[Federal Register: July 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 144)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 43543-43565]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25jy08-21]                         


[[Page 43543]]

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

Part III





Department of Agriculture





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



Forest Service



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



36 CFR Part 294



Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the 
National Forests in Colorado; Proposed Rule


[[Page 43544]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Part 294

RIN 0596-AC74

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

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is 
proposing to establish a State-specific rule to provide management 
direction for conserving Colorado roadless areas. The USDA invites 
written comments on both the proposed rule and the draft environmental 
impact statement (DEIS) and will consider those comments in developing 
a final rule and final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The final 
rule will be published in the Federal Register.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing 90 days from the date the 
rule is published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent via e-mail to 
COcomments@fsroadless.org. Comments also may be submitted via the 
internet at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov. Written comments concerning 
this notice should be addressed to Roadless Area Conservation--
Colorado, P.O. Box 162909, Sacramento, CA 95816-2909, or via facsimile 
to 916-456-6724.
    All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are 
placed in the record and are available for public inspection and 
copying.
    A copy of this proposed rule, draft environmental impact statement 
(DEIS), the DEIS summary, dates and locations of public meetings, and 
other information related to this rulemaking will be available at the 
national roadless Web site http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.roadless.fs.fed.us. Reviewers may 
request printed copies or compact disks of the DEIS and the summary by 
writing to Colorado Roadless Team/Planning, USDA Forest Service, Rocky 
Mountain Regional Office, 740 Simms Street, Golden, CO 80401-4720, or 
by e-mail to comments-rocky-mountain-regional-office@fs.fed.us, or by 
Fax to 303-275-5134. When ordering, requesters must specify their 
address, if they wish to receive the summary or full set of documents, 
and if the material should be provided in print or compact disk. 
Printed copies will be available for public viewing at Forest Service 
district and supervisor's offices within the State of Colorado.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colorado Roadless Rule Team Leader 
Kathy Kurtz at (303) 275-5083. Individuals using telecommunication 
devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay 
Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern 
Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    As a leader in natural resource conservation, the Forest Service 
provides direction for the management and use of the Nation's forests, 
rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems under its jurisdiction. Similarly, 
the State of Colorado is committed to sustained natural resource use 
and conservation of State and Federal land within its borders. 
Furthermore, the Forest Service is charged to collaborate cooperatively 
with states and other interested parties regarding the use and 
management of the National Forest System (NFS).

State of Colorado Petition

    On July 14, 2005, the State of Colorado announced it would submit a 
petition requesting specific regulatory protections for the inventoried 
roadless areas within the State. The State's commitment to participate 
was evidenced by Senate Bill 05-243, the ``Roadless Areas Review Task 
Force'' legislation signed into law on June 8, 2005. The bill outlined 
membership and responsibilities of a 13-member bipartisan task force to 
make recommendations to the Governor regarding inventoried roadless 
areas in NFS lands in Colorado. The task force held nine public 
meetings throughout the State, reviewed over 40,000 public comments, 
and conducted a comprehensive review of Colorado's 4.4 million acres of 
roadless areas (2001 Roadless Rule).
    Colorado's petition (2006 petition) was submitted to the Secretary 
of Agriculture for consideration on November 13, 2006, by then-Governor 
Owens with the provision it be considered under section 553(e) of the 
Administrative Procedure Act and USDA regulations at 7 CFR 1.28. On 
April 11, 2007, Governor Ritter resubmitted the 2006 petition with a 
substantive letter of transmittal, which became the 2007 petition. 
Governor Ritter's transmittal letter requested that state-specific 
rulemaking be undertaken to provide an ``insurance policy for 
protection of our roadless areas,'' given ongoing legal uncertainty. 
The 2007 petition took into account State and local resource management 
challenges along with the national interest in maintaining roadless 
characteristics and the need for management flexibility in certain 
circumstances.
    The Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee (RACNAC) 
reviewed the 2007 petition on June 13 and 14, 2007, in Washington, DC. 
Harris Sherman, executive director of the Colorado Department of 
Natural Resources, representing Governor Ritter, described the scope 
and intent of the 2007 petition. The RACNAC also heard comments from 
other State and Forest Service officials, task force members, and 
members of the public. On August 8, 2007, the RACNAC issued a unanimous 
consensus-based recommendation to the Secretary to direct the Forest 
Service, with the State of Colorado as a cooperating agency, to proceed 
with rulemaking based on the 2007 petition.
    After reviewing the RACNAC's recommendation, the Secretary accepted 
the 2007 petition on August 24, 2007, and directed the Forest Service 
to initiate rulemaking based on the petition. The proposed rule would 
respond to the 2007 petition by establishing a system of Colorado 
Roadless Areas (CRAs) with protections for these areas that would 
supersede the 2001 Roadless Rule.
    The USDA, State, and Forest Service are committed to conserving and 
managing roadless areas and consider these areas an important and 
exceptional component of the NFS. The USDA, State, and Forest Service 
believe the most viable path for lasting conservation of these areas is 
through properly integrating local, State, and national perspectives on 
roadless area management on NFS lands located within the State of 
Colorado.
    Through a memorandum of understanding dated January 8, 2008, the 
State of Colorado was granted cooperating agency status with the Forest 
Service, under 40 CFR 1508.5, for the preparation of the environmental 
impact statement (EIS) associated with this rulemaking.
    Within the 2007 petition, the State requested the Colorado 
Department of Natural Resources and/or the Colorado Division of 
Wildlife be offered cooperating agency status to assure participation 
in the evaluation of future proposed activities in CRAs associated with 
Federal coal reserves under certain lands in the North Fork coal mining 
area on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests, and

[[Page 43545]]

proposed activities associated with ski area lands proposed for removal 
from roadless designation, listed in Table 2. In addition, the Forest 
Service will offer cooperating agency status to the State where it 
expresses an interest for any Forest Service project or planning 
activity on NFS lands located within CRAs, pursuant to the Council on 
Environmental Quality implementing National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508. Where the Forest Service does 
not have the authority to grant cooperating agency status, the Forest 
Service will coordinate with the State.

National Forest System Land Inventories in Colorado

    The 2007 petition proposed using the 2001 Roadless Rule inventoried 
roadless areas as a basis for identifying CRAs. These inventories would 
be updated by technical corrections to the inventory, such as but not 
limited to, congressionally-designated areas as defined in Table 3, 
land exchanges, and any boundary line revisions including additions and 
deletions to the inventory through revised forest plans (Arapaho and 
Roosevelt, Routt, Rio Grande and White River National Forests) and 
ongoing forest plan revisions (Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison; 
San Juan; Pike and San Isabel; and Manti-La Sal National Forests). 
Finally, the 2007 petition identified that certain portions of ski 
areas (described in Table 2) were not to be included in CRAs. Table 1 
displays the acreage changes between the 2001 inventoried roadless 
areas (IRAs) and the proposed CRA boundaries.

             Table 1.--Net Change in Roadless Acres Designations by Forest--Inventoried Roadless Area Acres to Colorado Roadless Area Acres
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Congressionally
                                                         designated as   Total IRA acres
                                           2001 Rule     wilderness or       without       IRA acres not                                    Net change
                                           total IRA     special areas   congressionally     included     Unroaded acres  Total roadless    between IRA
                                           acres \1\        \2\ not         designated      within CRAs    added to CRAs   acres in CRAs   and CRA acres
                                                          included in         acres
                                                          IRAs or CRAs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arapaho-Roosevelt.....................         391,000         (37,000)          354,000         (5,000)           1,000         350,000         (4,000)
                                                (1997)
GMUG..................................       1,127,000         (67,000)        1,060,000       (329,000)         120,000         853,000       (207,000)
                                                (1979)                                                                      (2005 draft)
Pike-San Isabel.......................         688,000         (19,000)          669,000        (77,000)          82,000         674,000           5,000
                                                (1979)                                                                      (2006 draft)
Rio Grande............................         530,000  ...............          530,000        (16,000)           4,000         518,000        (12,000)
                                                (1996)
Routt.................................         442,000  ...............          442,000        (10,000)           2,000         434,000         (8,000)
                                                (1998)
San Juan..............................         604,000         (60,000)          544,000        (84,000)          99,000         558,000          14,000
                                                (1979)                                                                      (2006 draft)
White River...........................         640,000  ...............          640,000         (5,000)           1,000         636,000         (4,000)
                                                (2002)
Manti La Sal in Colorado..............          11,000  ...............           11,000         (4,000)             500           8,000         (3,000)
                                                (1979)                                                                      (2006 draft)
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
    Total State of Colorado...........       4,433,000        (184,000)        4,249,000       (529,000)         309,000       4,031,000      (218,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres may not add due to rounding (ref. DEIS).
\1\ The 2001 Roadless Rule used inventoried roadless areas from forest plans that were in effect at the time the 2001 Rule was developed, or a roadless
  inventory that had undergone public involvement. The date of each forest's inventory used for the 2001 Rule is shown here. Acreages are from the 2001
  Roadless Rule FEIS.
\2\ This column includes acres for the James Peak and Spanish Peak Wildernesses and additions to the Indian Peaks Wilderness, and Bowen Gulch and James
  Peak Protection Areas, Roubideau and Tabeguache Special Areas, Fossil Ridge Recreation Management Area, and the Piedra Special Management Unit all
  designated by Congress but not excluded from the 2001 RACR inventory.
\3\ Acres not included are those identified as substantially altered, mapping errors, updated GIS technology, land exchanges, and ski area acres.


     Table 2.--Ski Area Acres in 2001 IRAs or Forest Plan Inventories Not Included in CRAs per 2007 Petition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Additional       Total ski
                                            Colorado roadless        Ski area        ski area       acres  not
      National Forest  ski areas                 area(s)             permitted    allocation \1\    included in
                                                                       acres           acres           CRAs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loveland..............................  Bard Creek, Mount                  1,370           1,620           2,990
                                         Sniktau.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crested Butte.........................  Gothic..................             900               0             900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Pike-San Isabel National Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ski Cooper............................  Mad Creek DB & DB1......             560               0             560
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 43546]]


                                              Routt National Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steamboat Springs.....................  Long Park...............             180               0             180
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              San Juan National Forest--(Draft Revised Forest Plan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durango Mountain Resort...............  San Miguel..............               0           \2\90              90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           White River National Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arapahoe Basin........................  Porcupine Peak..........           1,050               0           1,050
Aspen Mt..............................  McFarlane...............              50               0              50
Beaver Creek..........................  Meadow Mountain A & B...             510               0             510
Breckenridge..........................  Tenmile.................             150               0             150
Buttermilk............................  Burnt Mountain..........              50               0              50
Copper Mountain.......................  Ptarmigan Hill..........             720               0             720
Snowmass..............................  Burnt Mountain..........              80               0              80
Vail..................................  Game Creek..............             900               0             900
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
    Total.............................  ........................           6,500           1,700          8,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ski area acres rounded to nearest 10 acres and total acres rounded to nearest 100 acres. Totals may not add due
  to rounding.
Ski areas on National Forest System lands in the State of Colorado that are not listed here do not contain
  roadless acres within their permit or allocation boundary.
\1\ Acres allocated in forest plans to ski area management that adjoin currently operating ski areas but are not
  within the current permitted area.
\2\ Expansion of Durango Mountain Resort is included within the San Juan's forest plan revision, draft preferred
  alternative. There are 90 acres of roadless area to be excluded from the CRA inventory.


Table 3.--Congressionally Designated Acres Included in 2001 IRAs and Not
                            Included in CRAs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Acres within
    Congressional designations         National Forest    roadless areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowen Gulch Protection Area.......  Arapaho-Roosevelt...           8,600
Indian Peaks Wilderness additions.  Arapaho-Roosevelt...           3,000
James Peak Protection Area........  Arapaho-Roosevelt...          11,300
James Peak Wilderness.............  Arapaho-Roosevelt...          14,300
Fossil Ridge Recreation Management  Grand Mesa,                   39,800
 Area.                               Uncompahgre, and
                                     Gunnison.
Roubideau Area....................  Grand Mesa,                   18,600
                                     Uncompahgre, and
                                     Gunnison.
Tabeguache Area...................  Grand Mesa,                    8,900
                                     Uncompahgre, and
                                     Gunnison.
Spanish Peak Wilderness...........  Pike-San Isabel.....          18,700
Piedra Special Management Unit....  San Juan............          60,400
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
    Total.........................  ....................         184,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using these inventories, the Forest Service has identified 4.031 
million acres of roadless areas that would be subject to this proposed 
rule. This rule, if finalized as proposed, would establish CRA maps 
defining the boundaries of these areas and would be maintained at the 
national headquarters office of the Forest Service as provided in 
section 294.32 of this rule. These maps and acreages may be modified 
with additions or deletions to boundary lines only as outlined in 
section 294.37. Acres not included in the CRAs that were within the 
boundaries of the 2001 Roadless Rule IRAs would not be subject to the 
2001 Roadless Rule and would be managed under their respective forest 
plan direction as provided in section 294.36(i).

Proposed Roadless Area Conservation Rule for Colorado

    The USDA, State, and Forest Service believe this proposed rule for 
Colorado represents a unique opportunity to collaboratively manage and 
protect roadless areas within the State of Colorado. The petitioning 
process and the proposed rule enables the Forest Service to consider 
the comments of people most affected by or concerned about the contents 
of state-specific rulemaking for roadless areas across the State in 
balance with national concerns for these areas. The proposed rule 
represents a balanced solution for retaining the integrity and natural 
beauty of Colorado's roadless areas while maintaining management 
flexibility to affect future changes where needed.
    The Forest Service, in cooperation with the State, has completed a 
review of the social, economic, and environmental characteristics and 
values associated with the IRAs in Colorado. With public input, the 
Forest Service has considered the question of how these roadless lands 
should be managed within the scope of the Forest Service's authority. 
The management direction proposed by these regulations would take 
precedence over any inconsistent regulatory provision or land 
management plan but would not supersede valid existing rights. All 
forests must meet the requirements of the proposed rule, regardless of 
their forest plan guidance. However, the

[[Page 43547]]

proposed rule at sections 294.33 and 294.34 does allow restrictions 
from forest plans to apply if they are more stringent than the proposed 
rule. Forest plans are revised at approximately 15-year intervals and 
are amended as needed. A revision or amendment could result in more 
restrictive direction for an individual CRA, but any forest plan 
direction with less restrictive direction, would have no force or 
effect (sec. 294.36(d)).

Ski Areas

    The State of Colorado's petition requested the Forest Service not 
include within CRAs, certain acres that are within the 2001 IRAs and 
allocated in forest plans to a ski-based management area prescription. 
This includes acres that are currently within the ski area permitted 
boundaries (6,500 acres) as well as acres that have been allocated in 
forest plans (current or draft, 1,700 acres) to a ski-based management 
area prescription that are not currently within the permitted areas but 
directly adjoin current operating ski areas. A list of the acres not 
included in the CRAs by ski area can be found in Table 2.
    The combined 8,200 ski area acres that are not proposed for CRA 
designation would remain subject to their respective forest plan 
direction and applicable terms and conditions of special use 
authorizations. Any proposal for these ski area acres, including 
expanding a ski area permit boundary into an area allocated to a ski-
based management prescription would be subject to all appropriate 
environmental analysis, including NEPA analysis.

Limited Road Construction and Reconstruction

    The proposed rule at section 294.33 prohibits road building in CRAs 
except under certain circumstances. The circumstances in section 
294.33(b) allow for a road, whereas circumstances in section 294.33(c) 
are specific to temporary roads. Whenever a forest road is proposed, an 
EIS will be prepared (sec. 294.33(e)). For all other circumstances, 
NEPA requirements will be used to determine the level of environmental 
analysis needed.
    Many exceptions in the proposed rule mirror the exceptions for road 
building provided in the 2001 Roadless Rule, but several additional 
circumstances allowing road building are proposed. The proposed rule at 
section 294.33(b)(6) includes an additional circumstance that would 
allow for the construction and maintenance of roads for existing and 
future utility and water conveyance structures. The Forest Service and 
the State believe this is a needed exception so Colorado's water and 
utility infrastructure can be properly operated and maintained. This 
provision is only intended to apply to existing and future authorized 
utility and water conveyance structures. The proposed rule at section 
294.31 provides the definition for utility and water conveyance 
structures. The definition does not include road construction or 
reconstruction for the construction or maintenance needed for 
reservoirs. In addition, the proposed rule at section 294.33(b)(7) 
includes an additional circumstance that would allow for the 
construction and maintenance of roads needed for the management of 
livestock grazing. The Forest Service and State recognize the 
importance of maintaining a viable ranching industry in Colorado. 
Conserving sustainable, working grasslands reduces development pressure 
on these lands and is a component of the Forest Service's Open Space 
Conservation Strategy.
    Another change from the 2001 Roadless Rule is the emphasis the 
proposed rule places on using temporary roads to the extent possible 
for any of the circumstances allowing for road building (sec. 294.33(c) 
and (e)). The proposed rule also emphasizes restoration of temporary 
roads at section 294.33(c).
    The Forest Service is charged with managing the National Forest 
transportation system, including requirements for temporary roads to be 
designed with the goal of reestablishing vegetative cover on the 
roadway and areas where the vegetative cover has been disturbed by road 
construction within ten years after the termination of a contract, 
permit, or lease through either artificial or natural means (ref. 16 
U.S.C. 1608). The Forest Service and State have considerable experience 
dealing with road restoration activities across many types of programs 
and activities. For example, the State administers a federally-funded 
abandoned mine reclamation program in which one principal goal is to 
identify environmental problems arising from abandoned mines and then 
to design appropriate closure methods and reclamation techniques 
(including restoring roads) at project sites. The State has restored 
over 1,500 acres of abandoned mine lands statewide since 1980.
    The proposed rule anticipates that lands affected will be returned 
to a condition consistent with the preexisting roadless characteristics 
(sec. 294.33(c)). However, the proposed rule recognizes that 
restoration efforts are to proceed in an environmentally sound way. In 
rare instances, complete obliteration and restoration (such as fully 
recontouring the roadway to its natural state) may cause more 
environmental harm than recontouring to a level that stabilizes against 
soil loss or other damage. For example, when the Forest Service 
decommissions temporary roads, restoration and obliteration are 
intended to make the corridor unusable as a road, stabilize it against 
soil loss or other damage, and reestablish the affected land's natural 
resource capabilities through such actions as: removing bridges and 
culverts and reestablishing normal maximum water flow, eliminating 
ditches, out-sloping the roadbed, removing ruts and berms, and 
recontouring road cuts. However, fully recontouring a road cut may set 
the stage for higher levels of soil loss due to unsuccessful 
revegetation on a steep slope as compared to partial recontouring 
incorporating a design that facilitates revegetation.
    Roads built for access to existing oil and gas leases as of the 
date of the Colorado Rule (sec. 294.33(c)(3)) and roads built to 
accommodate coal mining exploration and coal-related surface activities 
in the North Fork coal mining area (sec. 294.33(c)(4)) would be 
classified as temporary or long-term temporary roads. The proposed rule 
would establish a new category of road, long-term temporary road, which 
would have application only in CRAs. The intent is to provide a 
classification for roads associated with oil and gas, or coal leases 
that better recognizes the longer term, but non-permanent nature that 
is typical of such roads. Long-term temporary roads would be expected 
to be in place anywhere from 10 to 30 years. They would be included in 
the forest transportation system, ensuring they will be monitored and 
maintained in compliance with the terms of the applicable permit or 
special use authorization. However, as with other temporary roads, any 
long-term temporary roads constructed pursuant to an oil and gas lease 
or pursuant to a coal exploration license or a coal lease shall be 
decommissioned and the affected landscape restored when the road is no 
longer needed, or upon termination of the lease or license. The intent 
of this provision is to preserve the roadless character of CRAs to the 
maximum extent practicable.
    Except for emergency purposes, administrative use, or motorized 
vehicle use that is specifically authorized, all roads constructed in 
CRAs will be closed to motorized vehicles, including off-highway 
vehicles (OHVs) not authorized for the specific activity for

[[Page 43548]]

which the road was constructed (sec. 294.33(d)). Any temporary roads, 
including long-term temporary roads, built in a CRA would not serve as 
the basis for altering the management status for that CRA. (sec. 
294.33(c)).

Colorado State Land Board Mineral Interests

    The proposed rule at section 294.33(b)(2) aligns with the Colorado 
State Land Board's current ability to develop its mineral interests 
that underlie NFS lands in CRAs. Access to such mineral interests would 
continue to be governed by operation of the standard applicable laws 
and regulations rather than by this rule. The Forest Service and the 
State are committed to exploring opportunities for land exchanges 
whereby the State could acquire other property interests of equal 
value, outside of roadless areas. Such exchanges would provide the 
Forest Service with unified administration of both surface and mineral 
interests in CRAs.

Public and Safety

    The USDA, Forest Service, and State are committed to preserving 
roadless area characteristics while also protecting human health and 
safety. In an effort to achieve a proper balance, the proposed rule 
would allow for the construction of a temporary road if it is needed to 
safeguard public health when there is a catastrophic event, such as a 
flood or fire, which would cause the loss of life or property (sec. 
294.33(c)(2)).

Locatable Minerals

    Development of locatable minerals is subject to the General Mining 
Law of 1872, as amended. Like the 2001 Roadless Rule the proposed rule 
does not seek to impose any limits on activities related to the 
exploration for or development of locatable minerals. The proposed rule 
at section 294.33(b)(2) allows for roads provided for by statute or 
treaty, which includes roads provided under the General Mining Law of 
1872, as amended. The proposed rule does not affect or seek any 
withdrawal of the mineral estate in CRAs. Therefore, the proposed rule 
will not affect rights of reasonable access to prospect and explore 
lands open to mineral entry and location, or to develop any minerals 
discovered.

Saleable Minerals

    Disposal of saleable minerals (mineral materials) is at the 
discretion of the Forest Service, subject to the provisions of 36 CFR 
228 subpart C. The proposed rule prohibits road construction or 
reconstruction associated with developing new mineral material sites in 
roadless areas, unless this material is necessary to and accessible 
from roads allowed to be constructed under other provisions of the 
rule.

Leasable Minerals--Oil and Gas

    Like the 2001 Roadless Rule the proposed rule does not prohibit oil 
and gas leasing. However, prohibitions on road construction and 
reconstruction provided in the proposed rule (sec. 294.33), would 
affect Federal oil and gas leases, subject to valid and existing 
rights. The proposed rule (sec. 294.33 (c)(3)) would require future 
leases within CRAs include stipulations that prohibit road 
construction. Drilling and production may be allowed on leases in 
roadless areas issued after the effective date of the rule, but new 
roads to access sites for drilling and production will not be allowed. 
Oil and gas resources in roadless areas under leases issued after the 
effective date of the final rule may be developed by helicopter access 
or by other means such as directional drilling from outside the 
roadless areas. These provisions bar roading, but would not restrict 
the construction of oil and gas pipelines in CRAs where the 
construction of a pipeline is necessary to transport the product of an 
oil and gas lease on lands within a CRA that are under lease by the 
Secretary of the Interior as of the effective date of the final rule.
    The proposed rule at section 294.33(c)(3) would allow for temporary 
or long-term temporary road construction or reconstruction for access 
on and to Federal oil and gas leases that were issued before the 
effective date of the final rule and that allow road construction. Such 
access will be allowed pursuant to valid existing rights but restricted 
to lessees, operators, and their designated contractors; Forest Service 
and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) personnel and other federal and 
state agencies with jurisdictional authority over mineral development 
activity allowed under the proposed rule; and fire, emergency, or law 
enforcement personnel.
    The proposed rule does not allow the Forest Service to authorize 
the BLM to grant a waiver (permanent removal), exception (case-by-case 
exemption), modification (permanent changes), or otherwise remove 
stipulations prohibiting surface occupancy or road construction or 
reconstruction on existing leases or on any future lease in any CRAs 
where these stipulations occur, It is the intent of the proposed rule 
to maintain all no surface occupancy, controlled surface use and other 
stipulations that restrict road construction and reconstruction on all 
existing leases, including those specifically tied to the 2001 Roadless 
Rule.

Leasable Minerals--Coal

    The proposed rule at section 294.33(c)(4) provides for temporary or 
long-term temporary roads associated with the exploration and mining of 
coal resources in roadless areas in the North Fork coal mining area on 
the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. This area 
is identified on the North Fork coal mining area map within the DEIS 
for the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule. This area would be included in 
the CRAs and will be managed in a way that permits temporary or long-
term temporary roads and other coal related surface activities 
associated with coal exploration and coal mining to occur (sec. 
294.33(c)(4)). Such temporary or long-term temporary roads will be 
closed to the public. The use of these roads will be restricted to coal 
mine and oil and gas operations, the Forest Service and other Federal 
and State agencies with jurisdictional authority, including emergency 
response, fire, and law enforcement personnel.
    Temporary and long-term temporary coal mine roads may be 
constructed for exploration drilling, resource monitoring, safety, or 
installation and operation of surface facilities needed to operate coal 
mines, including methane venting wells. In some instances roads are 
necessary to comply with Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) 
requirements for mine safety, and to meet Colorado Division of 
Reclamation, Mining, and Safety requirements for resource monitoring. 
For example, roads may be constructed to facilitate the venting of coal 
mine methane gas. Methane is a by-product of coal mining in the North 
Fork area and must be removed from the mines to protect miner health 
and safety.
    The proposed rule also provides the opportunity for an oil and gas 
lessee to use roads for the purpose of collecting and transporting coal 
mine methane rather than venting the methane into the atmosphere. These 
activities will remain within the authorized right of way for the long-
term temporary roads; no additional roads or pipelines outside the 
right-of-way will be constructed. Any roads constructed pursuant to a 
coal lease or exploration license and used for collection and 
transportation of coal mine methane under an oil and gas lease shall be 
decommissioned and the affected landscape restored when the road is no 
longer needed for coal mining

[[Page 43549]]

purposes or coal mine methane collection, whichever is later.

Leasable Resources--Geothermal Energy

    Colorado has high geothermal energy potential on NFS lands both 
inside and outside roadless areas. However, site-specific information 
on this resource in CRAs is limited. At this time, the proposed 
Colorado Roadless Rule does not include a specific exemption for 
geothermal energy resources. The proposed rule makes no special 
provision for road construction and reconstruction associated with 
geothermal energy sources. Once additional information becomes 
available, the State or other parties could choose to seek a change in 
the rule's restrictions.

Road Closures

    The proposed rule does not provide direction about where and when 
OHV use would be permissible except roads constructed under this 
provision would be closed to OHVs pursuant to section 294.33(d). Travel 
planning-related actions will continue to be addressed through travel 
management and individual forest plans.

Tree Cutting, Sale, or Removal--Forest Health

    In order to reduce the hazard of wildfire near communities and 
after careful consideration of roadless area characteristics, the 
proposed rule at sections 294.34(b)(1)(ii) and 294.33 (c)(1) allows for 
forest health treatments and temporary road construction to meet needs 
described in Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) or, if a CWPP 
is not in place, within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). CWPPs are 
collaborative agreements in which local communities identify and 
prioritize areas for hazardous fuel reduction treatments. The Forest 
Service and the State believe that allowing forest health treatments 
for projects identified in CWPPs or within WUIs strike the proper 
balance of protecting roadless area characteristics while allowing 
forest health and community protection needs to be addressed.

Oil and Gas Pipelines

    After the petition was submitted the State requested that the 
proposed rule (sec. 294.35) restrict the construction of oil and gas 
pipelines through CRAs where a source or sources of the oil and/or gas 
are exclusively outside CRAs. The proposed rule would not prohibit the 
construction of pipelines that were authorized by the Forest Service or 
another jurisdictional agency prior to the effective date of the final 
rule. The proposed rule would not restrict the construction of oil and 
gas pipelines in CRAs where the construction of a pipeline is necessary 
to transport the product of an oil and gas lease on lands within a CRA