same for Alternatives 1, 2, and 4). Projected annual road construction and reconstruction is about 10 miles in roadless areas. 

Projections are for approximately 783 oil and gas wells 

in the analysis area with access to 1,154 bcfg over a 

15-year period, providing 

slightly more opportunity 

compares to the other alternatives. Annual road construction/reconstruction is 11 

miles.

Same as Alternative 1 and 2. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21281 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BY ALTERNATIVE—Continued 

Issue or affected 

resource 

Alternative 1 

2001 Roadless Rule 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Rule 

Alternative 3 

(No Action) 

Forest Plans 

Alternative 4 

Proposed Rule with Public 

Identified Upper Tier Acres 

Coal Analysis Area .................. Projections are for 16 miles of 

new roads in the analysis 

area, of which 7 are in IRAs.

Restricts access to potential 

coal resources in IRAs more 

than other alternatives.

8,600 acres of road-accessible 

reserves (7,100 in current 

leases; 1,500 in unleased 

areas outside of IRAs) with 

access to 157 million tons.

Projections are for 52 miles of 

new roads in the analysis 

area, of which 50 are in 

CRAs.

Reduces restrictions on access 

to potential coal resources in 

CRAs compared to the 2001 

rule, but is more restrictive 

than Alternative 3 (limits new 

roads to the North Fork coal 

mining area).

27,500 acres of road-accessible reserves (7,100 in current leases; 18,900 in unleased areas outside of 

CRAs) with access to 514 

million tons. Within North 

Fork coal mining area, 

15,600 unleased within 

CRAs, 5300 in unleased 

areas outside of CRAs.

Projections are for 73 miles of 

new roads in the analysis 

area, of which 64 are in 

areas that overlap IRAs.

Least restrictive on access to 

potential coal resources in 

IRAs compared to the other 

two alternatives.

39,600 acres of road-accessible reserves (7,100 in current leases; 32,500 in unleased areas) with access to 

724 million tons.

Same as Alternative 2. 

Geothermal .............................. Opportunities for geothermal development in roadless areas would not occur under the 2001 rule, the proposed rule, and Alternative 

4 due to new road prohibitions. Opportunities for geothermal development in roadless areas would occur under the forest plans alternative as most land management plans allow new roads in roadless areas for this purpose. There are no current leases on NFS 

lands in Colorado, though potential for geothermal resources is being studied. 

Public Safety ............................ All of the alternatives provide flexibility to respond to emergency situations or major threats to public health and safety in roadless 

areas (refer to features common to all alternatives). In contrast, the potential for accidents and safety hazards increases as the 

amount of activity and traffic increases. The Forest Service will continue to respond to wildfires, chemical or oil spills, abandoned 

mine hazards, road-design hazards, hazard trees, and other similar situations. Roads for this purpose must be temporary under the 

proposed rule, and would be expected to be temporary under the 2001 rule and forest plans. Upper tier acres in Alternatives 2 and 

4 do not have a specific public health and safety exception for road construction, as does alternative 1. 

Special Uses: Non-recreational 

(pipelines, electrical or telecommunication lines, water 

conveyances).

Special use authorizations issued prior to the effective date of rulemaking would be unaffected. 

Future special use authorizations in IRAs would generally 

prohibit road construction, 

but there would be no prohibition on the use of LCZs.

3.2 miles per year of LCZs 

projected.

Future special use authorizations in CRAs would generally prohibit road construction.

Limited exceptions for the construction of LCZ for future oil 

and gas pipelines, electrical 

power lines or telecommunication lines, and water conveyance structures in CRAs.

3.2 miles per year of LCZs 

projected.

Future special use authorizations would generally allow 

for road construction; except 

where prohibited under forest plans.

There would be no prohibition 

on the construction of LCZs.

3.6 miles per year of LCZs 

projected.

Same as alternative 2. 

Developed Ski Areas ............... Least opportunities for ski area 

development and expansion.

Road construction and treecutting permitted on 6,600 

acres within IRA boundaries 

and also under permit prior 

to the effective date of this 

rule. Roads and tree-cutting 

would be prohibited in 1,700 

acres of ski areas allocated 

under forest plans but outside of existing permits.

Greater opportunity for ski area 

development and expansion.

Road construction and treecutting permitted on 6,600 

acres under permit as well 

as the additional 1,700 acres 

of ski areas allocated under 

forest plans and located outside existing permits.

Same as alternative 2 ..............

Forest plans can be amended 

or revised to expand ski 

area allocations beyond the 

current allocation.

Same as alternative 2. 

Other Developed Recreation ... Only one mile of new road is current projected for recreational purposes over the next 15 years under No Action; effects on developed recreation opportunities therefore do not differ substantially across alternatives. 

Livestock Management ............ None of the projected activities in roadless areas that vary by alternative would be likely to have any substantial beneficial or adverse impacts on livestock management operations in roadless area grazing allotments. 

Roadless Area Characteristics and Values 

Scenic Quality .......................... Projected activity levels (e.g., tree-cutting) occur on relatively small percentages of total roadless area under all alternatives. 

Least risk to scenic resources. More risk to scenic resources 

than alternatives 1 and 4. 

Upper tier acres same as alternative 1.

Greatest risk to scenic resources.Same as alternative 2 within 

CRA boundaries that are not 

upper tier; upper tier areas 

same as alternative 1. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
21282 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BY ALTERNATIVE—Continued 

Issue or affected resource Alternative 1 

2001 Roadless Rule 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Rule 

Alternative 3 

(No Action) 

Forest Plans 

Alternative 4 

Proposed Rule with Public 

Identified Upper Tier Acres 

Wilderness and Other Congressionally Designated 

Areas.

No major difference among the alternatives related to the risk of adverse effects on congressionally designated areas. There would 

be no potential direct effect on these areas as they are outside the roadless areas that are the subject of each alternative. 

Effects on areas in forest plans as recommended wilderness would not differ by alternative as land management plans generally 

prohibit road construction and tree-cutting and removal activities in those areas. However, restrictions on activities in IRAs under the 

2001 rule provide a greater opportunity to maintain future options for recommending roadless acres as wilderness in the future,

compared to the proposed rule and forest plans. 

Indirect effects on wilderness area characteristics or experience 

from activities in adjacent roadless areas are expected to be low 

under Alternatives 1 and 2 because projected activities are not 

expected to occur adjacent to wilderness area boundaries. 

Higher risk of indirect adverse 

effects on wilderness experience from activities in the 

analysis area due to higher 

likelihood that activities could 

occur adjacent to wilderness 

boundaries.

Similar to Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Greater opportunity to establish uniform management 

approaches for recommended wilderness 

through placement of 

roadless areas in upper tier. 

Soil ........................................... No major difference among alternatives related to the risk of soil impacts. Alternative 1 and 4 would have the least risk of adverse 

effects, and alternative 2 would have a slightly higher risk, followed by alternative 3. However, these differences are expected to be 

small in magnitude and spread over a wide geographic area. Most of the potential effects would be mitigated by site-specific mitigation measures. The risk of post-fire soil erosion may be higher under Alternative 1 and lowest under Alternative 3 as a result of projected levels of fuel treatments. 

Water and Water Quality ......... Activities under all alternatives are unlikely to contribute to water quality impairment (i.e., exceeding water quality standards) due to 

application of mitigation measures and BMPs as a result of NEPA process and site-specific analysis. 

Lowest risk of direct adverse 

effects from tree-cutting and 

road construction. Higher 

risk from adverse impacts 

from floods and sedimentation resulting from wildfires.

Slightly greater risk of direct 

adverse effects from treecutting and road construction. Decreased risks from 

floods and sedimentation resulting from wildfire, relative 

to alternatives 1 and 4, due 

to increased fuel treatments 

to protect communities and/ 

or water supplies.

Higher risk of direct adverse 

effects from tree-cutting and 

road construction.

Greatest decrease in risk from 

floods and sedimentation resulting from wildfire due to 

increased fuel treatments to 

protect communities and/or 

water supplies.

Similar to Alternative 2 though 

slightly lower risk from treecutting and road construction 

activities. 

Air Resources .......................... Differences in effects on air quality do not substantially differ between the alternatives. Atmospheric emissions within the analysis 

area are not expected to increase to a level that would be likely to exceed State or Federal air quality standards. 

Threatened Endangered or 

Sensitive Plants.

No adverse impacts to threatened or endangered plants because no road construction or tree-cutting, sale, or removal is projected 

to occur where threatened or endangered plants exist. Site-specific design criteria and mitigation measures are expected to minimize risk. Individual sensitive plants may be affected by projected activities; however, none of the alternatives are expected to result 

in the loss of viability nor cause a trend toward Federal listing of sensitive species. 

Least risk to adverse impacts 

to sensitive plants, including 

threats from invasives.

More risk of adverse impacts 

to sensitive plants, including 

threats from invasives, than 

alternatives 1 or 4; less than 

alternative 3.

Greatest risk of adverse impacts to sensitive plants, including threats from 

invasives.

More risk of adverse impacts 

to sensitive plants, including 

threats from invasives, than 

alternative 1; less than alternatives 2 or 3. 

Aquatic Species and Habitat ... No long-term adverse effects are expected on threatened and endangered (T&E) species, sensitive species, and MIS population 

trends; downstream T&E species; or wetlands and riparian areas under any alternative due to the assumption that mitigation measures and best management practices would help avoid or minimize impacts from the projected activities. 

Least risk for adverse impacts 

on aquatic species.

Increase in risk of adverse impacts to aquatic species. 

Provides greater protection 

for cutthroat trout compared 

to alternatives 1 and 3.

Greatest potential for adverse 

impacts to aquatic species.

Lower risk of adverse impacts 

to aquatic species compared 

to alternative 2 and 3. A portion of upper tier acres are 

within watersheds occupied 

by TES fish, implying potential improvements in protection relative to Alternative 2. 

Terrestrial Species and Habitat For all alternatives, potential adverse effects are expected to be avoided or minimized through compliance with standards and 

guidelines in land management plans and other applicable laws and policies. For all alternatives, activities may affect individual animals but are not likely to adversely affect populations or critical habitat of T&E species, nor result in the loss of viability or cause a 

trend toward Federal listing for sensitive species. 

Least risk to terrestrial species 

and habitat. Limitations of 

tree-cutting to small diameter 

trees helps maintain larger 

trees and variability in forest 

structure.

Increased risk to terrestrial 

species and habitat due to 

activity projections.

Greatest risk to terrestrial species and habitat due to activity projections.Increased risk to terrestrial 

species and habitat, but less 

than Alternative 2 due to activity projections and acreage allocation to upper tier. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21283 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BY ALTERNATIVE—Continued 

Issue or affected resource Alternative 1 

2001 Roadless Rule 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Rule 

Alternative 3 

(No Action) 

Forest Plans 

Alternative 4 

Proposed Rule with Public 

Identified Upper Tier Acres 

Tree-cutting to improve habitat 

for threatened, endangered, 

and protected species 

(TEPS) prohibited in upper 

tier acres but fewer upper 

tier acres compared to Alternative 4.

Opportunities to improve early 

seral stage and lower elevation habitat is higher as a 

result of improved capacity 

to treat fuels. Restricting 

tree-cutting inside and outside of CPZs to small diameter trees helps maintain larger trees and forest structure 

(also applies to Alternative 

4).

Opportunities to improve early 

seral stage and lower elevation habitat is highest as a 

result of increased flexibility 

to treat fuels.

Tree-cutting to improve habitat 

for TEPS species prohibited 

on a greater number of 

upper tier acres compared to 

Alternative 2. Opportunities 

to improve early seral stage 

and lower elevation habitat 

is lower than alternative 2 

but higher than alternative 1 

(due to treatment projections). 

Biodiversity ............................... The value of roadless areas in conserving biodiversity is likely to increase as habitat loss and habitat degradation increase in scope 

and magnitude in lands outside of roadless areas. Opportunities for protected large contiguous blocks of habitat, biological strongholds, and habitat connectivity would be greatest for the 2001 rule and lowest under the forest plans alternative. Increasing opportunities for treatments under Alternatives 4, 2, and 3 respectively to address hazardous fuels and maintenance and restoration of ecosystem characteristics may have off-setting beneficial effects on long-term biodiversity. 

Invasive Plants ......................... Site-specific design criteria and mitigation measures are expected to minimize risk. 

Lowest risk of spread due to 

low projections of road construction or tree-cutting.

Some higher risk of the spread 

due to greater projections of 

road construction or tree-cutting. Acres removed may experience increased rates of 

spread while acres added 

may have decreased rates 

(same applies for Alternative 

4).

Greatest risk of the spread due 

to the greatest projections 

for road construction or treecutting compared to other alternatives.

Slightly higher risk of the 

spread compared to Alternative 1 but less than alternatives 2 and 3 due to projected levels of road construction and tree-cutting. 

Recreation—Primitive and 

Semi-primitive Recreation 

Settings and Opportunities.

Tree-cutting activity is projected to occur on only a small percentage of roadless areas over 15 years across the alternatives. Dispersed recreation opportunities (including hunting and fishing) are therefore not expected to change under any alternative, but feelings of remoteness and solitude may change for periods of time in areas where activity occurs. 

Likely to retain the greatest 

proportion of IRA acreage in 

a primitive or semi-primitive 

setting.

The substantially altered areas 

and developed ski areas in 

IRAs may continue to appear inconsistent with semiprimitive characteristics expected in roadless areas.

Likely to retain a high proportion of CRA acreage in a 

semi-primitive setting; although some CRA acres 

would shift toward roaded 

natural settings in areas 

where the most roads and 

energy operations are projected to occur in CRAs.

Greatest risk of shifts from 

primitive/semi-primitive settings to roaded natural settings in areas where the 

most roads and energy operations are projected to occur.

Same as Alternative 2 but 

more likely to retain high 

proportion of primitive/semiprimitive acres given slight 

reductions in construction 

and tree-cutting activity. 

The newly identified roadless 

acres (409,500 acres) where 

road construction and treecutting, sale or removal is 

projected to occur that are 

not within the IRAs could 

shift to less primitive settings.

By not including substantially 

altered areas and developed 

ski areas in CRAs and adding unroaded areas to 

CRAs, the CRAs would appear more consistent with 

semi-primitive characteristics 

expected in roadless areas.

Outfitters and Guides (recreation).Out of 1,390 recreational special use permits authorized on NFS lands in Colorado, 1,066 are associated with outfitters and guides, 

some of which are likely to operate in roadless areas. The alternatives are expected to have negligible adverse effects on recreational special uses, including outfitter and guide opportunities, based on the magnitude and distribution of reasonably foreseeable 

activity projections; 7,000 acres of tree-cutting and 20 miles of road construction per year are projected over more than 4 million 

CRA acres under the proposed rule. Limitations on road construction and tree-cutting under any alternative would not be likely to affect ability to obtain or use a recreation use authorization. 

Cultural Resources .................. Least risk of damage to cultural resources because this 

alternative has the least projections for tree-cutting, sale, 

or removal.

Slightly higher risk of damage 

to cultural resources because this alternative has a 

high projection of tree-cutting, sale, or removal and 

road construction.

Highest risk of damage to cultural resources because this 

alternative has the highest 

projection of tree-cutting, 

sale, or removal and road 

construction.

Same or less than alternative 2 

due to larger number of 

acres in the upper tier. 

Site-specific design criteria and 

mitigation measures are expected to minimize risk.

Site-specific design criteria and 

mitigation measures are expected to minimize risk.

Site-specific design criteria and 

mitigation measures are expected to minimize risk.

Site-specific design criteria and 

mitigation measures are expected to minimize risk. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
21284 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BY ALTERNATIVE—Continued 

Issue or affected 

resource 

Alternative 1 

2001 Roadless Rule 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Rule 

Alternative 3 

(No Action) 

Forest Plans 

Alternative 4 

Proposed Rule with Public 

Identified Upper Tier Acres 

Native Plants, Including Special Status Plants.No major difference among alternatives related to the risk of adverse effects on native threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant 

species. There would be very little to no increases in roads, tree-cutting, or energy development activities in the roadless areas that 

support those plant species. The main difference is the higher risk under the proposed rule and the forest plans alternative that 

invasive plants would increase from the higher levels of ground-disturbance, thereby increasing this threat to native plant communities. 

Geological and Paleontological 

Resources.

None of the projected activities in roadless areas that vary by alternative would be likely to adversely affect geological or paleontological resources, which would either be avoided or otherwise protected from potential adverse impacts. 

Climate Change ....................... None of the alternatives are expected to cause a measurable change in the amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas 

emissions. With regard to energy resources, it is assumed that if production is not allowed in roadless areas, the same greenhouse 

impacts will be moved to sites outside roadless areas and contribute the same amount to the atmosphere. In terms of fuels treatments, biomass removed can be burned, used in products, replace fossil fuels, or be left in piles elsewhere on the landscape. Except for prescribed burning, any of these disposal methods would slow release of carbon to the atmosphere. 

Agency Costs 

Vegetation and Fuel Treatments.Treatments are likely to be 

less efficient and more costly 

in IRAs.

Increased flexibility to achieve 

management objectives in 

critical insect and disease 

areas; increase ability to 

strategically locate treatments and improve efficiency.

Capacity to shift even more 

treatment acres into IRAs; 

increased efficiency, effectiveness and timeliness of 

wildfire suppression response as well as fuel reductions in CPZs.

Management flexibility is similar to Alternative 2, but projected treatment amounts 

are lower due to constraints 

imposed by more upper tier 

acreage under Alternative 4. 

Other Costs .............................. Administrative costs are unlikely to change due to flat or static budgets and corresponding constraints on projects. Emphasis on 

road decommissioning and temporary roads is expected to ease demands on maintenance backlog. Overall need to address 

invasive plants is expected to remain relatively constant across alternatives; although new roads can contribute to the spread of 

invasive plants, roads can also be an asset in helping to effectively control invasive populations. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE AND ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

2001 Roadless Rule 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Rule 

Alternative 3 (No Action) 

Forest Plans 

Alternative 4 

Proposed Rule with 

Public Identified Upper 

Tier Acres 

Leaseable Minerals: Coal, Oil and Gas—Output 

Value, Jobs and Income (2006$) Contributed (1).

$636 million/yr Output. 

1,557 Jobs supported. 

$101.4 million per year 

Labor Income. 

$969 million/yr Output. 

2,679 Jobs supported. 

$183.2 million per year 

Labor Income. 

$1,026 million/yr Output. 

2,796 Jobs supported. 

$190 million per year 

Labor Income. 

$969 million/yr Output. 

2,679 Jobs supported. 

$183.2 million per year 

Labor Income. 

Revenue Sharing: Mineral Lease Payments and Tax 

Revenues (2007$) (2).

State Total: $28.4 million. 

Energy-Affected Counties: $7.3 million. 

All other CO Counties: 

$1.1 million. 

State Total: $47.3 million. 

Energy-Affected Counties: $10.2 million. 

All other CO Counties: 

$1.9 million. 

State Total: $49.7 million. 

Energy-Affected Counties: 

$11.1 million. 

All other CO Counties: 

$2.0 million. 

State Total: $47.3 million. 

Energy-Affected Counties: $10.2 million. 

All other CO Counties: 

$1.9 million. 

Values at risk: Number of Counties Where Potential 

for Fuel Treatments in CPZs May Increase or Decrease Compared to Baseline Conditions (3).

Decrease: 13 counties. 

Increase: 1 county. 

Decrease: 2 county. 

Increase: 3 counties. 

NA. Decrease: 18 counties. 

Increase: 5 counties. 

(1) Jobs and income contributed annually (2006 dollars) based on projected levels of coal, oil, and gas production and regional economic modeling multipliers derived from an IMPLAN model representing the five counties where employment effects are assumed to occur (Delta, Garfield, Mesa, Montrose, and Rio Blanco). 

(2) Payments consist of property tax receipts from coal, oil, and gas production; State distribution of severance taxes and Federal royalties. Energy-affected counties are Delta, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa, Montrose, and Pitkin counties. Changes in payments associated with the Secure Rural Schools and Self Determination Act 

and Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) are not expected to change significantly. 

(3) CPZs = community protection zones (0.5 to 1.5 mile buffer area surrounding communities that have been identified as being at-risk to wildfire. ‘‘Potential for fuel 

treatments’’ implies that at least one CPZ area in a county overlaps with an IRA or CRA where tree-cutting has at least a low likelihood of occurring, according to national forest unit field staff. 

Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

The proposed rule has also been 

considered in light of Executive Order 

13272 (E. O. 13272) regarding proper 

consideration of small entities and the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), which 

amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The Forest Service 

with the assistance of the State of 

Colorado has determined that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities as defined by 

the E.O. 13272 and SBREFA, because 

the proposed rule does not directly 

impose small entities to regulatory 

requirements. The effects on small 

businesses will not be substantial. 

Therefore, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required for 

this proposed rule. 

For small businesses affiliated with 

most industry sectors involved with 

activities in roadless areas (e.g., coal, oil 

and gas), there are minimal differences 

between the proposed rule and baseline 

or no-action conditions (i.e., forest plans 

alternative). As a result, there is little or 

no potential for significant adverse 

economic impacts to small businesses 

under the proposed rule relative to 

forest plans. 

There are about 1,390 recreation 

special use permits currently authorized 

within NFS lands in Colorado of which 

a large majority are small businesses, 

and 1,066 (77%) are associated with 

outfitter and guide permits, some of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21285 

which are likely to operate within 

roadless areas. However, there is little 

difference between alternatives with 

respect to recreation special use 

authorizations in roadless areas, because 

limitations on roading and tree-cutting 

under any alternative would not be 

likely to affect ability to obtain or use 

recreation use authorizations. Impacts 

under the proposed rule compared to 

forest plans are not expected to be 

significant due to the small percentage 

of acreage affected (7,000 acres of treecutting per year) and roads constructed 

(20 miles per year) spread across more 

than 4 million acres of Colorado 

Roadless Areas. It is also noted that a 

significant percentage of roads and treecutting activity will occur within or 

near the community protection zones 

where primitive or semi-primitive 

settings may already be affected. Flat 

budgets imply that the percentage of 

harvest from roadless areas may change 

under the alternatives, but aggregate 

volumes across all NFS land are 

expected to remain relatively 

unchanged, on average, implying little 

potential for adverse impacts to small 

entities. 

For leasable minerals associated 

energy resources (coal, oil and gas), 

significant changes in output are 

projected across alternatives. More than 

95 percent of the firms associated with 

these sectors can be classified as small 

as defined by Small Business 

Administration standards. Any changes 

in oil and gas, or coal development or 

production can therefore have an effect 

on small business opportunities in these 

sectors. A five county region has been 

defined to model the economic impacts 

associated with energy resources (Delta, 

Garfield, Mesa, Montrose, and Rio 

Blanco counties). A total of 355 firms 

associated with oil and gas, and coal 

development and extraction are 

estimated to be located within this 

region, of which 95% are likely to be 

small (337 firms). However, energy 

resource sector jobs, supported annually 

by projected activity within roadless 

areas, are estimated to increase from 

1,557 under the 2001 rule alternative to 

2,679 jobs under the proposed rule (as 

well as alternative 4), and 2,796 jobs 

under the no action (forest plans) 

alternative. Labor income increases by a 

similar degree from $101 million to 

$183.2 million and 190 million per year 

under all alternatives. There is slightly 

higher job numbers (2,796) under the 

forest plan alternative (alternative 3) 

relative to the proposed rule (2,679) 

alternatives (alternatives 2 and 4), but 

the magnitude of the difference between 

these alternatives does not suggest that 

adverse impacts will be significant if 

choosing between the proposed rule and 

forest plans. These results indicate 

minimal adverse impacts to small 

entities associated with energy resource 

development and extraction under the 

proposed rule relative to the forest plans 

alternative. 

For all other economic sectors 

considered, changes in resource outputs 

are not projected to be significant to the 

extent that adverse impacts to small 

entities could occur in aggregate or 

within regions. 

Among 64 counties in the State of 

Colorado, 36 counties (56%) are 

considered to be small governments 

(population less than 50,000). These 36 

counties are considered to be small rural 

counties having NFS lands within IRAs/ 

CRAs. Six counties are energy (coal, oil 

and gas) producing counties. These six 

counties (Delta, Garfield, Gunnison, 

Mesa, Montrose, and Pitkin) are 

expected to be the counties most likely 

to benefit from mineral lease payments 

and revenue sharing under the proposed 

rule (as well as alternative 4), and forest 

plans. All of these counties, with the 

exception of Mesa can be considered 

small governments (population less than 

50,000), and all are forecast to receive 

significant increases in property tax 

receipts from coal, and oil and gas 

production, as well as State 

distributions of severance taxes and 

Federal royalties under the proposed 

rule and forest plans relative to the 2001 

rule. There are slight increases in 

payments under forest plans, relative to 

the proposed rule (aggregate payments 

increase from $10.2 million to $11.1 

million per year). Payments associated 

with the Secure Rural Schools and Self 

Determination Act (SRSA) and 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) are 

not expected to change significantly, or 

any decreases would be largely offset by 

increases in Federal mineral lease 

payments. 

Under the proposed rule, as compared 

to the no action alternative, the 

potential opportunities for fuel 

treatments near communities-at-risk 

(i.e., within community protection 

zones (CPZs)) may increase for two 

’small population’ counties (i.e., 

populations less than 50,000). In 

contrast, potential opportunities for fuel 

treatments near communities-at-risk 

may decrease for nine and eight ’small 

population’ counties under Alternative 

1 (2001 rule) and Alternative 4 

(proposed rule with additional upper 

tier acreage) respectively, compared to 

the no action alternative. These results 

indicate that adverse impacts to small 

governments, in association with 

protection of values at risk from 

wildfire, are not likely, when comparing 

the proposed rule with no action. 

Therefore, for small governments, 

including counties with small 

populations and at-risk-communities 

from wildfire within those counties, 

opportunities for revenue sharing, as 

well as protection of values-at-risk are 

not expected to significantly decrease 

under the proposed rule relative to 

forest plans. Mitigation measures 

associated with existing programs and 

laws regarding revenue sharing with 

counties and small business shares or 

set-asides will continue to apply. 

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the 

Public 

This proposed rule does not call for 

any additional record keeping or 

reporting requirements or other 

information collection requirements as 

defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not 

already required by law or not already 

approved for use and, therefore, 

imposes no additional paperwork 

burden on the public. Accordingly, the 

review provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.) and its implementing 

regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not 

apply. 

Federalism 

The Department has considered this 

proposed rule under the requirements of 

Executive Order 13132 issued August 4, 

1999 (E.O. 13132), Federalism. The 

Department has made an assessment 

that the proposed rule conforms with 

the Federalism principles set out in E.O. 

13132; would not impose any 

compliance costs on the States; and 

would not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, nor on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. Therefore, 

the Department concludes that this 

proposed rule does not have Federalism 

implications. This proposed rule is 

based on a petition submitted by the 

State of Colorado under the 

Administrative Procedure Act at 5 

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

Department of Agriculture regulations at 

7 CFR 1.28. The State’s petition was 

developed through a task force with the 

involvement of local governments. The 

State is a cooperating agency pursuant 

to 40 CFR 1501.6 of the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations for 

the development of the supporting 

environmental impact statement. State 

and local governments are encouraged 

to comment on this proposed rule, in 

the course of this rulemaking process. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
21286 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Consultation With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

The United States has a unique 

relationship with Indian Tribes as 

provided in the Constitution of the 

United States, treaties, and Federal 

statutes. The relationship extends to the 

Federal government’s management of 

public lands and the Forest Service 

strives to assure that its consultation 

with Native American Tribes is 

meaningful, in good faith, and entered 

into on a government-to-government 

basis. 

On November 5, 2009, President 

Obama signed a Memorandum 

emphasizing his commitment to ‘‘regular 

and meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with Tribal officials in 

policy decisions that have Tribal 

implications including, as an initial 

step, through complete and consistent 

implementation of Executive Order 

13175.’’ He charged agencies with 

engaging in consultation and 

collaboration with Indian Tribal 

governments; strengthening 

government-to-government relationship 

between the United States and Indian 

Tribes; and reducing the imposition of 

unfunded mandates upon Indian Tribes. 

Management of roadless areas has 

been a topic of interest and importance 

to Tribal governments. During 

promulgation of the 2001 Roadless Rule, 

Forest Service line officers in the field 

were asked to make contact with Tribes 

to ensure awareness of the initiative and 

of the rulemaking process. Outreach to 

Tribes was conducted at the national 

forest and grassland level, which is how 

Forest Service government-togovernment dialog with Tribes is 

typically conducted. Tribal 

representatives remained engaged 

concerning these issues during the 

subsequent litigation and rulemaking 

efforts. 

The State’s petition identifies that a 

vital part of its public process in 

developing its petition were the 

recommendations and comments 

received from Native American Tribes. 

The Governor’s office was keenly aware 

of the spiritual and cultural significance 

some of these areas hold for the Tribes. 

There are two resident Tribes in 

Colorado, both retaining some of their 

traditional land base as reservations via 

a series of treaties, agreements, and 

laws. The Ute Mountain Ute and 

Southern Ute Tribes (consisting 

originally of the Weeminuche, Capote, 

Tabeguache, and Mouaches Bands)— 

each a ‘‘domestic sovereign’’ nation— 

have reserved some specific offreservation hunting rights in Colorado 

and retain inherent aboriginal rights 

throughout their traditional territory. 

Many other Tribes located outside 

Colorado maintain Tribal interests, 

including aboriginal and ceded 

territories, and retain inherent 

aboriginal rights within the State. 

The Forest Service has been 

consulting with Colorado-affiliated 

Tribes regarding this proposed 

rulemaking action and analysis process. 

Tribal concerns surfaced during phone 

or e-mail consultations. Information 

applying to the proposed Colorado 

Roadless Rule was provided to the Ute 

Mountain Ute and Southern Ute Indian 

Tribes, located in Colorado prior to the 

release of the NOI. The San Juan 

National Forest staff held meetings with 

both Tribes to discuss the proposed rule 

as well as other Forest issues. At these 

meetings, the Tribes expressed concerns 

about hunting access, and unauthorized 

roads. Nothing in this rule changes 

access or existing rights. The 

management of unauthorized roads is 

addressed through travel management 

processes. 

Additionally, an introductory letter 

and the NOI along with background 

information on the proposed Colorado 

Roadless Rule and an offer for 

additional information or meetings was 

sent to the following Tribes and 

committees: Hopi Tribal Council, 

Navajo Nation, Northern Cheyenne 

Tribal Council, Pueblo of Jemez, Pueblo 

of Nambe ́, Ohkay Owingeh, Pueblo of 

Picuris, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Pueblo of 

San Ildefonso, Pueblo of Santa Clara, 

Pueblo of Taos, Pueblo of Tesuque, 

Pueblo of Zuni, Jicarilla Apache Nation, 

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of 

Oklahoma, Ute Business Committee, 

Shoshone Business Committee, and the 

Arapaho Business Committee. These 18 

Tribes and committees were selected 

based on their current proximity to 

Colorado, their current use of lands in 

Colorado, and their historic use of lands 

within Colorado. 

The 2008 Proposed Rule and DEIS 

were sent to each Tribe and each was 

contacted by phone to determine 

interest in meeting or obtaining 

information. The Tribes did not request 

additional government-to-government 

involvement, and no formal comments 

from any of the Tribes were received. A 

letter was sent outlining the key points 

of this revised proposed rule and the FS 

met with those Tribes requesting further 

consultation. Consultation efforts will 

continue throughout the process and for 

the final Rule. 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of 

November 6, 2000, ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments,’’ the Department has 

assessed the impact of this proposed 

rule on Indian Tribal Governments and 

has determined that the proposed rule 

does not significantly or uniquely affect 

Indian Tribal Government communities. 

The proposed rule would establish 

direction governing the management 

and protection of Colorado Roadless 

Areas, however, the proposed rule 

respects prior existing rights, and it 

addresses discretionary Forest Service 

management decisions involving road 

construction, timber harvest, and some 

mineral activities. The Department has 

also determined that this proposed rule 

does not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on Indian Tribal 

Governments. This proposed rule does 

not mandate Tribal participation in 

roadless management of the planning of 

activities in Colorado Roadless Areas. 

Rather, the Forest Service officials are 

obligated by other agency policies to 

consult early with Tribal governments 

and to work cooperatively with them 

where planning issues affect Tribal 

interests. 

No Takings Implications 

The proposed rule has been analyzed 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

12630 issued March 15, 1988. It has 

been determined that the proposed rule 

does not pose the risk of a taking of 

private property. 

Civil Justice Reform 

The proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. After adoption of this 

proposed rule, (1) all State and local 

laws and regulations that conflict with 

this proposed rule or that would impede 

full implementation of this proposed 

rule will be preempted; (2) no 

retroactive effect would be given to this 

proposed rule; and (3) this proposed 

rule would not require the use of 

administrative proceedings before 

parties could file suit in court 

challenging its provisions. 

Unfunded Mandates 

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded 

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

1531–1538), the Department has 

assessed the effects of this proposed rule 

on State, local, and Tribal governments 

and the private sector. This proposed 

rule does not compel the expenditure of 

$100 million or more by State, local, or 

Tribal governments or anyone in the 

private sector. Therefore, a statement 

under section 202 of the Act is not 

required. 

Energy Effects 

Based on guidance for implementing 

Executive Order 13211 (E.O. 13211) of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21287 

1 ‘‘Recoverable Coal Reserves’’ consist of the 

quantity of coal that can be recovered (i.e., mined) 

from existing coal reserves at reporting mines. 

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration 

(EIA), Independent Statistics and Analysis (Table 

14—Recoverable Coal Reserves and Average 

Recovery Percentage at Producing Mines by State, 

2000—2007) http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/ 

reserves/reserves.html. 

2 ‘‘2008 Coal Production and Employment for 

Colorado’’ Colorado Mining Association, Denver 

CO. http://www.coloradomining.com. 

3 ‘‘Estimated recoverable reserves’’ consist of coal 

in the demonstrated reserve base considered 

recoverable after excluding coal estimated to be 

unavailable due to land use restrictions or currently 

economically unattractive for mining. Source: U.S. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA), 

Independent Statistics and Analysis (Table 15— 

Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines, 

Estimated Recoverable Reserves, and Demonstrated 

Reserve Base by Mining Method, 2000–2007) http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/reserves/reserves.html. 

4 In 2007, the Energy Information Administration 

called for a 5% per year increase in coal production 

from western mines, but revised this statement in 

2009, suggesting a slower rate of increase. 

5 Demand for coal is anticipated to increase as a 

consequence of 153 new coal-fired electricity plants 

to be built by 2025, many of which will be in States 

such as FL, TX, IL, KY that import Colorado coal. 

(‘‘Colorado Mineral and Energy Industry Activities, 

2006’’, Colorado Geological Survey, Department of 

Natural Resources, Denver CO.) 

May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use, 

issued by Office of Management and 

Budget (Memorandum for Heads of 

Executive Departments and Agencies, 

and Independent Regulatory Agencies 

(M–01–27), July 13, 2001), this proposed 

rule constitutes a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in E.O. 13211 because 

projected reductions in coal production 

under the proposed rule are in excess of 

5 million tons per year after 2024. 

Projections of natural gas production 

are discussed in the RDEIS and the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

proposed Colorado Roadless Rule. 

Based on those projections, it has been 

determined that natural gas production 

varies across alternatives for only two 

National Forests (the Grand Mesa, 

Gunnison, and Uncompahgre (GMUG) 

and White River National Forests). It has 

also been determined that there is no 

appreciable difference in projected 

natural gas production between 

Alternatives 1 (2001 rule) and 2 

(proposed rule) or alternative 4. The 

difference in potential natural gas 

production between alternatives 1, 2, or 

4 (27 billion cubic feet per year) and 

alternative 3 (no action) (31 billion 

cubic feet per year) is a decrease of only 

4 bcf/year, or 4 million mcf/year, which 

is well below the E. O. 13211 criterion 

for adverse effects of 25 million mcf. 

Projected oil production ranges from 

approximately 50,000 barrels under 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 to 

approximately 110,000 barrels under 

Alternative 3 over a period of 15 to 30 

years. The corresponding reduction in 

oil production per day under 

alternatives 1 or 2 or alternative 3 (no 

action) is inconsequential compared to 

the E. O. 13211 criterion of 10,000 

barrels per day. 

Based on average annual coal 

production rates estimated for economic 

impact analysis purposes, annual 

aggregate production across the three 

mines operating in the affected area is 

projected to be the same under the 

proposed rule and the no action 

alternative (i.e., forest plans alternative) 

for the first 24 years after 

implementation (2011 to 2034). Coal 

production and production schedules 

are also projected to be the same for the 

proposed rule and alternative 4. It is 

only after 24 years (2035) that annual 

coal production is projected to decrease 

under the proposed rule compared to 

the no action alternative by an amount 

of 5.6 million tons per year which is the 

average annual production from the Elk 

Creek mine which ends after 2034. This 

estimated decrease is based on the 

known extent of coal resources and the 

exclusion of the Currant Creek area from 

the North Fork coal mining area. A 

decrease of 5.6 million tons is only 

slightly above the E. O. 13211 criterion 

of 5 million tons per year for significant 

adverse effects. Production is estimated 

to decrease by 6.0 million tons per year 

under the proposed rule compared to no 

action by 2058 when production ceases 

for all mines under the proposed rule. 

Coal production is projected to continue 

for an additional 22 years (until 2079) 

under the no action alternative. 

The total reduction in recoverable 

coal reserves from roadless areas that 

are made accessible under the proposed 

rule, relative to no action alternative, is 

estimated to be 210 million tons (i.e., 

724¥514 = 210 million ton reduction). 

In comparison, the recoverable coal 

reserves 1 reported for the State of 

Colorado by the U.S. Energy Information 

Administration ranges from 629 million 

tons in 2002 to 328 million tons by 

2007,2 recognizing that direct 

comparisons of accessible coal reserves 

under the alternatives with recoverable 

reserves estimated by USEIA are 

difficult due to differences in estimation 

procedures. However, the reduction of 

210 million tons made accessible under 

the proposed rule is only 2% of the total 

estimated recoverable reserves 3 for the 

State of Colorado in 2007 (9,692 million 

tons) and less than 0.1% of total 

estimated recoverable reserves for the 

nation in 2007 (262,689 million tons). 

The estimated reductions in the 

production life of affected mines under 

the proposed rule compared to the no 

action alternative may be significant, 

particularly when considering potential 

increases in demand for coal from 

western mines 4 and the Nation as a 

whole.5 However, both the proposed 

rule and the no action alternatives are 

projected to sustain similar production 

rates over an extended period of 24 

years after implementation of the rule, 

and there are many other factors that are 

likely to have a more significant effect 

on energy markets after that time, 

compared to the effect of reduced 

production under the proposed rule 

which begins 25 years after 

implementation of this rule would occur 

(i.e., 2034). It is also noted that 

approximately 67% of all coal produced 

from Colorado in 2008 (32.7 million 

tons) was exported to other States, 

suggesting that regional markets and 

prices are likely to be heavily 

influenced by national prices, supplies, 

and market trends. 

The reduction in coal production 

under the proposed rule (as well as 

alternative 4), relative to the no action 

alternative are not expected to have 

adverse effects on the productivity, 

competition, or prices in the energy 

sector regionally (or nationally) due to 

the following observations: 

—Potential reductions in coal 

production under the proposed rule, 

relative to no action are not projected 

to occur until 24 years in the future 

(2035) and estimated reductions after 

year 24 (i.e., 5.6 million tons/yr) 

exceed the criterion of 5.0 million 

tons per year by only a small fraction. 

A second decrease in production of 

similar magnitude (6.0 million tons 

per year) is projected to occur farther 

in the future (2059) when all mines 

cease operation under the proposed 

rule. 

—The reduction in total accessible coal 

reserves under the proposed rule 

relative to the no action alternative 

amounts to a relatively small 

percentage of total estimated 

recoverable reserves in the State of 

Colorado (2%) and the nation 

(< 0.1%), and 

—The reductions in reserves and 

production rates under the proposed 

rule compared to no action are 

estimated to occur well into the future 

(e.g., 24 and 48 yrs), and the relative 

impact of these reductions is expected 

to be insignificant compared to the 

impact of other factors that could 

affect regional and national energy 

markets by that time. 

The reductions in annual production 

under the 2001 rule, compared to the no 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
21288 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

action (reductions range from 5.6 

million tons per year beginning as early 

as 2013 and increase to 11.6 million 

tons by 2019) are somewhat greater than 

the reductions noted for the proposed 

rule (and Alternative 4), and production 

life is anticipated to extend for only 7 

to 10 years under the 2001 rule 

compared to a longer production life 

under the no action alternative. 

There is a substantial reduction in 

annual production under the 2001 rule 

alternative compared to the no action 

alternative (reductions range from 5.6 

million tons per year beginning as early 

as 2013 and increase to 11.6 million 

tons by 2019), and production life is 

anticipated to extend for only 7 to 10 

years under the 2001 rule compared to 

a longer production life under the no 

action alternative. The production 

reductions under the 2001 rule (i.e., 11.6 

million tons/yr beginning around 2019) 

exceed the criterion of 5 million tons 

per year for adverse effects (but 

reductions are still relatively small), and 

decreases in operating life of the mines 

as well as total reserves may suggest the 

potential for adverse effects to regional 

markets. The impacts of a number of 

other factors affecting energy markets 

and national market trends are still 

expected to outweigh the effects of 

implementing the 2001 rule alternative. 

Alternative 1 has the greatest 

reduction in production, and 

alternatives 2 and 4 have some 

reduction compared to forest plans. 

No novel legal or policy issues 

regarding adverse effects to supply, 

distribution or use of energy are 

anticipated beyond what has already 

been addressed in the RDEIS, or the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). None 

of the proposed corridors designated for 

oil, gas, and/or electricity under Section 

368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 are 

within Colorado Roadless Areas. 

The proposed rule does not disturb 

existing access or mineral rights, and 

restrictions on saleable mineral 

materials are narrow. The proposed rule 

also provides regulatory mechanism for 

consideration of requests for 

modification of restrictions if 

adjustments are determined to be 

necessary in the future. As this action is 

a significant energy action, the above 

constitutes the Statement of Energy 

Effects. 

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 294 

National Forests, Recreation areas, 

Navigation (air), State petitions for 

inventoried roadless area management. 

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in 

the preamble, the Forest Service 

proposes to amend part 294 of Title 36 

of the Code of Federal Regulations by 

adding new subpart D to read as 

follows: 

PART 294—SPECIAL AREAS 

Subpart D—Colorado Roadless Area 

Management 

Sec. 

294.40 Purpose. 

294.41 Definitions. 

294.42 Prohibitions on tree-cutting, sale, or 

removal. 

294.43 Prohibition on road construction 

and reconstruction. 

294.44 Prohibition on linear construction 

zones. 

294.45 Environmental documentation. 

294.46 Other activities. 

294.47 Modifications and administrative 

corrections. 

294.48 Scope and applicability. 

294.49 List of designated Colorado Roadless 

Areas. 

Subpart D—Colorado Roadless Area 

Management 

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

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

§ 294.40 Purpose. 

The purpose of this subpart is to 

provide, within the context of multiple 

use management, State-specific 

direction for the protection of roadless 

areas on National Forest System lands 

in Colorado. The intent of this 

regulation is to protect roadless values 

by restricting tree cutting, sale, and 

removal, road construction and 

reconstruction, and linear construction 

zones within CRAs, with narrowly 

focused exceptions. Activities must be 

designed to conserve the roadless area 

characteristics listed in § 294 .41, 

although applying the exceptions in 

§ 294.42, § 294.43, and § 294.44 may 

have effects to some roadless area 

characteristics. 

§ 294.41 Definitions. 

The following terms and definitions 

apply to this subpart. 

At-risk community: As defined under 

section 101 of the Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act (Pub. L. 108–148). 

Catchment: A watershed delineation 

beginning at the downstream point of 

occupation of native cutthroat trout and 

encompassing the upstream boundary of 

waters draining in the stream system. 

Colorado Roadless Area Upper Tier 

Acres: A subset of Colorado Roadless 

Areas identified in a set of maps 

maintained at the national headquarters 

office of the Forest Service where not all 

exceptions for tree-cutting, sale, or 

removal and road construction/ 

reconstruction would apply in order to 

provide a higher level of protection. 

Colorado Roadless Areas: Areas 

designated pursuant to this subpart and 

identified in a set of maps maintained 

at the national headquarters office of the 

Forest Service. Colorado Roadless Areas 

established by this subpart shall 

constitute the exclusive set of National 

Forest System lands within the State of 

Colorado to which the provisions 36 

CFR 220.5(a)(2) shall apply. 

Community Protection Zone: An area 

extending one-half mile from the 

boundary of an at-risk community; or an 

area within one and a half miles from 

the boundary of an at-risk community, 

where any land: 

(1) Has a sustained steep slope that 

creates the potential for wildfire 

behavior endangering the at-risk 

community; 

(2) Has a geographic feature that aids 

in creating an effective fire break, such 

as a road or a ridge top; or 

(3) Is in condition class 3 as defined 

by Healthy Forest Restoration Act (Pub. 

L. 108–148). 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan: 

As defined under section 101 of the 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act (Pub. L. 

108–148), and used in this subpart, the 

term ‘‘community wildfire protection 

plan’’ means a plan for an at-risk 

community that: 

(1) Is developed within the context of 

the collaborative agreements and the 

guidance established by the Wildland 

Fire Leadership Council and agreed to 

by the applicable local government, 

local fire department, and State agency 

responsible for forest management, in 

consultation with interested parties and 

the Federal land management agencies 

managing land in the vicinity of the atrisk community; 

(2) Identifies and prioritizes areas for 

hazardous fuel reduction treatments and 

recommends the types and methods of 

treatment on Federal and non-Federal 

land that will protect one or more at-risk 

communities and essential 

infrastructure; and 

(3) Recommends measures to reduce 

structural ignitability throughout the atrisk community. 

Condition Class 3: As defined under 

section 101 of the Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act (Pub. L. 108–148) the 

term ‘‘condition class 3’’ means an area 

of Federal land, under which: 

(1) Fire regimes on land have been 

significantly altered from historical 

ranges; 

(2) There exists a high risk of losing 

key ecosystem components from fire; 

(3) Fire frequencies have departed 

from historical frequencies by multiple 

return intervals, resulting in dramatic 

changes to: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21289 

(i) The size, frequency, intensity, or 

severity of fires; or 

(ii) Landscape patterns; and 

(4) Vegetation attributes have been 

significantly altered from the historical 

range of the attributes. 

Fire Hazard: A fuel complex defined 

by volume, type, condition, arrangement 

and location that determines the ease of 

ignition and the resistance to control; 

expresses the potential fire behavior for 

a fuel type, regardless of the fuel type’s 

weather influenced fuel moisture 

condition. 

Fire Occurrence: One fire event 

occurring in a specific place within a 

specific period of time; a general term 

describing past or current wildland fire 

events. 

Fire Risk: The probability or chance 

that a fire might start, as affected by the 

presence and activities of causative 

agents. 

Forest road: As defined at 36 CFR 

212.1, the term means a road wholly or 

partly within or adjacent to and serving 

the National Forest System that the 

Forest Service determines is necessary 

for the protection, administration, and 

utilization of the National Forest System 

and the use and development of its 

resources. 

Hazardous Fuels: Excessive live or 

dead wildland fuel accumulations that 

increase the potential for intense 

wildland fire and decrease the 

capability to protect life, property and 

natural resources. 

Linear Construction Zone: A 

temporary linear area of surface 

disturbance over 50 inches wide that is 

used for motorized transport by vehicles 

or construction equipment to install a 

linear facility. It is not used as a motor 

vehicle route and is not engineered to 

road specifications. 

Linear Facility: Linear facilities 

include pipelines, electrical power 

lines, telecommunications lines, ditches 

and canals. 

Municipal Water Supply System: As 

defined under Section 101 of the 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act (Pub. L. 

108–148), and used in this subpart, the 

term means the reservoirs, canals, 

ditches, flumes, laterals, pipes, 

pipelines, and other surface facilities 

and systems constructed or installed for 

the collection, impoundment, storage, 

transportation, or distribution of 

drinking water. 

Native Cutthroat Trout: Collectively, 

all the native subspecies of cutthroat 

trout historically occurring in Colorado 

before European settlement which 

includes yellowfin, Rio Grande, 

Greenback, and Colorado River Trout. 

Pre-existing Water Court Decree: A 

decree issued by the Colorado Water 

Courts prior to [final rule effective date] 

adjudicating as the point of a diversion 

or the place of use, a location within a 

Colorado Roadless Area. A pre-existing 

decree does not include decrees 

adjudicated prior to [final rule effective 

date] which right includes a point of 

diversion or place of use outside of a 

Colorado Roadless Area, the holder of 

which proposes to change or move the 

point of diversion or place of use within 

a Colorado Roadless Area. Nothing in 

this subpart shall be construed as 

affecting the jurisdiction or 

responsibilities of the Forest Service. 

Responsible Official: The Forest 

Service line officer with the authority 

and responsibility to make decisions 

about protection and management of 

Colorado Roadless Areas pursuant to 

this subpart. 

Road: As defined at 36 CFR 212.1, the 

term means a motor vehicle route over 

50 inches wide, unless identified and 

managed as a trail. 

Roadless Area Characteristics: 

Resources or features that are often 

present in and characterize Colorado 

Roadless Areas, including: 

(1) High quality or undisturbed soil, 

water, and air; 

(2) Sources of public drinking water; 

(3) Diversity of plant and animal 

communities; 

(4) Habitat for threatened, 

endangered, proposed, candidate, and 

sensitive species, and for those species 

dependent on large, undisturbed areas 

of land; 

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

motorized classes of dispersed 

recreation; 

(6) Reference landscapes; 

(7) Naturaly-appearing landscapes 

with high scenic quality; 

(8) Traditional cultural properties and 

sacred sites; and 

(9) Other locally identified unique 

characteristics. 

Temporary Road: As defined at 36 

CFR 212.1, the term means a road 

necessary for emergency operations or 

authorized by contract, permit, lease, or 

other written authorization that is not a 

forest road and that is not included in 

a forest transportation atlas. 

Water Conveyance Structures: 

Facilities associated with the 

transmission, storage, impoundment, 

and diversion of water on and across 

National Forest System lands. Water 

conveyance structures include, but are 

not limited to: reservoirs and dams, 

diversion structures, headgates, 

pipelines, ditches, canals, and tunnels. 

Water Influence Zone: The land next 

to water bodies where vegetation plays 

a major role in sustaining long-term 

integrity of aquatic systems. It includes 

the geomorphic floodplain (valley 

bottom), riparian ecosystem, and inner 

gorge. Its minimum horizontal width 

(from top of each bank) is 100 feet or the 

mean height of mature dominant lateseral vegetation, whichever is greater. 

§ 294.42 Prohibition on tree-cutting, sale, 

or removal. 

(a) General. Trees may not be cut, 

sold, or removed in Colorado Roadless 

Areas, except as provided in paragraph 

(b) and (c) of this section. 

(b) Upper Tier Acres. Notwithstanding 

the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this 

section, trees may be cut, sold, or 

removed in Colorado Roadless Areas 

upper tier acres if the Responsible 

Official determines the activity is 

consistent with the applicable land 

management plan, and: 

(1) Tree-cutting, sale, or removal is 

incidental to the implementation of a 

management activity not otherwise 

prohibited by this subpart; or 

(2) Tree-cutting, sale, or removal is 

needed and appropriate for personal or 

administrative use, as provided for in 36 

CFR part 223, subpart A. 

(c) Non-Upper Tier Acres. 

Notwithstanding the prohibition in 

paragraph (a) of this section, trees may 

be cut, sold, or removed in Colorado 

Roadless Areas outside upper tier acres 

if the Responsible Official, unless 

otherwise noted, determines the activity 

is consistent with the applicable land 

management plan, one or more of the 

roadless area characteristics will be 

maintained or improved over the longterm with the exception of paragraphs 

(c)(5) and (6) of this section, and one of 

the following circumstances exists: 

(1) The Regional Forester determines 

tree-cutting, sale, or removal is needed 

to reduce hazardous fuels to an at-risk 

community or municipal water supply 

system that is: 

(i) Within the first one-half mile of the 

community protection zone, or 

(ii) Within the next one-mile of the 

community protection zone, and is 

within an area identified in a 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 

(iii) Projects undertaken pursuant to 

paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section will focus on cutting and 

removing generally small diameter trees 

to create fuel conditions that modify fire 

behavior while retaining large trees to 

the maximum extent practical as 

appropriate to the forest type. 

(2) The Regional Forester determines 

tree-cutting, sale, or removal is needed 

outside the community protection zone 

where there is a significant risk that a 

wildland fire disturbance event could 

adversely affect a municipal water 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
21290 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

supply system or the maintenance of 

that system. A significant risk exists 

where the history of fire occurrence, and 

fire hazard and risk indicate a serious 

likelihood that a wildland fire 

disturbance event would present a high 

risk of threat to a municipal water 

supply system. 

(i) Projects will focus on cutting and 

removing generally small diameter trees 

to create fuel conditions that modify fire 

behavior while retaining large trees to 

the maximum extent practical as 

appropriate to the forest type. 

(ii) Projects are expected to be 

infrequent. 

(3) Tree-cutting, sale, or removal is 

needed to maintain or restore the 

characteristics of ecosystem 

composition, structure and processes. 

These projects are expected to be 

infrequent. 

(4) Tree-cutting, sale, or removal is 

needed to improve habitat for Federally 

threatened, endangered, proposed, or 

Agency designated sensitive species; in 

coordination with the Colorado 

Department of Natural Resources, 

including the Colorado Division of 

Wildlife. 

(5) Tree-cutting, sale, or removal is 

incidental to the implementation of a 

management activity not otherwise 

prohibited by this subpart. 

(6) Tree-cutting, sale, or removal is 

needed and appropriate for personal or 

administrative use, as provided for in 36 

CFR part 223, subpart A. 

§ 294.43 Prohibition on road construction 

and reconstruction. 

(a) General. A road may not be 

constructed or reconstructed in a 

Colorado Roadless Area except as 

provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of 

this section. 

(b) Upper Tier Acres. Notwithstanding 

the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this 

section, a road may only be constructed 

or reconstructed in Colorado Roadless 

Area upper tier acres if the Responsible 

Official determines that: 

(1) A road is needed pursuant to 

reserved or outstanding rights, or as 

provided for by statute or treaty. 

(2) For any road construction/ 

reconstruction authorized pursuant to 

this provision, the Responsible Official 

must determine: 

(i) Motorized access, without road 

construction is not technically feasible; 

(ii) When proposing to construct a 

forest road, that a temporary road would 

not provide reasonable access; and 

(iii) Within a native cutthroat trout 

catchment or identified recovery 

watershed, whether road construction 

will diminish, over the long-term, 

conditions in the water influence zone 

and in the native cutthroat habitat. 

(c) Non-Upper Tier Acres. 

Notwithstanding the prohibition in 

paragraph (a) of this section, a road or 

temporary road may only be constructed 

or reconstructed in Colorado Roadless 

Areas outside upper tier acres if the 

Responsible Official determines: 

(1) That one of the following 

exceptions exists: 

(i) A road is needed pursuant to 

reserved or outstanding rights, or as 

provided for by statute or treaty; 

(ii) Road realignment is needed to 

prevent irreparable resource damage 

that arises from the design, location, 

use, or deterioration of a forest road and 

that cannot be mitigated by road 

maintenance. Road realignment may 

occur under this paragraph only if the 

road is deemed essential for 

administrative or public access, public 

health and safety, or other authorized 

use; 

(iii) Road reconstruction is needed to 

implement a road safety improvement 

project on a forest road determined to be 

hazardous on the basis of accident 

experience or accident potential on that 

road; 

(iv) The Regional Forester determines 

a road is needed to allow for the 

construction, reconstruction, or 

maintenance of an authorized water 

conveyance structure which is operated 

pursuant to a pre-existing water court 

decree (see also § 294.44(b)(1)); 

(v) A temporary road is needed to 

protect public health and safety in cases 

of threat of flood, fire, or other 

catastrophic event that, without 

intervention, would cause the loss of 

life or property; 

(vi) The Regional Forester determines 

a temporary road is needed to facilitate 

tree-cutting, sale, or removal 

(§ 294.42(c)(1)) within the first one-half 

mile of the community protection zone 

to reduce the wildfire hazard to an atrisk community or municipal water 

supply system; 

(vii) The Regional Forester determines 

a temporary road is needed to facilitate 

tree-cutting, sale or removal 

(§ 294.42(c)(3)) within the first one-half 

mile of the community protection zone 

to maintain or restore characteristics of 

ecosystem composition, structure and 

processes; 

(viii) A temporary road is needed 

within a Colorado Roadless Area 

pursuant to the exploration or 

development of an existing oil and gas 

lease that does not prohibit road 

construction or reconstruction, 

including the construction of 

infrastructure necessary to transport the 

product, on National Forest System 

lands that are under lease issued by the 

Secretary of the Interior as of [final rule 

effective date]. The Forest Service shall 

not authorize the Bureau of Land 

Management to grant any request for a 

waiver, exception, or modification to 

any oil or gas lease if doing so would 

result in any road construction or tree 

cutting within a Colorado Roadless Area 

beyond that which was authorized by 

the terms and conditions of the lease at 

the time of issuance; or 

(ix) A temporary road is needed for 

coal exploration and coal-related surface 

activities for certain lands within 

Colorado Roadless Areas in the North 

Fork coal mining area of the Grand 

Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison 

National Forests as defined by the North 

Fork coal mining area displayed on the 

final Colorado Roadless Areas map. 

Such roads may also be used for 

collecting and transporting coal mine 

methane. Any buried infrastructure, 

including pipelines, needed for the 

capture, collection, and use of coal mine 

methane will be located within the 

rights-of-way of temporary roads that 

are otherwise necessary for coal-related 

surface activities including the 

installation and operation of methane 

venting wells. 

(2) If proposed road construction/ 

reconstruction meets one of the 

exceptions, subject to the legal rights 

identified in 36 CFR 294.43(c)(1), the 

following must be determined: 

(i) Motorized access, without road 

construction is not technically feasible; 

(ii) When proposing to construct a 

forest road, that a temporary road would 

not provide reasonable access; 

(iii) Road construction is consistent 

with the applicable land management 

plan direction; 

(iv) Within a native cutthroat trout 

catchment or identified recovery 

watershed, road construction will not 

diminish, over the long-term, conditions 

in the water influence zone and in the 

native cutthroat habitat; and 

(d) Road construction/reconstruction 

project implementation and 

management. Incorporate the following 

elements into any road construction/ 

reconstruction projects implemented 

within Colorado Roadless Areas. 

(1) Road construction. If it is 

determined that a road is authorized in 

a Colorado Roadless Area, conduct 

construction in a manner that reduces, 

to the extent practicable, effects on 

surface resources, and prevents 

unnecessary or unreasonable surface 

disturbance. 

(2) Road decommissioning. 

Decommission any road and restore the 

affected landscape when it is 

determined that the road is no longer 

needed for the established purpose, or 

upon termination or expiration of a 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21291 

contract, authorization, or permit, 

whichever is sooner. Require the 

inclusion of a road decommissioning 

provision in all such contracts or 

permits. Design decommissioning to 

stabilize, restore, and revegetate 

unneeded roads to a more natural state 

to protect resources and enhance 

roadless area characteristics. 

(3) Road designations. The 

designation of a temporary road 

constructed or reconstructed pursuant 

to this subpart may not be changed to 

forest road except where a forest road is 

allowed under paragraphs (b) and (c) of 

this section. 

(4) Road use. Use of motor vehicles 

for administrative purposes by the 

Forest Service and by fire, emergency, 

or law enforcement personnel is 

allowed. All roads constructed pursuant 

to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section 

shall prohibit public motorized vehicles 

(including off-highway vehicles) except: 

(i) Where specifically used for the 

purpose for which the road was 

established; 

(ii) Motor vehicle use that is 

specifically authorized under an 

authorization issued under Federal law 

or regulation. 

(5) Road maintenance. Maintenance 

of roads is permissible in Colorado 

Roadless Areas. 

§ 294.44 Prohibition on linear construction 

zones. 

(a) General. A linear construction 

zone may not be constructed or 

reconstructed in Colorado Roadless 

Areas except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section. 

(b) Linear Construction Zones. 

Notwithstanding the prohibition in 

paragraph (a) of this section, the 

Regional Forester may authorize a linear 

construction zone within a Colorado 

Roadless Area for: 

(1) The construction, reconstruction, 

or maintenance of an authorized water 

conveyance structure which is operated 

pursuant to a pre-existing water court 

decree (see § 294.43(c)(1)(iv)); 

(2) The construction, reconstruction, 

or maintenance of existing or future 

authorized electrical power lines or 

telecommunication lines. Authorize 

electrical power lines or 

telecommunication lines within 

Colorado Roadless Areas only if there is 

no opportunity for the project to be 

implemented outside of a Colorado 

Roadless Area without causing 

substantially greater environmental 

damage; or 

(3) The construction or reconstruction 

of a pipeline associated with operation 

of an oil and gas lease that allows 

surface use within a Colorado Roadless 

Area or the construction or 

reconstruction of a pipeline needed to 

connect to infrastructure within a 

Colorado Roadless Area from outside a 

Colorado Roadless Area where such a 

connection would cause substantially 

less environmental damage than 

alternative routes. The construction of 

pipelines for the purposes of 

transporting oil or natural gas through a 

Colorado Roadless Area, where the 

source(s) and destination(s) of the 

pipeline are located exclusively outside 

of a Colorado Roadless Area, shall not 

be authorized. 

(4) If a proposed linear construction 

zone meets one of the exceptions, then 

the following must be determined: 

(i) Motorized access, without a linear 

construction zone, is not technically 

feasible; 

(ii) A linear construction zone is 

consistent with the applicable land 

management plan direction; 

(iii) Within a native cutthroat trout 

catchment or identified recovery 

watershed, a linear construction zone 

will not diminish, over the long-term, 

conditions in the water influence zone 

and in the native cutthroat habitat; and 

(c) Linear construction zone 

decommissioning. Where a linear 

construction zone is constructed in a 

Colorado Roadless Area, installation of 

the linear facility will be done in a 

manner that minimizes ground 

disturbance, including placement 

within existing right-of-ways where 

feasible. All authorizations approving 

the installation of linear facilities 

through the use of a linear construction 

zone shall include a Responsible 

Official approved reclamation plan for 

reclaiming the affected landscape. Upon 

completion of the installation of a linear 

facility via the use of a linear 

construction zone, all areas of surface 

disturbance shall be reclaimed as 

prescribed in the authorization and the 

approved reclamation plan and may not 

be waived. 

§ 294.45 Environmental documentation. 

(a) Environmental documentation will 

be prepared pursuant to Section 102 of 

the National Environmental Policy Act, 

40 CFR 1500, and 36 CFR part 220 for 

any proposed action within a Colorado 

Roadless Area. Proposals that 

substantially alter the undeveloped 

character of a Colorado Roadless Area 

require an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). 

(b) The Forest Service will offer 

cooperating agency status to the State of 

Colorado, for all proposed projects and 

planning activities to be implemented 

on lands within Colorado Roadless 

Areas. Where the Forest Service does 

not have the authority to offer formal 

cooperating agency status, the Forest 

Service shall offer to coordinate with 

the State. 

§ 294.46 Other activities. 

(a) Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations. Oil 

and gas leases issued within a Colorado 

Roadless Area after [final rule effective 

date] will prohibit road construction/ 

reconstruction. The Forest Service shall 

not authorize the Bureau of Land 

Management to grant any request for a 

waiver, exception, or modification to 

any oil or gas lease if doing so would 

result in any road construction within a 

Colorado Roadless Area. 

(b) Oil and Gas Surface Use Plans of 

Operation. Where applicable, during the 

review of any application for a surface 

use plan of operations affecting lands 

within a Colorado Roadless Area, the 

Responsible Official will: 

(1) Locate, to the extent possible 

without compromising health and safety 

standards, roads, well sites, and 

facilities on pre-existing areas of surface 

disturbance. Project design shall 

minimize the amount of necessary 

temporary road construction or 

reconstruction. 

(2) Consider an alternative for 

proposed operations that addresses 

locating directional drilling of multiwell sites on pre-existing areas of 

surface disturbance. Such an alternative 

can be dismissed from detailed analysis 

with clear justification. 

(3) Restrict road construction for 

leases partially within Colorado 

Roadless Areas, to the extent practical, 

to portions of the lease outside of 

Colorado Roadless Areas except when 

doing so will be substantially more 

environmentally damaging, compromise 

safety standards, or is unfeasible due to 

topography or surface conditions. 

(4) Perform, to the extent feasible, 

reclamation of surface disturbances 

incrementally, to minimize the total 

area of disturbance at any given point in 

time during the exploration or 

development of a lease. 

(5) Design, to the extent feasible, 

temporary roads and facilities to blend 

with the terrain to minimize visual 

impacts and to facilitate restoration 

when the road is no longer needed. 

(6) Co-locate, wherever possible and 

consistent with health and safety 

standards, power lines, flow lines and 

pipelines within the right-of-way of 

roads to minimize the area of surface 

disturbance. 

(7) Consider new and developing low 

impact techniques and technologies and 

either apply or dismiss with 

justification. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
21292 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(8) Utilize the best available 

technology, to the extent possible, to 

minimize noise and air emissions. 

(c) Trails. Nothing in this subpart 

shall affect the current or future 

management of motorized and nonmotorized trails in Colorado Roadless 

Areas. Decisions concerning the 

management or status of motorized and 

non-motorized trails within Colorado 

Roadless Areas under this subpart shall 

be made during the applicable forest 

travel management processes. 

(d) Motorized access. Nothing in this 

subpart shall be construed as limiting 

the authority of the responsible official 

to approve existing and future 

motorized access not requiring road 

construction or reconstruction in 

Colorado Roadless Areas associated 

with grazing permits, special use 

authorizations, and other 

authorizations. 

(e) Livestock grazing. The authority to 

issue livestock grazing permits on 

national forest system lands within a 

Colorado Roadless Area is not affected 

by this subpart; however no new 

temporary or forest roads shall be 

authorized through grazing permits 

issued after [final rule effective date]. 

§ 294.47 Modifications and administrative 

corrections. 

Modifications and administrative 

corrections pursuant to this subpart, 

after coordination with the State, may 

be made under the following 

circumstances: 

(a) Modifications to boundaries. The 

Chief of the Forest Service may modify 

the boundaries of any designated 

Colorado Roadless Area identified in 

§ 294.49 or add new Colorado Roadless 

Areas based on changed circumstances. 

Modifications and additions will be 

reflected in the set of maps maintained 

at the national headquarters office of the 

Forest Service. The construction or 

reconstruction of a temporary road or 

tree-cutting, sale, or removal will not 

result in any boundary modification of 

a Colorado Roadless Area. Public notice 

with a minimum 90-day comment 

period will be provided for any 

proposed Colorado Roadless Area 

boundary modifications or additions. 

(b) Administrative corrections to 

boundaries. The Chief of the Forest 

Service may issue administrative 

corrections after public notice and a 30- 

day comment period. Administrative 

corrections to the maps of any 

designated Colorado Roadless Areas 

identified in § 294.49 are adjustments to 

remedy errors such as clerical, 

topographical, or improvements in 

mapping technology. Other than clerical 

errors, an administrative correction is 

based on improved field data due to 

updated imagery, global positioning 

system data, or other collected field 

data. 

(c) Amendments to rule language. 

Any amendment of this subpart will 

include coordination with the State and 

the appropriate level of NEPA analysis. 

A minimum 90-day comment period 

will be provided. 

§ 294.48 Scope and applicability. 

(a) This subpart does not revoke, 

suspend, or modify any permit, 

contract, lease, or other legal instrument 

authorizing or granting rights to the 

occupancy and use of National Forest 

system land issued prior to [final rule 

effective date] nor does it affect the 

authority or the discretion of the 

responsible official to reissue any such 

permit, contract, or other legal 

instrument upon its expiration or 

termination. 

(b) This subpart does not revoke, 

suspend, or modify any project or 

activity decision made prior to [final 

rule effective date]. 

(c) The provisions set forth in this 

subpart provide the maximum level of 

tree-cutting, sale and removal, and road 

construction and reconstruction activity 

allowed within Colorado Roadless 

Areas. Land management plan 

components can be more restrictive than 

this subpart and will continue to 

provide direction and guidance for 

projects and activities within Colorado 

Roadless Areas. Nothing in this subpart 

shall prohibit a responsible official from 

further restricting activities allowed 

within Colorado Roadless Areas. This 

subpart does not compel the 

amendment or revision of any land 

management plan. 

(d) The prohibitions and restrictions 

established in this subpart are not 

subject to reconsideration, revision, or 

rescission in subsequent project 

decisions or land management plan 

amendments or revisions undertaken 

pursuant to 36 CFR part 219. 

(e) Nothing in this subpart waives any 

applicable requirements regarding site 

specific environmental analysis, public 

involvement, consultation with Tribes 

and other agencies, or compliance with 

applicable laws. 

(f) If any provision in this subpart or 

its application to any person or to 

certain circumstances is held to be 

invalid, the remainder of the regulations 

in this subpart and their application 

remain in force. 

(g) After [final rule effective date] the 

rule promulgated on January 12, 2001, 

(66 FR 3244) shall have no effect within 

the State of Colorado. 

§ 294.49 List of designated Colorado 

Roadless Areas. 

All National Forest System lands 

within the State of Colorado listed in 

this section are hereby designated as 

Colorado Roadless Areas. 

Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest 

1. Bard Creek. 

2. Byers Peak. 

3. Cache La Poudre Adjacent Area. 

4. Cherokee Park. 

5. Comanche Peak Adjacent Area. 

6. Copper Mountain. 

7. Crosier Mountain. 

8. Gold Run. 

9. Green Ridge—East. 

10. Green Ridge—West. 

11. Grey Rock. 

12. Hell Canyon. 

13. Indian Peaks Adjacent Area. 

14. James Peak. 

15. Kelly Creek. 

16. Lion Gulch. 

17. Mount Evans Adjacent Area. 

18. Mount Sniktau. 

19. Neota Adjacent Area. 

20. Never Summer Adjacent Area. 

21. North Lone Pine. 

22. North St. Vrain. 

23. Rawah Adjacent Area. 

24. Square Top Mountain. 

25. Troublesome. 

26. Vasquez Adjacent Area. 

27. White Pine Mountain. 

28. Williams Fork Ptarmigan Adjacent. 

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison 

National Forest 

29. Agate Creek. 

30. American Flag Mountain. 

31. Baldy. 

32. Battlements. 

33. Beaver. 

34. Beckwiths. 

35. Calamity Basin. 

36. Cannibal Plateau. 

37. Canyon Creek—Antero. 

38. Canyon Creek. 

39. Carson. 

40. Castle. 

41. Cataract. 

42. Cimarron Ridge. 

43. Clear Fork. 

44. Cochetopa. 

45. Cochetopa Hills. 

46. Cottonwoods. 

47. Crystal Creek. 

48. Crystal Peak. 

49. Curecanti. 

50. Currant Creek. 

51. Deer Creek. 

52. Dominguez. 

53. Double Top. 

54. East Elk. 

55. Electric Mountain. 

56. Failes Creek-Soldier Creek. 

57. Flatirons. 

58. Flattop Mountain. 

59. Flattops—Elk Park. 

60. Gothic. 

61. Granite Basin. 

62. Hightower. 

63. Hope Lake. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21293 

64. Horse Ranch Park. 

65. Horsefly Canyon. 

66. Huntsman Ridge. 

67. Italian Mountain. 

68. Johnson Basin. 

69. Kannah Creek. 

70. Kelso Mesa. 

71. Last Dollar—Sheep Creek. 

72. Little Cimarron. 

73. Long Canyon. 

74. Matchless Mountain. 

75. Matterhorn. 

76. McClure Pass. 

77. Mendicant. 

78. Mineral Mountain. 

79. Mirror Lake. 

80. Mount Lamborn. 

81. Munsey-Erickson. 

82. Naturita Canyon. 

83. North Henson. 

84. Pilot Knob. 

85. Poverty Gulch. 

86. Salt Creek. 

87. Sanford Basin. 

88. Sawtooth. 

89. Schofield Pass. 

90. Soap Creek. 

91. Steuben. 

92. Sunnyside. 

93. Sunset. 

94. Texas Creek. 

95. Tomahawk. 

96. Turner Creek. 

97. Turret Ridge. 

98. Unaweep. 

99. Union. 

100. Whetstone. 

101. Whitehouse Mountain. 

102. Willow Creek. 

103. Wilson. 

104. Windy Point. 

Manti-La Sal National Forest 

105. Roc Creek. 

Pike-San Isabel National Forest 

106. Antelope Creek. 

107. Aspen Ridge. 

108. Babcock Hole. 

109. Badger Creek. 

110. Boreas. 

111. Buffalo Peaks East. 

112. Buffalo Peaks South. 

113. Buffalo Peaks West. 

114. Burning Bear. 

115. Chicago Ridge. 

116. Chipeta. 

117. Cuchara North. 

118. Cuchara South. 

119. Elk Mountain—Collegiate North. 

120. Elk Mountain—Collegiate South. 

121. Elk Mountain—Collegiate West. 

122. Farnum. 

123. Green Mountain. 

124. Greenhorn Mountain: Badito Cone to 

Dry Creek. 

125. Greenhorn Mountain: Cisneros Creek to 

Upper Turkey Creek. 

126. Greenhorn Mountain: Graneros Creek to 

Section 10. 

127. Greenhorn Mountain: Little Saint 

Charles Creek to Greenhorn Creek. 

128. Gunbarrel. 

129. Hardscrabble. 

130. Highline. 

131. Holy Cross. 

132. Hoosier Ridge. 

133. Jefferson. 

134. Kaufman Ridge. 

135. Kreutzer—Princeton. 

136. Little Fountain Creek. 

137. Lost Creek East. 

138. Lost Creek South. 

139. Lost Creek West. 

140. Methodist Mountain. 

141. Mount Antero. 

142. Mount Elbert. 

143. Mount Evans. 

144. Mount Massive. 

145. Pikes Peak East. 

146. Pikes Peak West. 

147. Porphyry Peak. 

148. Puma Hills. 

149. Purgatoire. 

150. Rampart East.. 

151. Rampart West. 

152. Reveille Canyon. 

153. Romley. 

154. Sangre de Cristo: Alvarado Campground to Music Pass. 

155. Sangre de Cristo: Blanca Peak to Slide 

Mountain. 

156. Sangre de Cristo: Lake Creek to Hermit 

Creek. 

157. Sangre de Cristo: Medano Pass to Carbonate Mountain. 

158. Sangre de Cristo: Silverheels Gulch to 

Hunts Creek. 

159. Sangre de Cristo: West Creek to Big 

Cottonwood. 

160. Schoolmarm Mountain. 

161. Scraggy Peaks. 

162. Sheep Rock. 

163. Silverheels. 

164. Spanish Peaks. 

165. Square Top Mountain. 

166. St. Charles Peak. 

167. Starvation Creek. 

168. Tanner Peak. 

169. Thirtynine Mile Mountain. 

170. Thunder Butte. 

171. Weston Peak. 

Rio Grande National Forest 

172. Alamosa River. 

173. Antora Meadows-Bear Creek. 

174. Beartown. 

175. Beaver Mountain. 

176. Bennet Mountain-Blowout-Willow CreekLion Point-Greenie Mountain. 

177. Big Buck-Kitty-Ruby. 

178. Box-Road Canyon. 

179. Bristol Head. 

180. Butterfly. 

181. Chama Basin. 

182. Conejos River-Lake Fork. 

183. Copper Mountain-Sulphur. 

184. Cotton Creek. 

185. Crestone. 

186. Cumbres. 

187. Deep Creek-Boot Mountain. 

188. Dorsey Creek. 

189. Elkhorn Peak. 

190. Four Mile Creek. 

191. Fox Creek. 

192. Fox Mountain. 

193. Gibbs Creek. 

194. Gold Creek-Cascade Creek. 

195. Hot Springs. 

196. Indian Ridge. 

197. Kitty Creek. 

198. La Garita. 

199. Lake Fork. 

200. Lower East Bellows. 

201. Middle Alder. 

202. Miller Creek. 

203. Pole Creek. 

204. Pole Mountain-Finger Mesa. 

205. Red Mountain. 

206. Ruby Lake. 

207. Sawlog. 

208. Sheep Mountain. 

209. Silver Lakes-Stunner. 

210. Snowshoe Mountain. 

211. Spectacle Lake. 

212. Spruce Hole-Sheep Creek. 

213. Stunner Pass-Dolores Canyon. 

214. Sulphur Tunnel. 

215. Summit Peak-Elwood Pass. 

216. Taylor Canyon. 

217. Tewksberry. 

218. Tobacco Lakes. 

219. Trout Mountain-Elk Mountain. 

220. Ute Pass. 

221. Wason Park. 

222. Wightman Fork—Upper Burro. 

223. Wightman Fork—Lookout. 

224. Willow Mountain. 

Routt National Forest 

225. Barber Basin. 

226. Black Mountain. 

227. Bunker Basin. 

228. Bushy Creek. 

229. Chatfield. 

230. Chedsey Creek. 

231. Dome. 

232. Dome Peak. 

233. Elkhorn. 

234. Gold Creek. 

235. Grizzly Helena. 

236. Kettle Lakes. 

237. Little Green Creek. 

238. Long Park. 

239. Mad Creek. 

240. Morrison Creek. 

241. Never Summer North. 

242. Never Summer South. 

243. Nipple Peak North. 

244. Nipple Peak South. 

245. Pagoda Peak. 

246. Shield Mountain. 

247. South Fork. 

248. Sugarloaf North. 

249. Sugarloaf South. 

250. Troublesome North. 

251. Troublesome South. 

252. Walton Peak. 

253. Whalen Creek. 

San Juan National Forest 

254. Baldy. 

255. Blackhawk Mountain. 

256. East Animas. 

257. Fish Creek. 

258. Florida River. 

259. Graham Park. 

260. HD Mountains. 

261. Hermosa. 

262. Lizard Head Adjacent. 

263. Piedra Area Adjacent. 

264. Runlett Park. 

265. Ryman. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
21294 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

266. San Miguel. 

267. South San Juan Adjacent. 

268. Storm Peak. 

269. Treasure Mountain. 

270. Turkey Creek. 

271. Weminuche Adjacent. 

272. West Needles. 

273. Winter Hills/Serviceberry Mountain. 

White River National Forest 

274. Adam Mountain. 

275. Ashcroft. 

276. Assignation Ridge. 

277. Baldy Mountain. 

278. Basalt Mountain A. 

279. Basalt Mountain B. 

280. Berry Creek. 

281. Big Ridge to South Fork A. 

282. Big Ridge to South Fork B. 

283. Black Lake East. 

284. Black Lake West. 

285. Blair Mountain. 

286. Boulder. 

287. Budges. 

288. Buffer Mountain. 

289. Burnt Mountain. 

290. Chicago Ridge. 

291. Corral Creek. 

292. Crystal River. 

293. Deep Creek. 

294. Dome Peak. 

295. East Divide-Four Mile Park. 

296. East Vail. 

297. East Willow. 

298. Elk Creek B. 

299. Elliot Ridge. 

300. Fawn Creek-Little Lost Park. 

301. Freeman Creek. 

302. Gallo Hill. 

303. Game Creek. 

304. Grizzly Creek. 

305. Gypsum Creek. 

306. Hardscrabble. 

307. Hay Park. 

308. Holy Cross City. 

309. Homestake. 

310. Hoosier Ridge. 

311. Housetop Mountain. 

312. Hunter. 

313. Little Grand Mesa. 

314. Lower Piney. 

315. Mamm Peak. 

316. Maroon East. 

317. Maryland Creek. 

318. McClure Pass. 

319. McFarlane. 

320. Meadow Mountain A. 

321. Meadow Mountain B. 

322. Morapos A. 

323. Morapos B. 

324. Mormon Creek. 

325. No Name. 

326. North Elk. 

327. North Independent A. 

328. North Independent B. 

329. North Woody. 

330. Pagoda Peak. 

331. Piney Lake. 

332. Porcupine Peak. 

333. Ptarmigan A. 

334. Ptarmigan B. 

335. Ptarmigan C. 

336. Ptarmigan Hill A. 

337. Ptarmigan Hill B. 

338. Red Dirt A. 

339. Red Dirt B. 

340. Red Mountain. 

341. Red Table. 

342. Reno Mountain. 

343. Ripple Creek Pass-Trappers Lake. 

344. Ryan Gulch. 

345. Salt Creek. 

346. Sloan Peak. 

347. Spraddle Creek A. 

348. Spraddle Creek B. 

349. Sweetwater A. 

350. Sweetwater B. 

351. Tenderfoot Mountain. 

352. Tenmile. 

353. Thompson Creek. 

354. Tigiwon. 

355. Treasure Mountain. 

356. West Brush Creek. 

357. West Lake Creek. 

358. Wildcat Mountain. 

359. Wildcat Mountain B. 

360. Wildcat Mountain C. 

361. Williams Fork. 

362. Willow. 

363. Woods Lake. 

Dated: April 11, 2011. 

Jay J. Jensen, 

Deputy Under Secretary, NRE. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9119 Filed 4–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 158 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0670; FRL–8857–7] 

RIN 2070–AJ80 

Pesticides; Microbial Pesticide 

Definitions and Applicability; 

Clarification and Availability of Draft 

Test Guideline for Comment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: As promulgated, EPA’s 

regulations distinguish ‘‘isolates’’ and 

‘‘strains’’ in a confusing and non-obvious 

manner. This has resulted in significant 

uncertainty within the regulated 

industry. This proposed rule addresses 

this problem by proposing new 

regulatory language that clarifies the 

requirements applicable to new strains 

that are considered to be new active 

ingredients under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA). EPA is also soliciting 

comment on a draft microbial pesticide 

test guideline, explaining the deposition 

of a sample in a nationally recognized 

culture collection data requirement, for 

comment. The revisions proposed in 

this rule also include several other 

minor corrections to words and 

references. The changes should enhance 

the ability of industry to efficiently 

manage their microbial pesticide 

registration submissions. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0670, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010– 

0670. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the docket 

without change and may be made 

available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or 

e-mail. The regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the docket and made available 

on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS