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

umbrella, constitutes time that must be statutory and regulatory interpretation DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE included in the calculation of duty time suggest that the specific standard of one to determine the rest required under day off every week cannot be rendered Forest Service § 121.377, whether or not that unit itself completely inoperative by the more must adhere to the requirements of general equivalent standard. A previous 36 CFR Part 294 § 121.377. An employee using accrued interpretation allowed that a work RIN 0596–AC74 vacation or credit time is not ‘‘on duty’’ schedule that provides for personnel to even though the employee may receive have a group of 4 days off followed by Special Areas; Roadless Area compensation for that time. up to 24 days of work, or vice versa, Conservation; Applicability to the Nevertheless, the regulation aims to would still meet the standard of being National Forests in Colorado require repair stations to give its ‘‘equivalent’’ to one day off in every maintenance personnel at least one day AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. seven within a month. Legal off every week without requiring that ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. employee to use accrued vacation time Interpretation to Ron Webb from Donald to be free from any responsibility for P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, SUMMARY: The Forest Service, U.S. work. Regulations (June 21, 1991). That Department of Agriculture (USDA), is Once Pratt relieves the employee from interpretation, however, was issued proposing to establish a State-specific duty, the regulation does not require prior to the findings relating fatigue to rule to provide management direction Pratt to monitor the employee’s maintenance related errors in the air for conserving and managing activities. The scenario where an carrier industry discussed in AC 120– inventoried roadless areas on National employee uses the time off from Pratt to 72. Webster’s dictionary defines Forest System (NFS) lands in Colorado. work at another maintenance facility ‘‘equivalent’’ as having logical A proposed rule was published in the does not implicate Pratt’s compliance equivalence, or corresponding or July 25, 2008, Federal Register. In with § 121.377. Unlike the regulations virtually identical in effect or function. response to public comment on the 2008 governing crewmember duty time, Today, we would not view as compliant Proposed Rule and a revised petition § 121.377 does not contain a limit on an a schedule that provides over the course submitted by the State of Colorado on April 6, 2010, the Forest Service is employee’s total accumulated working of eight weeks for four days off followed publishing a new proposed rule. hours within a specified period of time. by 48 straight days of duty followed by The Agency is inviting public The FAA does not recommend this four more days off. Such a work practice, however, for the reasons comment on this new proposed rule and schedule that generally provides for an discussed in AC 120–72 related to accompanying revised draft average of one day off over several fatigue. Thus, an employee relieved environmental impact statement ‘‘ ’’ from duty by Pratt may perform other weeks cannot be said to be equivalent (RDEIS). The Agency is interested in aviation related maintenance, even for to the more specific standard requiring public comments on the changes to other facilities which themselves are one day off out of every seven days. exceptions and prohibitions on bound by § 121.377, provided the Lastly, you correctly note that the activities in roadless areas that have employee is provided the requisite time regulation does not address the length of been developed in response to public off by each facility for which the the work day, only the length of the comments on the 2008 Proposed Rule. employee works. Pratt must use caution, required time off work. The legal The Agency is particularly interested in however, not to create the appearance of interpretation from Mr. Byrne to Mr. receiving public comments on the requiring an employee to work during Webb also makes clear that the general concept, management, and rationale for off hours for another facility that is just equivalency provision in § 121.377 does designation of specific areas within a corporate sister to the Pratt facility. not apply to the specific requirement to Colorado Roadless Areas identified as You also raise the question of whether ‘‘ ’’ give 24 consecutive hours of time off. upper tier. In this proposed rule, these a facility can schedule employees to Time off may not be provided in smaller areas are provided a higher level of work more than six consecutive days, protection than the 2001 Roadless Rule, thereby grouping required days off, and increments over several days even though the total time off over any seven DATES: Comments must be received in still remain in compliance with writing by July 14, 2011. § 121.377. The regulatory standard day period may equal or exceed 24 ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent via requires 24 consecutive hours off duty hours. e-mail to [email protected]. during any seven consecutive days but We appreciate your patience and trust Comments may also be submitted via also contains some flexibility in the that the above responds to your the Internet at http:// phrase ‘‘or the equivalent thereof within concerns. If you need further assistance, www.regulations.gov. Written comments any one calendar month.’’ The FAA please contact my staff at (202) 267– concerning this notice should be intended that the regulation allow 3073. This response was prepared by addressed to: Colorado Roadless Rule/ employees to work in excess of six Anne Bechdolt, Attorney in the EIS, P.O. Box 1919, Sacramento, CA consecutive days in the event of a Operations Law Branch of the national emergency or unusual 95812. Regulations Division of the Office of the All comments, including names and occurrence in the air carrier industry. Chief Counsel, and coordinated with the addresses, are placed in the record and See Legal Interpretation 1987–15 (June Aircraft Maintenance and Air are available for public inspection and 14, 1987). The regulatory flexibility copying. The public may inspect found in § 121.377 allows maintenance Transportation divisions of Flight comments received at http:// personnel to work a schedule that Standards Service. roadless.fs.fed.us. maintains the ‘‘equivalent’’ to one day Rebecca B. MacPherson, off every week even though that Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: schedule might provide for more than [FR Doc. 2011–9236 Filed 4–14–11; 8:45 am] Colorado Roadless Rule Team Leader six consecutive days of work. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Ken Tu at (303) 275–5156. Individuals The equivalent standard, however, using telecommunication devices for the does have limits. The tenants of deaf (TDD) may call the Federal

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21273

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at Committee (RACNAC) and public risk from wildfire to a municipal water 1–800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and comment on the 2008 Proposed Rule supply system. The 2001 Rule exception 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday both provided a national perspective. for ecosystem maintenance and through Friday. The RACNAC was specifically designed restoration allows tree cutting anywhere SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: as an advisory committee composed of within roadless areas. national interests to provide a national In the proposed rule, an upper tier of Background perspective, and it no longer exists. The protection has been designated with As a leader in natural resource vast majority of respondents to the 2008 fewer exceptions than the 2001 Rule for conservation, the Forest Service Proposed Rule expressed a desire for a road construction and reconstruction provides direction for the management rule that protects roadless area and tree cutting. Exceptions are not and use of the Nation’s forests, characteristics now and for future allowed for road reconstruction and rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems generations. However, some realignment, and temporary roads for under its jurisdiction. Similarly, the respondents suggested alternative, less public health and safety. The 2001 Rule State of Colorado is committed to restrictive roadless regulations. This tree-cutting exceptions for maintenance sustained natural resource use and proposed rule includes prohibitions on and restoration of ecosystem conservation of State and Federal land tree-cutting, sale, or removal; road characteristics, and for habitat within its borders. Furthermore, the construction/reconstruction; and linear improvement for endangered, Forest Service is charged to collaborate construction zones, all with limited threatened or sensitive species are not cooperatively with States and other exceptions tailored to address specific allowed in the upper tier of the interested parties regarding the use and issues. This proposed rule requires, in proposed rule. management of the National Forest many cases, the Regional Forester to State of Colorado Petitions System (NFS). make specific determinations prior to Colorado’s Roadless Areas are of great authorizing exceptions. On July 14, 2005, the State of importance to the people of Colorado In this proposed rule, substantially Colorado announced it would submit a and the Nation. These magnificent altered acres have been removed from petition requesting specific regulatory landscapes provide a variety of the roadless inventory and new acres protections for the inventoried roadless resources and open space opportunities with high level of roadless areas within the State. The State’s for all Americans. They provide the characteristics have been added. In the commitment to participate was setting and backdrop for recreational standard tier, 20,000 acres are in the evidenced by Colorado Senate Bill 05– experiences of all kinds, including non- North Fork coal mining area, where 243, the Roadless Areas Review Task motorized and/or motorized recreational there is an exception for temporary Force legislation signed into Colorado trail use. They are sources of clean and roads for underground coal activities law on June 8, 2005. The law identified safe public drinking water. They contain such as methane drainage wells. membership and responsibilities of a intact habitat for species dependent on Existing ski areas (8,300 acres) have 13-member bipartisan task force to make large, undisturbed areas of land. The been removed from the roadless recommendations to the Governor scenic quality of these naturally inventory, although only 1,700 acres regarding inventoried roadless areas in appearing landscapes is among the would be currently restricted by the Colorado. The law also identified the highest in the Nation. These areas serve 2001 Rule due to the fact that there are Federal 2001 Roadless Area as bulwarks against the spread of non- existing permits on the other 6,600 ski Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule) native invasive plant species and area acres. as the starting point for the task force. provide reference areas for study and Linear construction zones are The task force held nine public research. The USDA, Forest Service, and prohibited with some exceptions. There meetings throughout the State, reviewed State consider these areas an important is no prohibition of linear construction and considered over 40,000 public component of the NFS and are zones in the 2001 Rule. comments, and conducted a committed to the conservation and In the proposed rule, there are comprehensive review of Colorado’s 4.4 protection of Colorado Roadless Areas exceptions for temporary roads for fuels million acres of inventoried roadless (CRAs). treatment and for ecosystem areas included in the 2001 Roadless The unique perspectives and maintenance and restoration, but these Rule. knowledge provided by the State and are restricted to locations within one Colorado’s petition (2006 Petition) the public was of great assistance half mile of communities. Road was submitted by then-Governor Owens throughout the development of this construction for these purposes is not on November 13, 2006, to the Secretary proposed rule. Many of the CRAs form allowed in the 2001 Rule. There is an of Agriculture for consideration under the setting and backdrop for Colorado exception for roads for authorized water section 553(e) of the Administrative communities and have become part of conveyance structures operated Procedure Act and USDA regulations at their identity. These areas help provide according to a State water court decree 7 CFR 1.28. On April 11, 2007, Governor a high quality of life for local residents. in existence at the time of the Ritter resubmitted the 2006 petition They are also the backdrop for world- promulgation of the final rule. There is with additions (2007 Petition). After class skiing, hunting and fishing, and no exception for roads for water reviewing the recommendation from the backcountry experiences for non- conveyance structures in the 2001 Rule. RACNAC, the Secretary of Agriculture residents. Local communities are In the proposed rule, the tree cutting accepted the 2007 Petition on August sensitive to the economic consequences exceptions for fuel treatment and 24, 2007, and directed the Forest of Federal land management, whether ecosystem maintenance and restoration Service to initiate rulemaking based on for tourism or other purposes. are restricted spatially in this proposed the petition. The State of Colorado was The new proposed rule addresses rule to a maximum of one and a half granted cooperating agency status for both local and national interests in the miles from communities. The only purposes of compliance with the management of Colorado Roadless condition in which tree cutting could National Environmental Policy Act Areas. Recommendations from the occur outside the community protection (NEPA) pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6 of USDA Secretary’s Roadless Area zone (CPZ) requires a Regional Forester the Council on Environmental Quality Conservation National Advisory determination that there is a significant regulations in a memorandum of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 21274 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

understanding dated January 8, 2008. A issues, alternatives, and CRA inventoried Colorado Roadless Areas, notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an boundaries. and includes 562,200 acres in the upper environmental impact statement (EIS) The RACNAC held public meetings in tier. Alternative 3 uses forest plan was published in the Federal Register Washington, DC, and Salt Lake City, direction to manage roadless areas, and on December 26, 2007 (72 FR 72982). Utah, and submitted recommendations alternative 4 uses the proposed rule The public comment period ended on to the Secretary of Agriculture on direction, applies the direction to February 25, 2008. The Forest Service December 5, 2008, to be considered in Colorado Roadless Areas, and includes received about 88,000 responses. the development of the rule. approximately 2.6 million acres of On July 25, 2008, the Forest Service Throughout the public involvement upper tier. The RDEIS may be found at published the 2008 Proposed Rule to process, the USDA, Forest Service, and http://roadless.fs.fed.us. Following establish State-specific management State repeatedly heard comments Secretarial instructions, as well as direction for conserving roadless areas requesting a reduction in the scope of reviewing public comments received to on NFS land in Colorado in the Federal the Colorado State Petition’s proposed date, and the RACNAC Register (73 FR 43544). A notice of exceptions for tree-cutting, sale, or recommendations, the Forest Service in availability for the draft EIS was removal and road construction and consultation with the State, made published in the Federal Register on reconstruction. Based on the comments, additional adjustments and August 1, 2008 (73 FR 44991). The the State requested the USDA postpone clarifications to this proposed rule. further rulemaking efforts until the State availability of the regulatory risk Roadless Area Inventories in Colorado assessment for the 2008 Proposed Rule considered revision of its 2007 Petition. On August 3, 2009, the State of was published in the Federal Register Finally, the proposed rule includes an Colorado released a proposed revision on September 18, 2008 (73 FR 54125). updated inventory of roadless areas. The of rule language to be used for its The comment period for all three 2007 State Petition proposed using the formulation of a revised petition to the documents closed on October 23, 2008. inventories used in the 2001 Roadless public. The State received Rule. In some cases, these were based Information applying to the 2008 approximately 22,000 comments during on inventories from the late 70s. Those Proposed Rule was provided to the Ute the 60-day comment period, the inventories used mapping technologies Mountain Ute and Southern Ute Indian majority of which were form letters. The that are now outdated, and also roads Tribes, located in Colorado, prior to the State considered the public comments had been constructed between the time release of the NOI. An introductory and submitted a revised petition to the of the original inventories and their use letter, the NOI, background information Secretary on April 6, 2010 (2010 in the 2001 Roadless Rule. The Forest on the 2008 Proposed Rule, and an offer Petition). for additional information or meetings Upon receipt of the revised petition Service has reviewed and updated the were sent to the Tribes. The 2008 and consideration of the public 2001 inventories for the purpose of this Proposed Rule and DEIS were sent to comments submitted on the petition, rulemaking; making technical each Tribe and each was contacted by Secretary of Agriculture Thomas J. corrections, removing private property phone to determine interest in meeting Vilsack instructed the Forest Service to and making other boundary or obtaining information. The Tribes did ‘‘analyze the potential of adding adjustments, including additions and not request additional government to substantially to the number of acres deletions due to land exchanges. Newly government involvement, and no formal receiving a higher level of protection’’ congressionally-designated areas have comments from any of the Tribes were (upper tier lands) than the 2001 also been removed from the CRA received. A letter was sent to the Tribes Roadless Rule. The 2010 Petition inventory. with a draft version of this revised contained 257,000 upper tier acres. During the public comment period on proposed rule and the Forest Service Based on the Secretary’s direction, acres the 2008 Proposed Rule, comments were met with those Tribes requesting further were added such that there are now received on many of the boundaries of consultation. In accordance with 562,200 upper tier acres in this individual CRAs. The Forest Service Executive Order 13175, consultation proposed rule. These areas were and Colorado Department of Wildlife efforts will continue throughout the selected to become upper tier based on field staff worked jointly to identify process and preparation of a final Rule. their roadless characteristics, and that corrections to the inventories used for As a result of its July, August, and they were already designated for higher the 2008 Proposed Rule. Further September 2008 notices, the Forest levels of protection in either draft or information on the boundary changes Service received approximately 106,000 final forest plans. and a description of the uniqueness of responses of which 105,000 were form The Forest Service analyzed four each CRA can be found at http:// letters. Responses included advocacy for alternatives for managing roadless areas roadless.fs.fed.us. a particular outcome or for specific in this RDEIS. Alternative 1 uses CRA boundaries have been adjusted regulatory language, and calls for provisions of the 2001 Roadless Rule where they overlap with ski areas that compliance with laws and regulations. and applies them to the 2001 roadless have special use authorizations or land Some responses contained suggestions area inventory. Alternative 2 is the use management plan allocations for ski on further analyses and changes to proposed rule, applies the rule to areas that allow road construction.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 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

Corrected IRA Total roadless Corrected acres not Roadless acres to be 2001 rule total Colorado IRA included acres added to managed Proposed net IRA acres 1 within Colo- Colorado change acres rado roadless roadless areas under Colo- areas rado rule

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 roadless areas in context of this where needed pursuant to reserved or The Agency is continuing land proposed rule. outstanding rights or as provided for by statute or treaty. All 562,200 acres management planning efforts at the Section by Section Highlights of analyzed in alternative 2 of the RDEIS national level as well on several forests Changes From the July 2008 Proposed are part of the preferred alternative in Colorado concurrent with this Rule rulemaking. The Rocky Mountain (proposed rule). This proposed rule replaces the Region is presently conducting a The term Wildland Urban Interface proposed rule published in July 2008. revision of the San Juan National Forest (WUI) is removed and replaced by the The section numbers of this proposed land management plan and the revision term Community Protection Zone (CPZ). rule do not correspond with the schedule may be found at http:// A CPZ is defined as either an area one- numbering used in the 2008 Proposed ocs.fortlewis.edu/forestplan. A complete half mile from the boundary of an at-risk Rule. Minor changes, edits, or c schedule of plan revisions is posted at community or an area up to 1 miles corrections are not discussed. http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/ from the boundary of an at-risk includes/LRMPschedule.pdf. At the Section 294.40 Purpose community where: the land has a sustained steep slope that creates the national level, the Agency is engaging in The purpose remains to provide State- potential for wildfire behavior a revision of its land management specific direction for the protection of endangering the at-risk community; or planning regulations. Information is roadless areas on NFS land in Colorado has a geographic feature that aids in posted at http://www.fs.usda.gov/ that sustains roadless area creating an effective fire break, such as planningrule. Some provisions of this characteristics now and for future a river or a ridge top; or where the trees proposed rule use terminology and generations. concepts from existing plans and are in condition class 3 as defined by planning regulations (e.g. ‘‘sensitive Section 294.41 Definitions the HFRA. The CPZ is measured from species’’). The use of such terminology Several terms have been added for the boundary of the at-risk community is potentially subject to adjustment. clarification and some terms have been and not from the boundary of the CRA. The term hazardous fuels has been Specific Request for Public Comment removed where no longer needed. The term at-risk community as added. Hazardous fuels are defined as The Agency is particularly interested defined in section 101 of the Healthy excessive live or dead wildland fuel in receiving public input regarding Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) has been accumulations that increase the specific areas within the CRAs that added. potential for intense wildland fire and should or should not be included in the The term Colorado Roadless Area decrease the capability to protect life, upper tier lands including the reason for upper tier acres has been added. These property and other resources. the inclusion or exclusion (see RDEIS, are specific portions of or entire CRAs The term roadless area characteristics Appendix B and map packet); and what identified in the set of CRA maps. The has been retained, but modified from exceptions to the prohibitions on tree- proposed rule prohibits all tree-cutting, the definition offered in the 2008 cutting, sale, or removal, and road sale, or removal on these acres, except Proposed Rule. The 2008 definition construction/reconstruction should where incidental to the implementation indicated that the enumeration of the apply to upper tier lands. In addition, of a management activity not otherwise various resources and features was not the Agency is interested in receiving prohibited by the rule, or as needed and intended to constitute in any way the comments on effective means of appropriate for personal or establishment of any legal standard, managing linear facilities, such as administrative use. The proposed rule requirement, or cause for any electric power lines and would prohibit all road construction or administrative appeal or legal action telecommunications lines, within reconstruction on these lands, except related to any project or activity

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:40 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 21276 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

otherwise authorized by this rule. The Responsible Official to determine Regional Forester, may only occur in an 2010 State Petition recommended whether any proposed tree-cutting, sale, area identified in a CWPP. The CPZ removing that language from the or removal project would be consistent would still be the maximum boundary definition and inserting interpretive with the applicable LMP, would for allowed treatments within CRAs. If language in the scope and applicability maintain or improve one or more the CPZ boundary exceeds the CWPP section of the regulation. The proposed roadless area characteristic over the boundary, treatments would be limited rule states in § 294.40 that the intent of long-term, and would qualify as a listed to the CWPP area. this regulation is to protect roadless exception. Tree-cutting incidental to a Projects within the CPZ are to be areas. Activities must be designed to management activity otherwise focused on small diameter trees to conserve the roadless area authorized by this proposed rule or for create fuel conditions to modify fire characteristics listed in § 294.41, personal or administrative use would behavior while retaining large trees to although the proposed rule not be required to maintain or improve the maximum extent practical, as acknowledges that applying the one or more of the roadless area appropriate to the forest type. In forest exceptions in § 294.42, § 294.43, and characteristics over the long-term. types such as lodgepole pine, trees may § 294.44 may have effects to some The exceptions concerning tree- be dead or dying, regardless of size, and roadless area characteristics. cutting, sale, or removal allowed to may need to be removed, both to The terms catchment, native cutthroat reduce fuel loadings to moderate the prevent hazards to firefighters from trout, and water influence zone have potential effects of a catastrophic falling and fallen trees, and for been added to describe requirements wildland fire have been refined. The successful hazardous fuel reduction. that provide additional protection for proposed rule takes into account that Tree-cutting, sale, or removal for the native cutthroat trout species when a homes that have been constructed protection of municipal water supply road construction/reconstruction or adjacent to Colorado’s national forests systems outside of a CPZ is allowed linear construction zone exception is and the increasing threat of fire to these only if the Regional Forester determines authorized. at-risk communities. Treating hazardous that a significant risk exists to the The term linear construction zone has fuels, and creating safety zones for fire municipal water supply system or the been added. crews in areas around communities can maintenance of that system. This The term utility has been removed, make a difference in the ability of section states that a significant risk and replaced by linear facility which firefighters to control wildfire moving exists under conditions in which the includes pipelines, electrical power toward an at-risk community. Such history of fire occurrence and fire lines, and telecommunication lines. conditions have been a major hazard and risk indicate a serious The definition for water conveyance consideration in developing the likelihood that a wildland fire structures has been modified to include proposed rule language. disturbance event would present a high reservoirs to clarify that they are In Colorado, about 340 of the HFRA risk of threat to a municipal water included under the exception for at-risk communities listed in the supply system. construction, reconstruction or Federal Register (66 FR 753, January 4, Projects outside of the CPZ are to be maintenance of roads for authorized 2001) are within 11⁄2 miles of a CRA. In focused on small diameter trees to water conveyance structures. This the period between 1980 and 2008, over create fuel conditions to modify fire exception in the proposed rule applies 1,700 ignitions affecting over 45,000 behavior, while retaining large trees to only to those water conveyance acres occurred within roadless areas in the maximum extent practical as structures operated pursuant to a water Colorado. Over 45 percent of these appropriate to the forest type. It is court decree existing as of the date of ignitions and 25 percent of the acres expected such projects will be the final rule. burned were within the 11⁄2 mile CPZ. infrequent. The term Pre-existing Water Court The proposed rule allows flexible The requested exception that allows Decree has been defined. treatment prior to imminent fire activity tree-cutting, sale, or removal to prevent and provides a more restrictive or suppress an insect or disease Section 294.42 Prohibition on Tree- approach than the 2001 Rule by limiting epidemic has been replaced with an Cutting, Sale, or Removal fuel treatments to the CPZ. In addition, exception that allows tree-cutting, sale, On lands designated as upper tier, the proposed rule, by requiring or removal to restore the characteristics tree-cutting, sale, or removal would be treatment areas beyond one-half mile of ecosystem, composition, structure prohibited except when the Responsible from an at-risk community to be and processes. This exception is Official determines that the activity is identified in a Community Wildfire intended to be used infrequently. consistent with the applicable land Protection Plan (CWPP), ensures Tree-cutting, sale or removal for the management plan (LMP), and incidental consideration of community and purposes of wildlife habitat to the implementation of a management practitioner knowledge about conditions improvement is limited to Federally activity not otherwise prohibited, or as in a specific area. threatened, endangered, and proposed needed and appropriate for personal or Within the CPZ, tree-cutting, sale, or species or those listed as a regionally administrative use. Upper tier areas removal may occur within the first one- designated sensitive species by the provide for a higher level of protection half mile of a CPZ only when the Forest Service, instead of all wildlife than the 2001 Roadless Rule because the Regional Forester determines it is and plant species as was allowed in the exceptions in the 2001 Roadless Rule to needed to reduce the wildfire hazard to previously proposed rule. allow tree-cutting, sale or removal for either an at-risk community or a Tree-cutting that is incidental to a species habitat and for maintenance and municipal water supply system, management activity that is otherwise restoration of ecosystem composition including reservoirs and dams, not prohibited by the rule is allowed. and structure, including the reduction diversion structures, headgates, canals, Examples include, but are not limited of risk of uncharacteristic wildfire ditches, tunnels, pipelines, and other to, trail construction or maintenance; effects, are not applied to upper tier in surface facilities and systems. removal of hazard trees adjacent to this proposed rule. Within the outer one mile of the CPZ, forest roads for public health and safety On the remaining CRA lands, the tree-cutting, sale, or removal, if reasons; fire line construction for proposed rule would require the determined to be needed by the wildland fire suppression or control of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21277

prescribed fire; survey and maintenance been eliminated. New grazing motor vehicle use that is specifically of property boundaries; or for road authorizations would be limited to use under an authorization issued under construction and linear construction of existing roads. Federal law or regulation, or use for zones where allowed by this rule. Temporary road construction may be public health and safety or law Tree-cutting for personal or authorized when associated with enforcement reasons. Maintenance of administrative use is allowed and exploration or development of an oil temporary or forest roads would be includes, but is not limited to, activities and gas lease that was issued prior to permitted. such as Christmas tree and firewood the effective date of the rule and when cutting. the lease and stipulations do not Section 294.44 Prohibition on Linear prohibit surface occupancy or roading. Construction Zones Section 294.43 Prohibition on Road Approximately 9,000 acres of the Construction and Reconstruction Prohibitions on linear construction Currant Creek CRA, have been removed zones (LCZs) have been added to the The proposed rule revises the from the North Fork Coal Mining Area proposed rule. The 2001 Roadless Rule exceptions to the prohibitions on road exception due to public comments did not restrict the use of LCZs. LCZs construction or reconstruction from the regarding the wildlife values of this would be prohibited in CRAs unless previous proposal. Upper tier land particular CRA and the lack of existing they meet one of three exceptions: water designations have been added that coal leases in this area. In the remaining conveyance structures with a pre- prohibit all road construction/ proposed 20,000 acres, temporary road existing water court decree; electrical reconstruction, except when pursuant to construction would be allowed for coal power or telecommunication lines; and reserved or outstanding rights or as exploration and coal-related surface pipelines associated with oil and gas provided for by statute or treaty. Even support activities, such as the drilling of leases that allow surface use within in such a situation, the Responsible vent holes to extract methane gas to CRAs or an oil and gas lease outside of Official would be required to make a facilitate miner safety. These same CRA that connects to infrastructure series of determinations to decide temporary roads could also be used for inside of CRAs. For all three LCZ whether a proposal fits the exception the purpose of collecting and exceptions, the Regional Forester would within the upper tier lands. The transporting coal mine methane to avoid be required to determine that motorized determinations would include: venting methane into the atmosphere. access is not possible without an LCZ consideration of technically feasible The authorized road right-of-way would that the LCZ is consistent with options without road construction; serve as the site for buried applicable LMP, and that in the long when proposing to construct a forest infrastructure, such as pipelines. The term the LCZ will not diminish road, consideration of whether a proposed rule allows for the conditions in native cutthroat trout temporary road would provide opportunity to develop this important habitat. reasonable access; and within a native low-sulfur, cleaner-burning coal cutthroat trout catchment or identified resource in a limited portion of the CRA The Regional Forester may authorize recovery watershed, a determination inventory, with areas being returned to a LCZ when needed for construction, whether road construction will long term management for roadless area reconstruction, or maintenance of an diminish, over the long-term, conditions protection following the authorized water conveyance structure in the water influence zone and in the decommissioning of the associated that was operated pursuant to a pre- native cutthroat habitat. temporary roads. existing water court decree, as of the The rule provisions concerning Under all road exceptions, projects effective date of this rule. This proposed road construction or would have to be designed and exception is similar to the road reconstruction for authorized water completed to reduce unnecessary or construction/reconstruction for water conveyance structures have been unreasonable surface disturbance. All conveyance structures, but can be modified. The definition of water roads constructed would be selected when a road is not necessary. conveyances has been expanded to decommissioned and the affected Colorado’s petition and public include reservoirs, and the exception is landscape restored when a road was no comment identify that the current limited only to those conveyances longer needed for the original purpose electrical power line system, some of operated pursuant to a pre-existing and/or when the authorization expired, which is already located in CRAs, will water court decree as of the effective whichever was sooner. These need to be maintained and upgraded. date of a final rule. Water court decrees decommissioning requirements would Additionally, demand for additional dated after the final date of the rule be included in all related contracts or lines is expected. The rule recognizes would not be eligible for roaded access permits and could not be waived. these possibilities and would allow in CRAs. Finally, the Regional Forester To prevent roads from affecting the LCZs, when appropriate, as the method would be required to determine the landscape longer than intended, requiring the least disturbance. For the need for the road access. temporary roads authorized under this construction, reconstruction, or The exception for temporary road subpart would not be converted to a maintenance of existing or future construction associated with tree- forest road (be designated as a electrical power lines or cutting, sale, or removal to reduce the permanent road), unless the specific telecommunication lines within a CRA, wildfire hazard to an at-risk community exception under which the temporary the Regional Forester would determine or municipal water supply system and road was constructed allows for forest if a LCZ is needed. The rule further tree-cutting associated with road construction and reconstruction. clarifies that any future electrical power maintenance and restoration of All roads would also restrict use to the lines or telecommunication lines could characteristics of ecosystem purpose for the road, limiting the traffic only be authorized within a CRA if there composition, structure and processes, is and overall impact to the area. is no opportunity for the project to be limited to the first half mile of the CPZ Motorized use by the general public implemented outside the CRA without and would require a determination by including use by off-highway vehicles causing substantially greater the Regional Forester. would be prohibited. General use environmental damage. The agency is The road construction exception for restrictions would not apply to inviting public comments on this the management of livestock grazing has administrative use by the Forest Service, exception.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 21278 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

The rule similarly recognizes that it would establish requirements to limit improved field data due to updated may be appropriate to authorize a LCZ future discretionary decisions imagery, global positioning data, or within CRAs to allow the movement of concerning oil and gas leasing within other collected field data. product to market from within a pre- CRAs. Specifically, the proposed rule Rulemaking would be required for existing oil and gas lease within the would require that only temporary roads any modification to final rule language. CRA. The proposed rule also allows an could be developed in association with The Secretary would provide for public LCZ when a proponent requests to pre-existing leases. In addition, the notice and a minimum 90-day comment connect from outside the CRA to an proposed rule would prohibit the period, and the State would be existing infrastructure within a CRA in Agency from authorizing the Bureau of consulted on any rulemaking proposals. order to avoid creation of a duplicate Land Management to grant any request pipeline system and unnecessary for a waiver, exception, or modification Section 294.48 Scope and environmental harm. The Regional to any oil or gas lease, if doing so would Applicability Forester would be required to determine result in any road construction within a The proposed rule’s applicability that such a connection would cause Colorado Roadless Area beyond that would be limited to authorizations for substantially less environmental damage authorized at the time of issuance of the occupancy and use of NFS lands issued than alternative routes. An LCZ would lease. after the effective date of a final rule. not be allowed for new pipelines that Comments were also received for and The proposed rule’s provisions would would merely pass through a CRA. against establishment of a prohibition not affect project or activity decisions All LCZs would be constructed in a on new oil and gas leasing or surface issued prior to the effective date of a manner that minimizes ground occupancy within CRAs. Again, like final rule. disturbance, and would include a prior rules, the proposed rule does not Components of a LMP can be more reclamation plan. After installation of establish such prohibitions. Instead, the restrictive than the rule and will the linear facility, the LCZ and all areas proposed rule would allow only such continue to provide guidance and of surface disturbance would be leasing that can be accomplished direction for projects within CRAs. The reclaimed according to the reclamation without road construction or proposed rule does not compel plan, and those requirements would not reconstruction and would require amendment or revision of a LMP. A be waived. mandatory and non-waiveable project decision or LMP amendment or stipulations prohibiting road Section 294.45 Environmental revision may not waive or supersede the construction. The proposed rule Documentation provisions of this proposed rule. identifies regulatory requirements in 36 The proposed rule does not waive any The Forest Service will comply with CFR 294.44 that would be imposed for requirements during project analyses to NEPA for activities within CRAs. The any linear construction zone associated consult with Tribes and other agencies, Forest Service NEPA regulations at 36 with new leases. comply with applicable laws, and CFR 220.5(a)(2) normally require The proposed rule also confirms that involve the public. preparation of an EIS for any proposal the forest travel management processes If any provision of the rule or its that would substantially alter the will continue to be used for all future application were held to be invalid, the undeveloped character of an inventoried decisions regarding motorized and non Department’s intention is that the roadless area, including CRAs. motorized use on trails within CRAs. remainder of the regulation would The Forest Service would be required Motorized access not involving the remain in force. to offer the State of Colorado construction or reconstruction of roads After promulgation of a final rule, the cooperating agency status for all would continue according to existing rule promulgated on January 12, 2001, proposed projects and planning events authorizations. CRA designation would would have no effect within the State of within CRAs. When the Forest Service not eliminate or preclude any lands Colorado. is not the lead agency and does not have from being available for livestock the authority to offer formal cooperating grazing. Section 294.49 List of Designated agency status to the State of Colorado, Colorado Roadless Areas the Forest Service would offer to Section 294.47 Modifications and Administrative Corrections There are 363 Colorado Roadless coordinate with the State. Areas in the proposed rule; an increase The Chief of the Forest Service would of 18 CRAs from the July 2008 Proposed Section 294.46 Other Activities be able to modify CRA boundaries based Rule. The proposed rule would prohibit on a changed circumstance such as, the temporary and permanent road inclusion or exclusion of lands due to Regulatory Certifications construction and reconstruction land exchanges, and updated Regulatory Planning and Review associated with new oil and gas leases inventories. Such changes to the issued within a Colorado Roadless Area. boundaries would require public notice The proposed rule was reviewed Some comments suggested that the and a minimum 90-day public comment under USDA procedures, Executive Colorado Roadless Rule establish period. Changes due to new Order 12866 (E.O. 12866), and the major restrictions to be applied retroactively to congressional designations would not rule provisions of the Small Business oil and gas leases within CRAs. The require a modification, and would be Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness proposed rule does not implement that adjusted to conform to the applicable Act (5 U.S.C. 800). E.O. 12866 addresses suggestion. Consistent with other past statute. regulatory planning and review and Department rulemakings concerning The Chief of the Forest Service would requires agencies conduct a regulatory roadless area management, this be able to make administrative impact assessment for economically proposed rule is not designed or corrections to CRA boundaries. significant regulatory actions. intended to alter previously approved Administrative corrections would Economically significant regulatory decisions but instead establishes require public notice and a 30-day actions are those that have an annual prospective management direction for comment period. Administrative effect on the economy of $100 million the protection and management of corrections include adjustments such as or more, or adversely affect the economy CRAs. Nevertheless, the proposed rule to correct clerical errors or to reflect or economic sectors. Total annual

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 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 to address unique and local land travel planning-related actions should production in the affected areas is management challenges, while be addressed through travel projected to be approximately $970 continuing to conserve roadless values management planning and individual million under the proposed rule, and characteristics. Increased forest plans. compared to approximately $1,030 management flexibility is primarily Distributional effects or economic million under baseline conditions, needed to reduce hazardous fuels impacts, in terms of jobs and labor implying the annual impact of the around communities to allow access to income, are quantified for the oil and proposed rule is estimated to be a coal reserves in the North Fork coal gas and the coal sectors for an economic decrease of approximately $60 million mining areas, and to allow access to area consisting of five Colorado counties for energy mineral sectors. Due to the future water conveyances. (Delta, Garfield, Mesa, Montrose, and potential magnitude of economic The proposed rule does not authorize Rio Blanco) using a regional impact impacts and the level of interest in the implementation of any ground- model. Fiscal impacts (i.e., mineral inventoried roadless area management, disturbing activities, but rather it this proposed rule has been designated describes circumstances under which lease payments) are estimated for as significant and is subject to Office of certain activities may be allowed or counties where changes in mineral Management and Budget (OMB) review restricted in roadless areas. Before activity are expected to be physically under E.O. 12866. authorizing land use activities in located (Delta, Garfield, Gunnison, A regulatory impact assessment has roadless areas, the Forest Service must Mesa, Montrose, and Pitkin). The been prepared for this proposed rule. complete a more detailed and site- distributional effects associated with OMB Circular A–4 as well as guidance specific environmental analysis reducing wildfire hazard are regarding E.O. 12866 indicate that pursuant to the National Environmental characterized by estimating the extent to regulatory impact analysis should Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing which CPZ areas (i.e., 0.5 to 1.5 mile include an assessment of distributional regulations. buffer areas surrounding communities effects. The benefits, costs, and Because the proposed rule does not at-risk from wildfire) overlap roadless distributional effects of four alternatives prescribe site-specific activities, it is areas where tree-cutting for fuel are analyzed over a 15-year time period. difficult to predict changes in benefits treatments has been identified as being These four alternatives referred to as and costs or other changes under the likely to occur. Distributional effects or follows: Alternative 1—the provisions of different alternatives. It should also be economic impacts are not evaluated for the 2001 Roadless Rule (2001 rule); emphasized that the types of benefits other economic sectors (e.g., timber alternative 2—the proposed Colorado derived from uses of roadless areas in harvest, recreation) due to evidence Roadless Rule (proposed rule); Colorado are far ranging and include a presented in Table 2 suggesting that the alternative 3—Forest Plans (no action); number of non-market and non-use extent or magnitude of changes in and alternative 4 (the proposed rule benefit categories that are difficult to output or services are not sufficient to with public identified upper tier measure in monetary terms. As a cause significant changes in jobs and acreage). The difference between consequence, benefits are not income for those economic sectors. alternative 2 and 4 is the number and monetized, nor are net present values or Details about the environmental benefit cost ratios estimated. Instead, location of upper tier acres identified impacts associated with the proposed increases and/or losses in benefits are within the CRAs. For the purpose of rule can be found in the RDEIS. Effects discussed separately for each resource regulatory impact assessment, the forest on opportunities for small entities under plan alternative represents baseline area in a quantitative or qualitative the proposed rule are discussed in the conditions or goods and services manner. Benefits and costs are context of E. O. 13272 regarding proper provided by NFS lands in the near organized and discussed in the context consideration of small entities and the future in the absence of the proposed of local land management challenges or Small Business Regulatory Enforcement rule. In August 2008, the Wyoming concerns (‘local challenges’) and Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), which District Court set aside and enjoined the ‘roadless area characteristics’ in an amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act 2001 Roadless Rule. Colorado is under effort to remain consistent with the (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). the Wyoming Court’s ruling. In the overall purpose of the proposed rule, revised DEIS the baseline conditions are recognizing that benefits associated with The results of the regulatory impact therefore assumed to mean that IRAs in local challenges may trigger or overlap assessment for the proposed rule are Colorado will be managed according to with benefits associated with roadless summarized in the following tables. direction set forth in the applicable area characteristics in some cases (e.g., Table 1 provides information related to forest plan (alternative 3). forest health). Access and designations roadless area acreage, road miles, and The proposed rule is programmatic in for motorized versus non-motorized tree-cutting. Table 2 summarizes the nature and intended to guide future recreation is a topic raised in comments, potential benefits and costs of development of proposed actions in however, the proposed rule does not alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4. Table 3 roadless areas. The proposed rule is provide direction on where and when summarizes distributional effects and intended to provide greater management off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would economic impacts of the proposed rule flexibility under certain circumstances be permissible and makes clear that and alternatives. TABLE 1—FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS: COMPARISON OF ROADLESS AREA ACREAGE, ROAD MILES, AND TREE-CUTTING

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 2001 Roadless Rule Proposed Rule Forest Plans Proposed Rule with Public Identified Upper Tier Acres 1

Roadless Areas...... Inventoried Roadless Areas Colorado Roadless Areas 4,243,600 acres ...... Colorado Roadless Areas (IRAs) = 4,243,600 acres. (CRAs) = 4,186,000 acres. (CRAs) = 4,186,000 acres. Total Existing Authorized Road 1,260 miles in IRAs ...... 8.5 miles in CRAs ...... 1,260 miles in IRAs ...... 8.5 miles in CRAs. Miles in Roadless Areas 1.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 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 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 2001 Roadless Rule Proposed Rule Forest Plans Proposed Rule with Public Identified Upper Tier Acres 1

Road Construction and Recon- 14 miles/year (11 miles in 20 miles/year (16 in CRAs) ..... 28 miles/year ...... 18 miles/year (14 in CRAs). struction Projected in the IRAs). Analysis Area. Tree-cutting Projected in the 2,300 acres/year (1,200 in 7,000 acres/year (5,800 acres 16,900 acres/year ...... 3,000 acres/year (1,800 acres Analysis Area. IRAs). in CRAs). in CRAs). 1 Approximately 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

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Issue or affected Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (No Action) Proposed Rule with Public resource 2001 Roadless Rule Proposed Rule Forest Plans Identified Upper Tier Acres

Local Challenges and Resources: Roadless Area Management

Fire and Fuels (Hazardous Tree-cutting projected for Tree-cutting projected for Tree-cutting projected for Tree-cutting projected for Fuel Reductions). 1,800 acres per year in the 5,900 acres per year in the 13,100 acres per year in the 2,200 acres per year in the analysis area to reduce haz- analysis area to reduce fuels analysis area to reduce analysis area to reduce fuels ardous fuels (900 of which (5,300 of which are within fuels; this amounts to 20% (1,600 of which are within are within IRAs); this CRAs); this amounts to 9% of annual fuel treatments on CRAs); this amounts to 3% amounts to 3% of average of annual fuel treatments on all NFS lands in CO. of annual fuel treatments on annual fuel treatments on all all NFS lands in CO. Greatest flexibility to conduct all NFS lands in CO. NFS lands in CO. More flexibility to conduct haz- hazardous fuel reduction and Within the CRAs that are not Least flexibility to conduct haz- ardous fuel reduction and re- reduce fire risk to commu- upper tier acres, the flexi- ardous fuel reduction and re- duce fire risk to communities nities and municipal water bility to conduct hazardous duce fire risk to communities and municipal water supply supply systems. fuel reduction and reduce and municipal water supply systems. fire risk to communities and systems. Unable to conduct hazardous municipal water supply sys- fuels reduction on 12% of tems is identical to alter- 0.5 mile CPZ and 13% of native 2, but there are more 1.5 mile CPZ due to upper upper tier acres that cannot tier acre prohibitions. 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 500 acres per year in the anal- 1,000 acres per year in the 3,500 acres per year within the 800 acres per year in the anal- Restoration Treatments. ysis area have projected analysis area have projected analysis area have projected ysis area have projected tree-cutting activities (300 tree-cutting activities (400 tree-cutting activities. tree-cutting activities (200 acres within IRAs). Fewest acres within CRAs). More Greatest opportunities to main- acres within CRAs). More opportunities to maintain and opportunities than alter- tain and restore ecosystem opportunities to maintain and restore ecosystem character- natives 1 and 4, but fewer characteristics, including re- restore ecosystem character- istics, including resilience to opportunities than alternative silience to insect and dis- istics, including resilience to insect and disease out- 4 to maintain and restore ease outbreaks and climate- insect and disease out- breaks and climate-induced ecosystem characteristics, induced stressors. breaks and climate-induced stressors. including resilience to insect stressors than alternative 1 and disease outbreaks and but less than alternative 3 climate-induced stressors. and alternative 2 due to Unable to treat upper tier upper tier acres. 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 Projections are for approxi- Same as Alternative 1 and 2. analysis area with access to 1,046 bcfg over a 15-year period mately 783 oil and gas wells (same for Alternatives 1, 2, and 4). Projected annual road con- in the analysis area with ac- struction and reconstruction is about 10 miles in roadless areas. cess to 1,154 bcfg over a 15-year period, providing slightly more opportunity compares to the other alter- natives. Annual road con- struction/reconstruction is 11 miles.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 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

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Issue or affected Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (No Action) Proposed Rule with Public resource 2001 Roadless Rule Proposed Rule Forest Plans Identified Upper Tier Acres

Coal Analysis Area ...... Projections are for 16 miles of Projections are for 52 miles of Projections are for 73 miles of Same as Alternative 2. new roads in the analysis new roads in the analysis new roads in the analysis area, of which 7 are in IRAs. area, of which 50 are in area, of which 64 are in Restricts access to potential CRAs. areas that overlap IRAs. coal resources in IRAs more Reduces restrictions on access Least restrictive on access to than other alternatives. to potential coal resources in potential coal resources in 8,600 acres of road-accessible CRAs compared to the 2001 IRAs compared to the other reserves (7,100 in current rule, but is more restrictive two alternatives. leases; 1,500 in unleased than Alternative 3 (limits new 39,600 acres of road-acces- areas outside of IRAs) with roads to the North Fork coal sible reserves (7,100 in cur- access to 157 million tons. mining area). rent leases; 32,500 in un- 27,500 acres of road-acces- leased areas) with access to sible reserves (7,100 in cur- 724 million tons. rent leases; 18,900 in un- leased 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.

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 al- ternative 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 Special use authorizations issued prior to the effective date of rulemaking would be unaffected. (pipelines, electrical or tele- communication lines, water conveyances).

Future special use authoriza- Future special use authoriza- Future special use authoriza- Same as alternative 2. tions in IRAs would generally tions in CRAs would gen- tions would generally allow prohibit road construction, erally prohibit road construc- for road construction; except but there would be no prohi- tion. where prohibited under for- bition on the use of LCZs. Limited exceptions for the con- est plans. 3.2 miles per year of LCZs struction of LCZ for future oil There would be no prohibition projected. and gas pipelines, electrical on the construction of LCZs. power lines or telecommuni- 3.6 miles per year of LCZs cation lines, and water con- projected. veyance structures in CRAs. 3.2 miles per year of LCZs projected.

Developed Ski Areas ...... Least opportunities for ski area Greater opportunity for ski area Same as alternative 2 ...... Same as alternative 2. development and expansion. development and expansion. Forest plans can be amended Road construction and tree- Road construction and tree- or revised to expand ski cutting permitted on 6,600 cutting permitted on 6,600 area allocations beyond the acres within IRA boundaries acres under permit as well current allocation. and also under permit prior as the additional 1,700 acres to the effective date of this of ski areas allocated under rule. Roads and tree-cutting forest plans and located out- would be prohibited in 1,700 side existing permits. acres of ski areas allocated under forest plans but out- side of existing permits.

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 devel- oped 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 ad- verse 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 Greatest risk to scenic re- Same as alternative 2 within than alternatives 1 and 4. sources. CRA boundaries that are not Upper tier acres same as al- upper tier; upper tier areas ternative 1. same as alternative 1.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 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

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Issue or affected Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (No Action) Proposed Rule with Public resource 2001 Roadless Rule Proposed Rule Forest Plans Identified Upper Tier Acres

Wilderness and Other Con- No major difference among the alternatives related to the risk of adverse effects on congressionally designated areas. There would gressionally Designated be no potential direct effect on these areas as they are outside the roadless areas that are the subject of each alternative. Areas. 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 Higher risk of indirect adverse Similar to Alternatives 1 and 2. from activities in adjacent roadless areas are expected to be low effects on wilderness experi- Greater opportunity to estab- under Alternatives 1 and 2 because projected activities are not ence from activities in the lish uniform management expected to occur adjacent to wilderness area boundaries. analysis area due to higher approaches for rec- likelihood that activities could ommended wilderness occur adjacent to wilderness through placement of boundaries. 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 mitiga- tion measures. The risk of post-fire soil erosion may be higher under Alternative 1 and lowest under Alternative 3 as a result of pro- jected 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 Slightly greater risk of direct Higher risk of direct adverse Similar to Alternative 2 though effects from tree-cutting and adverse effects from tree- effects from tree-cutting and slightly lower risk from tree- road construction. Higher cutting and road construc- road construction. cutting and road construction risk from adverse impacts tion. Decreased risks from Greatest decrease in risk from activities. from floods and sedimenta- floods and sedimentation re- floods and sedimentation re- tion resulting from wildfires. sulting from wildfire, relative sulting from wildfire due to to alternatives 1 and 4, due increased fuel treatments to to increased fuel treatments protect communities and/or to protect communities and/ water supplies. or water supplies.

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 No adverse impacts to threatened or endangered plants because no road construction or tree-cutting, sale, or removal is projected Sensitive Plants. to occur where threatened or endangered plants exist. Site-specific design criteria and mitigation measures are expected to mini- mize 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 More risk of adverse impacts Greatest risk of adverse im- More risk of adverse impacts to sensitive plants, including to sensitive plants, including pacts to sensitive plants, in- to sensitive plants, including threats from invasives. threats from invasives, than cluding threats from threats from invasives, than alternatives 1 or 4; less than invasives. alternative 1; less than alter- alternative 3. natives 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 meas- ures and best management practices would help avoid or minimize impacts from the projected activities.

Least risk for adverse impacts Increase in risk of adverse im- Greatest potential for adverse Lower risk of adverse impacts on aquatic species. pacts to aquatic species. impacts to aquatic species. to aquatic species compared Provides greater protection to alternative 2 and 3. A por- for cutthroat trout compared tion of upper tier acres are to alternatives 1 and 3. within watersheds occupied by TES fish, implying poten- tial improvements in protec- tion 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 ani- mals 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 Increased risk to terrestrial Greatest risk to terrestrial spe- Increased risk to terrestrial and habitat. Limitations of species and habitat due to cies and habitat due to activ- species and habitat, but less tree-cutting to small diameter activity projections. ity projections. than Alternative 2 due to ac- trees helps maintain larger tivity projections and acre- trees and variability in forest age allocation to upper tier. structure.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 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

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Issue or affected Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (No Action) Proposed Rule with Public resource 2001 Roadless Rule Proposed Rule Forest Plans Identified Upper Tier Acres

Tree-cutting to improve habitat Opportunities to improve early Tree-cutting to improve habitat for threatened, endangered, seral stage and lower ele- for TEPS species prohibited and protected species vation habitat is highest as a on a greater number of (TEPS) prohibited in upper result of increased flexibility upper tier acres compared to tier acres but fewer upper to treat fuels. Alternative 2. Opportunities tier acres compared to Alter- to improve early seral stage native 4. and lower elevation habitat Opportunities to improve early is lower than alternative 2 seral stage and lower ele- but higher than alternative 1 vation habitat is higher as a (due to treatment projec- result of improved capacity tions). to treat fuels. Restricting tree-cutting inside and out- side of CPZs to small diame- ter trees helps maintain larg- er trees and forest structure (also applies to Alternative 4).

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 strong- holds, and habitat connectivity would be greatest for the 2001 rule and lowest under the forest plans alternative. Increasing opportu- nities for treatments under Alternatives 4, 2, and 3 respectively to address hazardous fuels and maintenance and restoration of eco- system 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 Some higher risk of the spread Greatest risk of the spread due Slightly higher risk of the low projections of road con- due to greater projections of to the greatest projections spread compared to Alter- struction or tree-cutting. road construction or tree-cut- for road construction or tree- native 1 but less than alter- ting. Acres removed may ex- cutting compared to other al- natives 2 and 3 due to pro- perience increased rates of ternatives. jected levels of road con- spread while acres added struction and tree-cutting. may have decreased rates (same applies for Alternative 4).

Recreation—Primitive and Tree-cutting activity is projected to occur on only a small percentage of roadless areas over 15 years across the alternatives. Dis- Semi-primitive Recreation persed recreation opportunities (including hunting and fishing) are therefore not expected to change under any alternative, but feel- Settings and Opportunities. ings of remoteness and solitude may change for periods of time in areas where activity occurs.

Likely to retain the greatest Likely to retain a high propor- Greatest risk of shifts from Same as Alternative 2 but proportion of IRA acreage in tion of CRA acreage in a primitive/semi-primitive set- more likely to retain high a primitive or semi-primitive semi-primitive setting; al- tings to roaded natural set- proportion of primitive/semi- setting. though some CRA acres tings in areas where the primitive acres given slight The substantially altered areas would shift toward roaded most roads and energy oper- reductions in construction and developed ski areas in natural settings in areas ations are projected to occur. and tree-cutting activity. IRAs may continue to ap- where the most roads and pear inconsistent with semi- energy operations are pro- primitive characteristics ex- jected to occur in CRAs. pected in roadless areas. The newly identified roadless By not including substantially acres (409,500 acres) where altered areas and developed road construction and tree- ski areas in CRAs and add- cutting, sale or removal is ing unroaded areas to projected to occur that are CRAs, the CRAs would ap- not within the IRAs could pear more consistent with shift to less primitive settings. semi-primitive characteristics expected in roadless areas.

Outfitters and Guides (recre- Out of 1,390 recreational special use permits authorized on NFS lands in Colorado, 1,066 are associated with outfitters and guides, ation). some of which are likely to operate in roadless areas. The alternatives are expected to have negligible adverse effects on rec- reational 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 af- fect ability to obtain or use a recreation use authorization.

Cultural Resources ...... Least risk of damage to cul- Slightly higher risk of damage Highest risk of damage to cul- Same or less than alternative 2 tural resources because this to cultural resources be- tural resources because this due to larger number of alternative has the least pro- cause this alternative has a alternative has the highest acres in the upper tier. jections for tree-cutting, sale, high projection of tree-cut- projection of tree-cutting, or removal. ting, sale, or removal and sale, or removal and road road construction. construction. Site-specific design criteria and Site-specific design criteria and Site-specific design criteria and Site-specific design criteria and mitigation measures are ex- mitigation measures are ex- mitigation measures are ex- mitigation measures are ex- pected to minimize risk. pected to minimize risk. pected to minimize risk. pected to minimize risk.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 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

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Issue or affected Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (No Action) Proposed Rule with Public resource 2001 Roadless Rule Proposed Rule Forest Plans Identified Upper Tier Acres

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

Geological and Paleontological None of the projected activities in roadless areas that vary by alternative would be likely to adversely affect geological or paleon- Resources. tological 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 treat- ments, biomass removed can be burned, used in products, replace fossil fuels, or be left in piles elsewhere on the landscape. Ex- cept for prescribed burning, any of these disposal methods would slow release of carbon to the atmosphere.

Agency Costs

Vegetation and Fuel Treat- Treatments are likely to be Increased flexibility to achieve Capacity to shift even more Management flexibility is simi- ments. less efficient and more costly management objectives in treatment acres into IRAs; lar to Alternative 2, but pro- in IRAs. critical insect and disease increased efficiency, effec- jected treatment amounts areas; increase ability to tiveness and timeliness of are lower due to constraints strategically locate treat- wildfire suppression re- imposed by more upper tier ments and improve effi- sponse as well as fuel re- acreage under Alternative 4. ciency. ductions in CPZs.

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 4 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (No Action) Proposed Rule with 2001 Roadless Rule Proposed Rule Forest Plans Public Identified Upper Tier Acres

Leaseable Minerals: Coal, Oil and Gas—Output $636 million/yr Output. $969 million/yr Output. $1,026 million/yr Output. $969 million/yr Output. Value, Jobs and Income (2006$) Contributed (1). 1,557 Jobs supported. 2,679 Jobs supported. 2,796 Jobs supported. 2,679 Jobs supported. $101.4 million per year $183.2 million per year $190 million per year $183.2 million per year Labor Income. Labor Income. Labor Income. Labor Income.

Revenue Sharing: Mineral Lease Payments and Tax State Total: $28.4 million. State Total: $47.3 million. State Total: $49.7 million. State Total: $47.3 million. Revenues (2007$) (2). Energy-Affected Coun- Energy-Affected Coun- Energy-Affected Coun- Energy-Affected Coun- ties: $7.3 million. ties: $10.2 million. ties: ties: $10.2 million. All other CO Counties: All other CO Counties: $11.1 million. All other CO Counties: $1.1 million. $1.9 million. All other CO Counties: $1.9 million. $2.0 million.

Values at risk: Number of Counties Where Potential Decrease: 13 counties. Decrease: 2 county. NA. Decrease: 18 counties. for Fuel Treatments in CPZs May Increase or De- Increase: 1 county. Increase: 3 counties. Increase: 5 counties. crease Compared to Baseline Conditions (3). (1) Jobs and income contributed annually (2006 dollars) based on projected levels of coal, oil, and gas production and regional economic modeling multipliers de- rived 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 coun- ties 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 na- tional forest unit field staff.

Proper Consideration of Small Entities number of small entities as defined by between the proposed rule and baseline The proposed rule has also been the E.O. 13272 and SBREFA, because or no-action conditions (i.e., forest plans considered in light of Executive Order the proposed rule does not directly alternative). As a result, there is little or 13272 (E. O. 13272) regarding proper impose small entities to regulatory no potential for significant adverse consideration of small entities and the requirements. The effects on small economic impacts to small businesses Small Business Regulatory Enforcement businesses will not be substantial. under the proposed rule relative to Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), which Therefore, an initial regulatory forest plans. amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act flexibility analysis is not required for There are about 1,390 recreation (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The Forest Service this proposed rule. special use permits currently authorized with the assistance of the State of For small businesses affiliated with within NFS lands in Colorado of which Colorado has determined that this most industry sectors involved with a large majority are small businesses, action will not have a significant activities in roadless areas (e.g., coal, oil and 1,066 (77%) are associated with economic impact on a substantial and gas), there are minimal differences outfitter and guide permits, some of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21285

which are likely to operate within adverse impacts will be significant if wildfire, are not likely, when comparing roadless areas. However, there is little choosing between the proposed rule and the proposed rule with no action. difference between alternatives with forest plans. These results indicate Therefore, for small governments, respect to recreation special use minimal adverse impacts to small including counties with small authorizations in roadless areas, because entities associated with energy resource populations and at-risk-communities limitations on roading and tree-cutting development and extraction under the from wildfire within those counties, under any alternative would not be proposed rule relative to the forest plans opportunities for revenue sharing, as likely to affect ability to obtain or use alternative. well as protection of values-at-risk are recreation use authorizations. Impacts For all other economic sectors not expected to significantly decrease under the proposed rule compared to considered, changes in resource outputs under the proposed rule relative to forest plans are not expected to be are not projected to be significant to the forest plans. Mitigation measures significant due to the small percentage extent that adverse impacts to small associated with existing programs and of acreage affected (7,000 acres of tree- entities could occur in aggregate or laws regarding revenue sharing with cutting per year) and roads constructed within regions. counties and small business shares or (20 miles per year) spread across more Among 64 counties in the State of set-asides will continue to apply. than 4 million acres of Colorado Colorado, 36 counties (56%) are Roadless Areas. It is also noted that a considered to be small governments Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the significant percentage of roads and tree- (population less than 50,000). These 36 Public counties are considered to be small rural cutting activity will occur within or This proposed rule does not call for counties having NFS lands within IRAs/ near the community protection zones any additional record keeping or CRAs. Six counties are energy (coal, oil where primitive or semi-primitive reporting requirements or other and gas) producing counties. These six settings may already be affected. Flat information collection requirements as counties (Delta, Garfield, Gunnison, budgets imply that the percentage of defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not Mesa, Montrose, and Pitkin) are harvest from roadless areas may change already required by law or not already expected to be the counties most likely under the alternatives, but aggregate approved for use and, therefore, volumes across all NFS land are to benefit from mineral lease payments and revenue sharing under the proposed imposes no additional paperwork expected to remain relatively burden on the public. Accordingly, the unchanged, on average, implying little rule (as well as alternative 4), and forest plans. All of these counties, with the review provisions of the Paperwork potential for adverse impacts to small Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 entities. exception of Mesa can be considered small governments (population less than et seq.) and its implementing For leasable minerals associated 50,000), and all are forecast to receive regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not energy resources (coal, oil and gas), significant increases in property tax apply. significant changes in output are receipts from coal, and oil and gas Federalism projected across alternatives. More than production, as well as State 95 percent of the firms associated with distributions of severance taxes and The Department has considered this these sectors can be classified as small Federal royalties under the proposed proposed rule under the requirements of as defined by Small Business rule and forest plans relative to the 2001 Executive Order 13132 issued August 4, Administration standards. Any changes rule. There are slight increases in 1999 (E.O. 13132), Federalism. The in oil and gas, or coal development or payments under forest plans, relative to Department has made an assessment production can therefore have an effect the proposed rule (aggregate payments that the proposed rule conforms with on small business opportunities in these increase from $10.2 million to $11.1 the Federalism principles set out in E.O. sectors. A five county region has been million per year). Payments associated 13132; would not impose any defined to model the economic impacts with the Secure Rural Schools and Self compliance costs on the States; and associated with energy resources (Delta, Determination Act (SRSA) and would not have substantial direct effects Garfield, Mesa, Montrose, and Rio Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) are on the States, on the relationship Blanco counties). A total of 355 firms not expected to change significantly, or between the national government and associated with oil and gas, and coal any decreases would be largely offset by the States, nor on the distribution of development and extraction are increases in Federal mineral lease power and responsibilities among the estimated to be located within this payments. various levels of government. Therefore, region, of which 95% are likely to be Under the proposed rule, as compared the Department concludes that this small (337 firms). However, energy to the no action alternative, the proposed rule does not have Federalism resource sector jobs, supported annually potential opportunities for fuel implications. This proposed rule is by projected activity within roadless treatments near communities-at-risk based on a petition submitted by the areas, are estimated to increase from (i.e., within community protection State of Colorado under the 1,557 under the 2001 rule alternative to zones (CPZs)) may increase for two Administrative Procedure Act at 5 2,679 jobs under the proposed rule (as ’small population’ counties (i.e., U.S.C. 553(e) and pursuant to well as alternative 4), and 2,796 jobs populations less than 50,000). In Department of Agriculture regulations at under the no action (forest plans) contrast, potential opportunities for fuel 7 CFR 1.28. The State’s petition was alternative. Labor income increases by a treatments near communities-at-risk developed through a task force with the similar degree from $101 million to may decrease for nine and eight ’small involvement of local governments. The $183.2 million and 190 million per year population’ counties under Alternative State is a cooperating agency pursuant under all alternatives. There is slightly 1 (2001 rule) and Alternative 4 to 40 CFR 1501.6 of the Council on higher job numbers (2,796) under the (proposed rule with additional upper Environmental Quality regulations for forest plan alternative (alternative 3) tier acreage) respectively, compared to the development of the supporting relative to the proposed rule (2,679) the no action alternative. These results environmental impact statement. State alternatives (alternatives 2 and 4), but indicate that adverse impacts to small and local governments are encouraged the magnitude of the difference between governments, in association with to comment on this proposed rule, in these alternatives does not suggest that protection of values at risk from the course of this rulemaking process.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 21286 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Consultation With Indian Tribal throughout their traditional territory. rule on Indian Tribal Governments and Governments Many other Tribes located outside has determined that the proposed rule The United States has a unique Colorado maintain Tribal interests, does not significantly or uniquely affect relationship with Indian Tribes as including aboriginal and ceded Indian Tribal Government communities. provided in the Constitution of the territories, and retain inherent The proposed rule would establish United States, treaties, and Federal aboriginal rights within the State. direction governing the management The Forest Service has been statutes. The relationship extends to the and protection of Colorado Roadless consulting with Colorado-affiliated Federal government’s management of Areas, however, the proposed rule Tribes regarding this proposed public lands and the Forest Service respects prior existing rights, and it rulemaking action and analysis process. strives to assure that its consultation addresses discretionary Forest Service Tribal concerns surfaced during phone with Native American Tribes is management decisions involving road or e-mail consultations. Information construction, timber harvest, and some meaningful, in good faith, and entered applying to the proposed Colorado into on a government-to-government mineral activities. The Department has Roadless Rule was provided to the Ute also determined that this proposed rule basis. Mountain Ute and Southern Ute Indian On November 5, 2009, President does not impose substantial direct Tribes, located in Colorado prior to the compliance costs on Indian Tribal Obama signed a Memorandum release of the NOI. The San Juan emphasizing his commitment to ‘‘regular Governments. This proposed rule does National Forest staff held meetings with not mandate Tribal participation in and meaningful consultation and both Tribes to discuss the proposed rule collaboration with Tribal officials in roadless management of the planning of as well as other Forest issues. At these activities in Colorado Roadless Areas. policy decisions that have Tribal meetings, the Tribes expressed concerns implications including, as an initial Rather, the Forest Service officials are about hunting access, and unauthorized obligated by other agency policies to step, through complete and consistent roads. Nothing in this rule changes implementation of Executive Order consult early with Tribal governments access or existing rights. The and to work cooperatively with them 13175.’’ He charged agencies with management of unauthorized roads is engaging in consultation and where planning issues affect Tribal addressed through travel management interests. collaboration with Indian Tribal processes. governments; strengthening Additionally, an introductory letter No Takings Implications government-to-government relationship and the NOI along with background The proposed rule has been analyzed between the United States and Indian information on the proposed Colorado in accordance with the principles and Tribes; and reducing the imposition of Roadless Rule and an offer for criteria contained in Executive Order unfunded mandates upon Indian Tribes. additional information or meetings was 12630 issued March 15, 1988. It has Management of roadless areas has sent to the following Tribes and been determined that the proposed rule been a topic of interest and importance committees: Hopi Tribal Council, does not pose the risk of a taking of to Tribal governments. During Navajo Nation, Northern Cheyenne private property. promulgation of the 2001 Roadless Rule, Tribal Council, Pueblo of Jemez, Pueblo Forest Service line officers in the field of Nambe´, Ohkay Owingeh, Pueblo of Civil Justice Reform were asked to make contact with Tribes Picuris, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Pueblo of The proposed rule has been reviewed to ensure awareness of the initiative and San Ildefonso, Pueblo of Santa Clara, under Executive Order 12988, Civil of the rulemaking process. Outreach to Pueblo of Taos, Pueblo of Tesuque, Justice Reform. After adoption of this Tribes was conducted at the national Pueblo of Zuni, Jicarilla Apache Nation, proposed rule, (1) all State and local forest and grassland level, which is how Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of laws and regulations that conflict with Forest Service government-to- Oklahoma, Ute Business Committee, this proposed rule or that would impede government dialog with Tribes is Shoshone Business Committee, and the full implementation of this proposed typically conducted. Tribal Arapaho Business Committee. These 18 rule will be preempted; (2) no representatives remained engaged Tribes and committees were selected retroactive effect would be given to this concerning these issues during the based on their current proximity to proposed rule; and (3) this proposed subsequent litigation and rulemaking Colorado, their current use of lands in rule would not require the use of efforts. Colorado, and their historic use of lands administrative proceedings before The State’s petition identifies that a within Colorado. parties could file suit in court vital part of its public process in The 2008 Proposed Rule and DEIS challenging its provisions. developing its petition were the were sent to each Tribe and each was recommendations and comments contacted by phone to determine Unfunded Mandates received from Native American Tribes. interest in meeting or obtaining Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded The Governor’s office was keenly aware information. The Tribes did not request Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. of the spiritual and cultural significance additional government-to-government 1531–1538), the Department has some of these areas hold for the Tribes. involvement, and no formal comments assessed the effects of this proposed rule There are two resident Tribes in from any of the Tribes were received. A on State, local, and Tribal governments Colorado, both retaining some of their letter was sent outlining the key points and the private sector. This proposed traditional land base as reservations via of this revised proposed rule and the FS rule does not compel the expenditure of a series of treaties, agreements, and met with those Tribes requesting further $100 million or more by State, local, or laws. The Ute Mountain Ute and consultation. Consultation efforts will Tribal governments or anyone in the Southern Ute Tribes (consisting continue throughout the process and for private sector. Therefore, a statement originally of the Weeminuche, Capote, the final Rule. under section 202 of the Act is not Tabeguache, and Mouaches Bands)— Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of required. each a ‘‘domestic sovereign’’ nation— November 6, 2000, ‘‘Consultation and have reserved some specific off- Coordination with Indian Tribal Energy Effects reservation hunting rights in Colorado Governments,’’ the Department has Based on guidance for implementing and retain inherent aboriginal rights assessed the impact of this proposed Executive Order 13211 (E.O. 13211) of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21287

May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning exclusion of the Currant Creek area from whole.5 However, both the proposed Regulations That Significantly Affect the North Fork coal mining area. A rule and the no action alternatives are Energy Supply, Distribution or Use, decrease of 5.6 million tons is only projected to sustain similar production issued by Office of Management and slightly above the E. O. 13211 criterion rates over an extended period of 24 Budget (Memorandum for Heads of of 5 million tons per year for significant years after implementation of the rule, Executive Departments and Agencies, adverse effects. Production is estimated and there are many other factors that are and Independent Regulatory Agencies to decrease by 6.0 million tons per year likely to have a more significant effect (M–01–27), July 13, 2001), this proposed under the proposed rule compared to no on energy markets after that time, rule constitutes a ‘‘significant energy action by 2058 when production ceases compared to the effect of reduced action’’ as defined in E.O. 13211 because for all mines under the proposed rule. production under the proposed rule projected reductions in coal production Coal production is projected to continue which begins 25 years after under the proposed rule are in excess of for an additional 22 years (until 2079) implementation of this rule would occur 5 million tons per year after 2024. under the no action alternative. (i.e., 2034). It is also noted that Projections of natural gas production approximately 67% of all coal produced are discussed in the RDEIS and the The total reduction in recoverable from Colorado in 2008 (32.7 million Regulatory Impact Analysis for the coal reserves from roadless areas that tons) was exported to other States, proposed Colorado Roadless Rule. are made accessible under the proposed suggesting that regional markets and Based on those projections, it has been rule, relative to no action alternative, is prices are likely to be heavily determined that natural gas production estimated to be 210 million tons (i.e., ¥ influenced by national prices, supplies, varies across alternatives for only two 724 514 = 210 million ton reduction). and market trends. National Forests (the Grand Mesa, In comparison, the recoverable coal The reduction in coal production Gunnison, and Uncompahgre (GMUG) reserves 1 reported for the State of under the proposed rule (as well as and White River National Forests). It has Colorado by the U.S. Energy Information alternative 4), relative to the no action also been determined that there is no Administration ranges from 629 million alternative are not expected to have appreciable difference in projected tons in 2002 to 328 million tons by adverse effects on the productivity, natural gas production between 2007,2 recognizing that direct competition, or prices in the energy Alternatives 1 (2001 rule) and 2 comparisons of accessible coal reserves sector regionally (or nationally) due to (proposed rule) or alternative 4. The under the alternatives with recoverable the following observations: difference in potential natural gas reserves estimated by USEIA are —Potential reductions in coal production between alternatives 1, 2, or difficult due to differences in estimation production under the proposed rule, 4 (27 billion cubic feet per year) and procedures. However, the reduction of relative to no action are not projected alternative 3 (no action) (31 billion 210 million tons made accessible under to occur until 24 years in the future cubic feet per year) is a decrease of only the proposed rule is only 2% of the total (2035) and estimated reductions after 4 bcf/year, or 4 million mcf/year, which estimated recoverable reserves 3 for the year 24 (i.e., 5.6 million tons/yr) is well below the E. O. 13211 criterion State of Colorado in 2007 (9,692 million exceed the criterion of 5.0 million for adverse effects of 25 million mcf. tons) and less than 0.1% of total tons per year by only a small fraction. Projected oil production ranges from estimated recoverable reserves for the A second decrease in production of approximately 50,000 barrels under nation in 2007 (262,689 million tons). similar magnitude (6.0 million tons Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 to The estimated reductions in the per year) is projected to occur farther approximately 110,000 barrels under production life of affected mines under in the future (2059) when all mines Alternative 3 over a period of 15 to 30 the proposed rule compared to the no cease operation under the proposed years. The corresponding reduction in action alternative may be significant, rule. oil production per day under —The reduction in total accessible coal alternatives 1 or 2 or alternative 3 (no particularly when considering potential increases in demand for coal from reserves under the proposed rule action) is inconsequential compared to relative to the no action alternative western mines 4 and the Nation as a the E. O. 13211 criterion of 10,000 amounts to a relatively small barrels per day. percentage of total estimated Based on average annual coal 1 ‘‘Recoverable Coal Reserves’’ consist of the quantity of coal that can be recovered (i.e., mined) recoverable reserves in the State of production rates estimated for economic from existing coal reserves at reporting mines. Colorado (2%) and the nation impact analysis purposes, annual Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (< 0.1%), and aggregate production across the three (EIA), Independent Statistics and Analysis (Table —The reductions in reserves and mines operating in the affected area is 14—Recoverable Coal Reserves and Average production rates under the proposed projected to be the same under the Recovery Percentage at Producing Mines by State, 2000—2007) http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/ rule compared to no action are proposed rule and the no action reserves/reserves.html. estimated to occur well into the future alternative (i.e., forest plans alternative) 2 ‘‘2008 Coal Production and Employment for (e.g., 24 and 48 yrs), and the relative for the first 24 years after Colorado’’ Colorado Mining Association, Denver impact of these reductions is expected implementation (2011 to 2034). Coal CO. http://www.coloradomining.com. to be insignificant compared to the production and production schedules 3 ‘‘Estimated recoverable reserves’’ consist of coal in the demonstrated reserve base considered impact of other factors that could are also projected to be the same for the recoverable after excluding coal estimated to be affect regional and national energy proposed rule and alternative 4. It is unavailable due to land use restrictions or currently markets by that time. only after 24 years (2035) that annual economically unattractive for mining. Source: U.S. The reductions in annual production coal production is projected to decrease Energy Information Administration (EIA), Independent Statistics and Analysis (Table 15— under the 2001 rule, compared to the no under the proposed rule compared to Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines, the no action alternative by an amount Estimated Recoverable Reserves, and Demonstrated 5 Demand for coal is anticipated to increase as a of 5.6 million tons per year which is the Reserve Base by Mining Method, 2000–2007) http:// consequence of 153 new coal-fired electricity plants average annual production from the Elk www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/reserves/reserves.html. to be built by 2025, many of which will be in States 4 In 2007, the Energy Information Administration such as FL, TX, IL, KY that import Colorado coal. Creek mine which ends after 2034. This called for a 5% per year increase in coal production (‘‘Colorado Mineral and Energy Industry Activities, estimated decrease is based on the from western mines, but revised this statement in 2006’’, Colorado Geological Survey, Department of known extent of coal resources and the 2009, suggesting a slower rate of increase. Natural Resources, Denver CO.)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 21288 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

action (reductions range from 5.6 adding new subpart D to read as Colorado Roadless Areas: Areas million tons per year beginning as early follows: designated pursuant to this subpart and as 2013 and increase to 11.6 million identified in a set of maps maintained tons by 2019) are somewhat greater than PART 294—SPECIAL AREAS at the national headquarters office of the the reductions noted for the proposed Forest Service. Colorado Roadless Areas rule (and Alternative 4), and production Subpart D—Colorado Roadless Area established by this subpart shall life is anticipated to extend for only 7 Management constitute the exclusive set of National to 10 years under the 2001 rule Sec. Forest System lands within the State of compared to a longer production life 294.40 Purpose. Colorado to which the provisions 36 under the no action alternative. 294.41 Definitions. CFR 220.5(a)(2) shall apply. There is a substantial reduction in 294.42 Prohibitions on tree-cutting, sale, or Community Protection Zone: An area annual production under the 2001 rule removal. extending one-half mile from the alternative compared to the no action 294.43 Prohibition on road construction boundary of an at-risk community; or an alternative (reductions range from 5.6 and reconstruction. area within one and a half miles from million tons per year beginning as early 294.44 Prohibition on linear construction zones. the boundary of an at-risk community, as 2013 and increase to 11.6 million where any land: tons by 2019), and production life is 294.45 Environmental documentation. 294.46 Other activities. (1) Has a sustained steep slope that anticipated to extend for only 7 to 10 294.47 Modifications and administrative creates the potential for wildfire years under the 2001 rule compared to corrections. behavior endangering the at-risk a longer production life under the no 294.48 Scope and applicability. community; action alternative. The production 294.49 List of designated Colorado Roadless (2) Has a geographic feature that aids reductions under the 2001 rule (i.e., 11.6 Areas. in creating an effective fire break, such million tons/yr beginning around 2019) as a road or a ridge top; or exceed the criterion of 5 million tons Subpart D—Colorado Roadless Area Management (3) Is in condition class 3 as defined per year for adverse effects (but by Healthy Forest Restoration Act (Pub. reductions are still relatively small), and L. 108–148). decreases in operating life of the mines Authority: 16 U.S.C. 472, 529, 551, 1608, 1613; 23 U.S.C. 201, 205. Community Wildfire Protection Plan: as well as total reserves may suggest the As defined under section 101 of the potential for adverse effects to regional § 294.40 Purpose. Healthy Forest Restoration Act (Pub. L. markets. The impacts of a number of 108–148), and used in this subpart, the other factors affecting energy markets The purpose of this subpart is to term ‘‘community wildfire protection and national market trends are still provide, within the context of multiple plan’’ means a plan for an at-risk expected to outweigh the effects of use management, State-specific community that: implementing the 2001 rule alternative. direction for the protection of roadless Alternative 1 has the greatest areas on National Forest System lands (1) Is developed within the context of reduction in production, and in Colorado. The intent of this the collaborative agreements and the alternatives 2 and 4 have some regulation is to protect roadless values guidance established by the Wildland reduction compared to forest plans. by restricting tree cutting, sale, and Fire Leadership Council and agreed to No novel legal or policy issues removal, road construction and by the applicable local government, regarding adverse effects to supply, reconstruction, and linear construction local fire department, and State agency distribution or use of energy are zones within CRAs, with narrowly responsible for forest management, in anticipated beyond what has already focused exceptions. Activities must be consultation with interested parties and been addressed in the RDEIS, or the designed to conserve the roadless area the Federal land management agencies Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). None characteristics listed in § 294 .41, managing land in the vicinity of the at- of the proposed corridors designated for although applying the exceptions in risk community; oil, gas, and/or electricity under Section § 294.42, § 294.43, and § 294.44 may (2) Identifies and prioritizes areas for 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 are have effects to some roadless area hazardous fuel reduction treatments and within Colorado Roadless Areas. characteristics. recommends the types and methods of The proposed rule does not disturb treatment on Federal and non-Federal existing access or mineral rights, and § 294.41 Definitions. land that will protect one or more at-risk restrictions on saleable mineral The following terms and definitions communities and essential materials are narrow. The proposed rule apply to this subpart. infrastructure; and also provides regulatory mechanism for At-risk community: As defined under (3) Recommends measures to reduce consideration of requests for section 101 of the Healthy Forest structural ignitability throughout the at- modification of restrictions if Restoration Act (Pub. L. 108–148). risk community. adjustments are determined to be Catchment: A watershed delineation Condition Class 3: As defined under necessary in the future. As this action is beginning at the downstream point of section 101 of the Healthy Forests a significant energy action, the above occupation of native cutthroat trout and Restoration Act (Pub. L. 108–148) the constitutes the Statement of Energy encompassing the upstream boundary of term ‘‘condition class 3’’ means an area Effects. waters draining in the stream system. of Federal land, under which: Colorado Roadless Area Upper Tier (1) Fire regimes on land have been List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 294 Acres: A subset of Colorado Roadless significantly altered from historical National Forests, Recreation areas, Areas identified in a set of maps ranges; Navigation (air), State petitions for maintained at the national headquarters (2) There exists a high risk of losing inventoried roadless area management. office of the Forest Service where not all key ecosystem components from fire; Therefore, for the reasons set forth in exceptions for tree-cutting, sale, or (3) Fire frequencies have departed the preamble, the Forest Service removal and road construction/ from historical frequencies by multiple proposes to amend part 294 of Title 36 reconstruction would apply in order to return intervals, resulting in dramatic of the Code of Federal Regulations by provide a higher level of protection. changes to:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21289

(i) The size, frequency, intensity, or Courts prior to [final rule effective date] integrity of aquatic systems. It includes severity of fires; or adjudicating as the point of a diversion the geomorphic floodplain (valley (ii) Landscape patterns; and or the place of use, a location within a bottom), riparian ecosystem, and inner (4) Vegetation attributes have been Colorado Roadless Area. A pre-existing gorge. Its minimum horizontal width significantly altered from the historical decree does not include decrees (from top of each bank) is 100 feet or the range of the attributes. adjudicated prior to [final rule effective mean height of mature dominant late- Fire Hazard: A fuel complex defined date] which right includes a point of seral vegetation, whichever is greater. by volume, type, condition, arrangement diversion or place of use outside of a and location that determines the ease of Colorado Roadless Area, the holder of § 294.42 Prohibition on tree-cutting, sale, or removal. ignition and the resistance to control; which proposes to change or move the expresses the potential fire behavior for point of diversion or place of use within (a) General. Trees may not be cut, a fuel type, regardless of the fuel type’s a Colorado Roadless Area. Nothing in sold, or removed in Colorado Roadless weather influenced fuel moisture this subpart shall be construed as Areas, except as provided in paragraph condition. affecting the jurisdiction or (b) and (c) of this section. Fire Occurrence: One fire event responsibilities of the Forest Service. (b) Upper Tier Acres. Notwithstanding occurring in a specific place within a Responsible Official: The Forest the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this specific period of time; a general term Service line officer with the authority section, trees may be cut, sold, or describing past or current wildland fire and responsibility to make decisions removed in Colorado Roadless Areas events. about protection and management of upper tier acres if the Responsible Fire Risk: The probability or chance Colorado Roadless Areas pursuant to Official determines the activity is that a fire might start, as affected by the this subpart. consistent with the applicable land presence and activities of causative Road: As defined at 36 CFR 212.1, the management plan, and: agents. term means a motor vehicle route over (1) Tree-cutting, sale, or removal is Forest road: As defined at 36 CFR 50 inches wide, unless identified and incidental to the implementation of a 212.1, the term means a road wholly or managed as a trail. management activity not otherwise partly within or adjacent to and serving Roadless Area Characteristics: prohibited by this subpart; or the National Forest System that the Resources or features that are often (2) Tree-cutting, sale, or removal is Forest Service determines is necessary present in and characterize Colorado needed and appropriate for personal or for the protection, administration, and Roadless Areas, including: administrative use, as provided for in 36 utilization of the National Forest System (1) High quality or undisturbed soil, CFR part 223, subpart A. and the use and development of its water, and air; (c) Non-Upper Tier Acres. resources. (2) Sources of public drinking water; Notwithstanding the prohibition in Hazardous Fuels: Excessive live or (3) Diversity of plant and animal paragraph (a) of this section, trees may dead wildland fuel accumulations that communities; be cut, sold, or removed in Colorado increase the potential for intense (4) Habitat for threatened, Roadless Areas outside upper tier acres wildland fire and decrease the endangered, proposed, candidate, and if the Responsible Official, unless capability to protect life, property and sensitive species, and for those species otherwise noted, determines the activity natural resources. dependent on large, undisturbed areas is consistent with the applicable land Linear Construction Zone: A of land; management plan, one or more of the temporary linear area of surface (5) Primitive, semi-primitive non- roadless area characteristics will be disturbance over 50 inches wide that is motorized, and semi-primitive maintained or improved over the long- used for motorized transport by vehicles motorized classes of dispersed term with the exception of paragraphs or construction equipment to install a recreation; (c)(5) and (6) of this section, and one of linear facility. It is not used as a motor (6) Reference landscapes; the following circumstances exists: vehicle route and is not engineered to (7) Naturaly-appearing landscapes (1) The Regional Forester determines road specifications. with high scenic quality; tree-cutting, sale, or removal is needed Linear Facility: Linear facilities (8) Traditional cultural properties and to reduce hazardous fuels to an at-risk include pipelines, electrical power sacred sites; and community or municipal water supply lines, telecommunications lines, ditches (9) Other locally identified unique system that is: and canals. characteristics. (i) Within the first one-half mile of the Municipal Water Supply System: As Temporary Road: As defined at 36 community protection zone, or defined under Section 101 of the CFR 212.1, the term means a road (ii) Within the next one-mile of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (Pub. L. necessary for emergency operations or community protection zone, and is 108–148), and used in this subpart, the authorized by contract, permit, lease, or within an area identified in a term means the reservoirs, canals, other written authorization that is not a Community Wildfire Protection Plan. ditches, flumes, laterals, pipes, forest road and that is not included in (iii) Projects undertaken pursuant to pipelines, and other surface facilities a forest transportation atlas. paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this and systems constructed or installed for Water Conveyance Structures: section will focus on cutting and the collection, impoundment, storage, Facilities associated with the removing generally small diameter trees transportation, or distribution of transmission, storage, impoundment, to create fuel conditions that modify fire drinking water. and diversion of water on and across behavior while retaining large trees to Native Cutthroat Trout: Collectively, National Forest System lands. Water the maximum extent practical as all the native subspecies of cutthroat conveyance structures include, but are appropriate to the forest type. trout historically occurring in Colorado not limited to: reservoirs and dams, (2) The Regional Forester determines before European settlement which diversion structures, headgates, tree-cutting, sale, or removal is needed includes yellowfin, Rio Grande, pipelines, ditches, canals, and tunnels. outside the community protection zone Greenback, and Colorado River Trout. Water Influence Zone: The land next where there is a significant risk that a Pre-existing Water Court Decree: A to water bodies where vegetation plays wildland fire disturbance event could decree issued by the Colorado Water a major role in sustaining long-term adversely affect a municipal water

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 21290 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

supply system or the maintenance of (c) Non-Upper Tier Acres. effective date]. The Forest Service shall that system. A significant risk exists Notwithstanding the prohibition in not authorize the Bureau of Land where the history of fire occurrence, and paragraph (a) of this section, a road or Management to grant any request for a fire hazard and risk indicate a serious temporary road may only be constructed waiver, exception, or modification to likelihood that a wildland fire or reconstructed in Colorado Roadless any oil or gas lease if doing so would disturbance event would present a high Areas outside upper tier acres if the result in any road construction or tree risk of threat to a municipal water Responsible Official determines: cutting within a Colorado Roadless Area supply system. (1) That one of the following beyond that which was authorized by (i) Projects will focus on cutting and exceptions exists: the terms and conditions of the lease at removing generally small diameter trees (i) A road is needed pursuant to the time of issuance; or to create fuel conditions that modify fire reserved or outstanding rights, or as (ix) A temporary road is needed for behavior while retaining large trees to provided for by statute or treaty; coal exploration and coal-related surface the maximum extent practical as (ii) Road realignment is needed to activities for certain lands within appropriate to the forest type. prevent irreparable resource damage Colorado Roadless Areas in the North (ii) Projects are expected to be that arises from the design, location, Fork coal mining area of the Grand infrequent. use, or deterioration of a forest road and Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison (3) Tree-cutting, sale, or removal is that cannot be mitigated by road National Forests as defined by the North needed to maintain or restore the maintenance. Road realignment may Fork coal mining area displayed on the characteristics of ecosystem occur under this paragraph only if the final Colorado Roadless Areas map. composition, structure and processes. road is deemed essential for Such roads may also be used for These projects are expected to be administrative or public access, public collecting and transporting coal mine infrequent. health and safety, or other authorized methane. Any buried infrastructure, (4) Tree-cutting, sale, or removal is use; including pipelines, needed for the needed to improve habitat for Federally (iii) Road reconstruction is needed to capture, collection, and use of coal mine threatened, endangered, proposed, or implement a road safety improvement methane will be located within the Agency designated sensitive species; in project on a forest road determined to be rights-of-way of temporary roads that coordination with the Colorado hazardous on the basis of accident are otherwise necessary for coal-related Department of Natural Resources, experience or accident potential on that surface activities including the including the Colorado Division of road; installation and operation of methane Wildlife. (iv) The Regional Forester determines venting wells. (5) Tree-cutting, sale, or removal is a road is needed to allow for the (2) If proposed road construction/ incidental to the implementation of a construction, reconstruction, or reconstruction meets one of the management activity not otherwise maintenance of an authorized water exceptions, subject to the legal rights prohibited by this subpart. conveyance structure which is operated identified in 36 CFR 294.43(c)(1), the (6) Tree-cutting, sale, or removal is pursuant to a pre-existing water court following must be determined: needed and appropriate for personal or decree (see also § 294.44(b)(1)); (i) Motorized access, without road administrative use, as provided for in 36 (v) A temporary road is needed to construction is not technically feasible; CFR part 223, subpart A. protect public health and safety in cases (ii) When proposing to construct a § 294.43 Prohibition on road construction of threat of flood, fire, or other forest road, that a temporary road would and reconstruction. catastrophic event that, without not provide reasonable access; (a) General. A road may not be intervention, would cause the loss of (iii) Road construction is consistent constructed or reconstructed in a life or property; with the applicable land management Colorado Roadless Area except as (vi) The Regional Forester determines plan direction; provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of a temporary road is needed to facilitate (iv) Within a native cutthroat trout this section. tree-cutting, sale, or removal catchment or identified recovery (b) Upper Tier Acres. Notwithstanding (§ 294.42(c)(1)) within the first one-half watershed, road construction will not the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this mile of the community protection zone diminish, over the long-term, conditions section, a road may only be constructed to reduce the wildfire hazard to an at- in the water influence zone and in the or reconstructed in Colorado Roadless risk community or municipal water native cutthroat habitat; and Area upper tier acres if the Responsible supply system; (d) Road construction/reconstruction Official determines that: (vii) The Regional Forester determines project implementation and (1) A road is needed pursuant to a temporary road is needed to facilitate management. Incorporate the following reserved or outstanding rights, or as tree-cutting, sale or removal elements into any road construction/ provided for by statute or treaty. (§ 294.42(c)(3)) within the first one-half reconstruction projects implemented (2) For any road construction/ mile of the community protection zone within Colorado Roadless Areas. reconstruction authorized pursuant to to maintain or restore characteristics of (1) Road construction. If it is this provision, the Responsible Official ecosystem composition, structure and determined that a road is authorized in must determine: processes; a Colorado Roadless Area, conduct (i) Motorized access, without road (viii) A temporary road is needed construction in a manner that reduces, construction is not technically feasible; within a Colorado Roadless Area to the extent practicable, effects on (ii) When proposing to construct a pursuant to the exploration or surface resources, and prevents forest road, that a temporary road would development of an existing oil and gas unnecessary or unreasonable surface not provide reasonable access; and lease that does not prohibit road disturbance. (iii) Within a native cutthroat trout construction or reconstruction, (2) Road decommissioning. catchment or identified recovery including the construction of Decommission any road and restore the watershed, whether road construction infrastructure necessary to transport the affected landscape when it is will diminish, over the long-term, product, on National Forest System determined that the road is no longer conditions in the water influence zone lands that are under lease issued by the needed for the established purpose, or and in the native cutthroat habitat. Secretary of the Interior as of [final rule upon termination or expiration of a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21291

contract, authorization, or permit, Area or the construction or not have the authority to offer formal whichever is sooner. Require the reconstruction of a pipeline needed to cooperating agency status, the Forest inclusion of a road decommissioning connect to infrastructure within a Service shall offer to coordinate with provision in all such contracts or Colorado Roadless Area from outside a the State. permits. Design decommissioning to Colorado Roadless Area where such a stabilize, restore, and revegetate connection would cause substantially § 294.46 Other activities. unneeded roads to a more natural state less environmental damage than (a) Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations. Oil to protect resources and enhance alternative routes. The construction of and gas leases issued within a Colorado roadless area characteristics. pipelines for the purposes of Roadless Area after [final rule effective (3) Road designations. The transporting oil or natural gas through a date] will prohibit road construction/ designation of a temporary road Colorado Roadless Area, where the reconstruction. The Forest Service shall constructed or reconstructed pursuant source(s) and destination(s) of the not authorize the Bureau of Land to this subpart may not be changed to pipeline are located exclusively outside Management to grant any request for a forest road except where a forest road is of a Colorado Roadless Area, shall not waiver, exception, or modification to allowed under paragraphs (b) and (c) of be authorized. any oil or gas lease if doing so would this section. (4) If a proposed linear construction result in any road construction within a (4) Road use. Use of motor vehicles zone meets one of the exceptions, then Colorado Roadless Area. for administrative purposes by the the following must be determined: (b) Oil and Gas Surface Use Plans of Forest Service and by fire, emergency, (i) Motorized access, without a linear Operation. Where applicable, during the or law enforcement personnel is construction zone, is not technically review of any application for a surface allowed. All roads constructed pursuant feasible; use plan of operations affecting lands to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section (ii) A linear construction zone is within a Colorado Roadless Area, the shall prohibit public motorized vehicles consistent with the applicable land Responsible Official will: (including off-highway vehicles) except: management plan direction; (1) Locate, to the extent possible (i) Where specifically used for the (iii) Within a native cutthroat trout without compromising health and safety purpose for which the road was catchment or identified recovery standards, roads, well sites, and established; watershed, a linear construction zone facilities on pre-existing areas of surface (ii) Motor vehicle use that is will not diminish, over the long-term, disturbance. Project design shall specifically authorized under an conditions in the water influence zone minimize the amount of necessary authorization issued under Federal law and in the native cutthroat habitat; and temporary road construction or or regulation. (c) Linear construction zone reconstruction. (5) Road maintenance. Maintenance decommissioning. Where a linear (2) Consider an alternative for of roads is permissible in Colorado construction zone is constructed in a proposed operations that addresses Roadless Areas. Colorado Roadless Area, installation of locating directional drilling of multi- the linear facility will be done in a § 294.44 Prohibition on linear construction well sites on pre-existing areas of manner that minimizes ground surface disturbance. Such an alternative zones. disturbance, including placement (a) General. A linear construction can be dismissed from detailed analysis within existing right-of-ways where with clear justification. zone may not be constructed or feasible. All authorizations approving (3) Restrict road construction for reconstructed in Colorado Roadless the installation of linear facilities leases partially within Colorado Areas except as provided in paragraph through the use of a linear construction Roadless Areas, to the extent practical, (b) of this section. zone shall include a Responsible to portions of the lease outside of (b) Linear Construction Zones. Official approved reclamation plan for Colorado Roadless Areas except when Notwithstanding the prohibition in reclaiming the affected landscape. Upon doing so will be substantially more paragraph (a) of this section, the completion of the installation of a linear environmentally damaging, compromise Regional Forester may authorize a linear facility via the use of a linear safety standards, or is unfeasible due to construction zone within a Colorado construction zone, all areas of surface topography or surface conditions. Roadless Area for: disturbance shall be reclaimed as (4) Perform, to the extent feasible, (1) The construction, reconstruction, prescribed in the authorization and the reclamation of surface disturbances or maintenance of an authorized water approved reclamation plan and may not incrementally, to minimize the total conveyance structure which is operated be waived. pursuant to a pre-existing water court area of disturbance at any given point in decree (see § 294.43(c)(1)(iv)); § 294.45 Environmental documentation. time during the exploration or (2) The construction, reconstruction, (a) Environmental documentation will development of a lease. or maintenance of existing or future be prepared pursuant to Section 102 of (5) Design, to the extent feasible, authorized electrical power lines or the National Environmental Policy Act, temporary roads and facilities to blend telecommunication lines. Authorize 40 CFR 1500, and 36 CFR part 220 for with the terrain to minimize visual electrical power lines or any proposed action within a Colorado impacts and to facilitate restoration telecommunication lines within Roadless Area. Proposals that when the road is no longer needed. Colorado Roadless Areas only if there is substantially alter the undeveloped (6) Co-locate, wherever possible and no opportunity for the project to be character of a Colorado Roadless Area consistent with health and safety implemented outside of a Colorado require an Environmental Impact standards, power lines, flow lines and Roadless Area without causing Statement (EIS). pipelines within the right-of-way of substantially greater environmental (b) The Forest Service will offer roads to minimize the area of surface damage; or cooperating agency status to the State of disturbance. (3) The construction or reconstruction Colorado, for all proposed projects and (7) Consider new and developing low of a pipeline associated with operation planning activities to be implemented impact techniques and technologies and of an oil and gas lease that allows on lands within Colorado Roadless either apply or dismiss with surface use within a Colorado Roadless Areas. Where the Forest Service does justification.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 21292 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(8) Utilize the best available based on improved field data due to § 294.49 List of designated Colorado technology, to the extent possible, to updated imagery, global positioning Roadless Areas. minimize noise and air emissions. system data, or other collected field All National Forest System lands (c) Trails. Nothing in this subpart data. within the State of Colorado listed in shall affect the current or future (c) Amendments to rule language. this section are hereby designated as management of motorized and non- Any amendment of this subpart will Colorado Roadless Areas. motorized trails in Colorado Roadless include coordination with the State and Areas. Decisions concerning the the appropriate level of NEPA analysis. Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest management or status of motorized and A minimum 90-day comment period non-motorized trails within Colorado will be provided. 1. Bard Creek. Roadless Areas under this subpart shall 2. Byers Peak. § 294.48 Scope and applicability. 3. Cache La Poudre Adjacent Area. be made during the applicable forest 4. Cherokee Park. travel management processes. (a) This subpart does not revoke, 5. Comanche Peak Adjacent Area. (d) Motorized access. Nothing in this suspend, or modify any permit, 6. Copper Mountain. subpart shall be construed as limiting contract, lease, or other legal instrument 7. Crosier Mountain. the authority of the responsible official authorizing or granting rights to the 8. Gold Run. to approve existing and future occupancy and use of National Forest 9. Green Ridge—East. motorized access not requiring road system land issued prior to [final rule 10. Green Ridge—West. construction or reconstruction in 11. Grey Rock. effective date] nor does it affect the 12. Hell Canyon. Colorado Roadless Areas associated authority or the discretion of the 13. Indian Peaks Adjacent Area. with grazing permits, special use responsible official to reissue any such 14. James Peak. authorizations, and other permit, contract, or other legal 15. Kelly Creek. authorizations. instrument upon its expiration or 16. Lion Gulch. (e) Livestock grazing. The authority to termination. 17. Mount Evans Adjacent Area. issue livestock grazing permits on (b) This subpart does not revoke, 18. Mount Sniktau. national forest system lands within a suspend, or modify any project or 19. Neota Adjacent Area. Colorado Roadless Area is not affected 20. Never Summer Adjacent Area. activity decision made prior to [final 21. North Lone Pine. by this subpart; however no new rule effective date]. 22. North St. Vrain. temporary or forest roads shall be (c) The provisions set forth in this 23. Rawah Adjacent Area. authorized through grazing permits subpart provide the maximum level of 24. Square Top Mountain. issued after [final rule effective date]. tree-cutting, sale and removal, and road 25. Troublesome. 26. Vasquez Adjacent Area. § 294.47 Modifications and administrative construction and reconstruction activity allowed within Colorado Roadless 27. White Pine Mountain. corrections. 28. Williams Fork Ptarmigan Adjacent. Modifications and administrative Areas. Land management plan corrections pursuant to this subpart, components can be more restrictive than Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison after coordination with the State, may this subpart and will continue to National Forest be made under the following provide direction and guidance for projects and activities within Colorado 29. Agate Creek. circumstances: 30. American Flag Mountain. (a) Modifications to boundaries. The Roadless Areas. Nothing in this subpart shall prohibit a responsible official from 31. Baldy. Chief of the Forest Service may modify 32. Battlements. the boundaries of any designated further restricting activities allowed 33. Beaver. Colorado Roadless Area identified in within Colorado Roadless Areas. This 34. Beckwiths. § 294.49 or add new Colorado Roadless subpart does not compel the 35. Calamity Basin. Areas based on changed circumstances. amendment or revision of any land 36. Cannibal Plateau. Modifications and additions will be management plan. 37. Canyon Creek—Antero. reflected in the set of maps maintained (d) The prohibitions and restrictions 38. Canyon Creek. 39. Carson. at the national headquarters office of the established in this subpart are not subject to reconsideration, revision, or 40. Castle. Forest Service. The construction or 41. Cataract. reconstruction of a temporary road or rescission in subsequent project 42. Cimarron Ridge. tree-cutting, sale, or removal will not decisions or land management plan 43. Clear Fork. result in any boundary modification of amendments or revisions undertaken 44. Cochetopa. a Colorado Roadless Area. Public notice pursuant to 36 CFR part 219. 45. Cochetopa Hills. with a minimum 90-day comment (e) Nothing in this subpart waives any 46. Cottonwoods. period will be provided for any applicable requirements regarding site 47. Crystal Creek. specific environmental analysis, public 48. Crystal Peak. proposed Colorado Roadless Area 49. Curecanti. boundary modifications or additions. involvement, consultation with Tribes 50. Currant Creek. (b) Administrative corrections to and other agencies, or compliance with 51. Deer Creek. boundaries. The Chief of the Forest applicable laws. 52. Dominguez. Service may issue administrative (f) If any provision in this subpart or 53. Double Top. corrections after public notice and a 30- its application to any person or to 54. East Elk. day comment period. Administrative certain circumstances is held to be 55. Electric Mountain. corrections to the maps of any invalid, the remainder of the regulations 56. Failes Creek-Soldier Creek. designated Colorado Roadless Areas in this subpart and their application 57. Flatirons. 58. Flattop Mountain. identified in § 294.49 are adjustments to remain in force. 59. Flattops—Elk Park. remedy errors such as clerical, (g) After [final rule effective date] the 60. Gothic. topographical, or improvements in rule promulgated on January 12, 2001, 61. Granite Basin. mapping technology. Other than clerical (66 FR 3244) shall have no effect within 62. Hightower. errors, an administrative correction is the State of Colorado. 63. Hope Lake.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21293

64. Horse Ranch Park. 130. Highline. 196. Indian Ridge. 65. Horsefly Canyon. 131. Holy Cross. 197. Kitty Creek. 66. Huntsman Ridge. 132. Hoosier Ridge. 198. La Garita. 67. Italian Mountain. 133. Jefferson. 199. Lake Fork. 68. Johnson Basin. 134. Kaufman Ridge. 200. Lower East Bellows. 69. Kannah Creek. 135. Kreutzer—Princeton. 201. Middle Alder. 70. Kelso Mesa. 136. Little Fountain Creek. 202. Miller Creek. 71. Last Dollar—Sheep Creek. 137. Lost Creek East. 203. Pole Creek. 72. Little Cimarron. 138. Lost Creek South. 204. Pole Mountain-Finger Mesa. 73. Long Canyon. 139. Lost Creek West. 205. Red Mountain. 74. Matchless Mountain. 140. Methodist Mountain. 206. Ruby Lake. 75. Matterhorn. 141. Mount Antero. 207. Sawlog. 76. McClure Pass. 142. Mount Elbert. 208. Sheep Mountain. 77. Mendicant. 143. Mount Evans. 209. Silver Lakes-Stunner. 78. Mineral Mountain. 144. Mount Massive. 210. Snowshoe Mountain. 79. Mirror Lake. 145. Pikes Peak East. 211. Spectacle Lake. 80. Mount Lamborn. 146. Pikes Peak West. 212. Spruce Hole-Sheep Creek. 81. Munsey-Erickson. 147. Porphyry Peak. 213. Stunner Pass-Dolores Canyon. 82. Naturita Canyon. 148. Puma Hills. 214. Sulphur Tunnel. 83. North Henson. 149. Purgatoire. 215. Summit Peak-Elwood Pass. 84. Pilot Knob. 150. Rampart East.. 216. Taylor Canyon. 85. Poverty Gulch. 151. Rampart West. 217. Tewksberry. 86. Salt Creek. 152. Reveille Canyon. 218. Tobacco Lakes. 87. Sanford Basin. 153. Romley. 219. Trout Mountain-Elk Mountain. 88. Sawtooth. 154. Sangre de Cristo: Alvarado Camp- 220. Ute Pass. 89. Schofield Pass. ground to Music Pass. 221. Wason Park. 90. Soap Creek. 155. Sangre de Cristo: Blanca Peak to Slide 222. Wightman Fork—Upper Burro. 91. Steuben. Mountain. 223. Wightman Fork—Lookout. 92. Sunnyside. 156. Sangre de Cristo: Lake Creek to Hermit 224. Willow Mountain. 93. Sunset. Creek. 94. Texas Creek. 157. Sangre de Cristo: Medano Pass to Car- Routt National Forest 95. Tomahawk. bonate Mountain. 96. Turner Creek. 158. Sangre de Cristo: Silverheels Gulch to 225. Barber Basin. 97. Turret Ridge. Hunts Creek. 226. Black Mountain. 98. Unaweep. 159. Sangre de Cristo: West Creek to Big 227. Bunker Basin. 99. Union. Cottonwood. 228. Bushy Creek. 100. Whetstone. 160. Schoolmarm Mountain. 229. Chatfield. 101. Whitehouse Mountain. 161. Scraggy Peaks. 230. Chedsey Creek. 102. Willow Creek. 162. Sheep Rock. 231. Dome. 103. Wilson. 163. Silverheels. 232. Dome Peak. 104. Windy Point. 164. Spanish Peaks. 233. Elkhorn. 165. Square Top Mountain. 234. Gold Creek. Manti-La Sal National Forest 166. St. Charles Peak. 235. Grizzly Helena. 167. Starvation Creek. 236. Kettle Lakes. 105. Roc Creek. 168. Tanner Peak. 237. Little Green Creek. 169. Thirtynine Mile Mountain. 238. Long Park. Pike-San Isabel National Forest 170. Thunder Butte. 239. Mad Creek. 171. Weston Peak. 240. Morrison Creek. 106. Antelope Creek. 241. Never Summer North. 107. Aspen Ridge. Rio Grande National Forest 242. Never Summer South. 108. Babcock Hole. 243. Nipple Peak North. 109. Badger Creek. 172. Alamosa River. 244. Nipple Peak South. 110. Boreas. 173. Antora Meadows-Bear Creek. 245. Pagoda Peak. 111. Buffalo Peaks East. 174. Beartown. 246. Shield Mountain. 112. Buffalo Peaks South. 175. Beaver Mountain. 247. South Fork. 113. Buffalo Peaks West. 176. Bennet Mountain-Blowout-Willow Creek- 248. Sugarloaf North. 114. Burning Bear. Lion Point-Greenie Mountain. 249. Sugarloaf South. 115. Chicago Ridge. 177. Big Buck-Kitty-Ruby. 250. Troublesome North. 116. Chipeta. 178. Box-Road Canyon. 251. Troublesome South. 117. Cuchara North. 179. Bristol Head. 252. Walton Peak. 118. Cuchara South. 180. Butterfly. 253. Whalen Creek. 119. Elk Mountain—Collegiate North. 181. Chama Basin. 120. Elk Mountain—Collegiate South. 182. Conejos River-Lake Fork. San Juan National Forest 121. Elk Mountain—Collegiate West. 183. Copper Mountain-Sulphur. 122. Farnum. 184. Cotton Creek. 254. Baldy. 123. Green Mountain. 185. Crestone. 255. Blackhawk Mountain. 124. Greenhorn Mountain: Badito Cone to 186. Cumbres. 256. East Animas. Dry Creek. 187. Deep Creek-Boot Mountain. 257. Fish Creek. 125. Greenhorn Mountain: Cisneros Creek to 188. Dorsey Creek. 258. Florida River. Upper Turkey Creek. 189. Elkhorn Peak. 259. Graham Park. 126. Greenhorn Mountain: Graneros Creek to 190. Four Mile Creek. 260. HD Mountains. Section 10. 191. Fox Creek. 261. Hermosa. 127. Greenhorn Mountain: Little Saint 192. Fox Mountain. 262. Lizard Head Adjacent. Charles Creek to Greenhorn Creek. 193. Gibbs Creek. 263. Piedra Area Adjacent. 128. Gunbarrel. 194. Gold Creek-Cascade Creek. 264. Runlett Park. 129. Hardscrabble. 195. Hot Springs. 265. Ryman.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 21294 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

266. San Miguel. 339. Red Dirt B. the ability of industry to efficiently 267. South San Juan Adjacent. 340. Red Mountain. manage their microbial pesticide 268. Storm Peak. 341. Red Table. registration submissions. 269. Treasure Mountain. 342. Reno Mountain. 270. Turkey Creek. 343. Ripple Creek Pass-Trappers Lake. DATES: Comments must be received on 271. Weminuche Adjacent. 344. Ryan Gulch. or before July 14, 2011. 272. West Needles. 345. Salt Creek. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 273. Winter Hills/Serviceberry Mountain. 346. Sloan Peak. 347. Spraddle Creek A. identified by docket identification (ID) White River National Forest 348. Spraddle Creek B. number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0670, by 349. Sweetwater A. one of the following methods: 274. Adam Mountain. 350. Sweetwater B. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 275. Ashcroft. 351. Tenderfoot Mountain. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 276. Assignation Ridge. 352. Tenmile. 277. Baldy Mountain. instructions for submitting comments. 353. Thompson Creek. • 278. Basalt Mountain A. 354. Tigiwon. Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 279. Basalt Mountain B. 355. Treasure Mountain. (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 280. Berry Creek. 356. West Brush Creek. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 281. Big Ridge to South Fork A. 357. West Lake Creek. Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 282. Big Ridge to South Fork B. 358. Wildcat Mountain. DC 20460–0001. 283. Black Lake East. 359. Wildcat Mountain B. • Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 284. Black Lake West. 360. Wildcat Mountain C. 285. Blair Mountain. Docket (7502P), Environmental 361. Williams Fork. Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 286. Boulder. 362. Willow. 287. Budges. 363. Woods Lake. Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 288. Buffer Mountain. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 289. Burnt Mountain. are only accepted during the Docket 290. Chicago Ridge. Dated: April 11, 2011. Facility’s normal hours of operation 291. Corral Creek. Jay J. Jensen, (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 292. Crystal River. Deputy Under Secretary, NRE. Friday, excluding legal holidays). 293. Deep Creek. [FR Doc. 2011–9119 Filed 4–14–11; 8:45 am] Special arrangements should be made 294. Dome Peak. 295. East Divide-Four Mile Park. BILLING CODE P for deliveries of boxed information. The 296. East Vail. Docket Facility telephone number is 297. East Willow. (703) 305–5805. 298. Elk Creek B. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Instructions: Direct your comments to 299. Elliot Ridge. AGENCY docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010– 300. Fawn Creek-Little Lost Park. 0670. EPA’s policy is that all comments 301. Freeman Creek. 40 CFR Part 158 received will be included in the docket 302. Gallo Hill. 303. Game Creek. [EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0670; FRL–8857–7] without change and may be made available on-line at http:// 304. Grizzly Creek. RIN 2070–AJ80 305. Gypsum Creek. www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless 306. Hardscrabble. Pesticides; Microbial Pesticide 307. Hay Park. the comment includes information Definitions and Applicability; 308. Holy Cross City. claimed to be Confidential Business Clarification and Availability of Draft 309. Homestake. Information (CBI) or other information Test Guideline for Comment 310. Hoosier Ridge. whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 311. Housetop Mountain. AGENCY: Do not submit information that you 312. Hunter. Environmental Protection 313. Little Grand Mesa. Agency (EPA). consider to be CBI or otherwise 314. Lower Piney. ACTION: Proposed rule. protected through regulations.gov or 315. Mamm Peak. e-mail. The regulations.gov Web site is 316. Maroon East. SUMMARY: As promulgated, EPA’s an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 317. Maryland Creek. regulations distinguish ‘‘isolates’’ and means EPA will not know your identity 318. McClure Pass. ‘‘strains’’ in a confusing and non-obvious or contact information unless you 319. McFarlane. manner. This has resulted in significant provide it in the body of your comment. 320. Meadow Mountain A. uncertainty within the regulated If you send an e-mail comment directly 321. Meadow Mountain B. industry. This proposed rule addresses to EPA without going through 322. Morapos A. this problem by proposing new 323. Morapos B. regulations.gov, your e-mail address 324. Mormon Creek. regulatory language that clarifies the will be automatically captured and 325. No Name. requirements applicable to new strains included as part of the comment that is 326. North Elk. that are considered to be new active placed in the docket and made available 327. North Independent A. ingredients under the Federal on the Internet. If you submit an 328. North Independent B. Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide electronic comment, EPA recommends 329. North Woody. Act (FIFRA). EPA is also soliciting that you include your name and other 330. Pagoda Peak. comment on a draft microbial pesticide contact information in the body of your 331. Piney Lake. test guideline, explaining the deposition comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 332. Porcupine Peak. of a sample in a nationally recognized 333. Ptarmigan A. you submit. If EPA cannot read your 334. Ptarmigan B. culture collection data requirement, for comment due to technical difficulties 335. Ptarmigan C. comment. The revisions proposed in and cannot contact you for clarification, 336. Ptarmigan Hill A. this rule also include several other EPA may not be able to consider your 337. Ptarmigan Hill B. minor corrections to words and comment. Electronic files should avoid 338. Red Dirt A. references. The changes should enhance the use of special characters, any form

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:22 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS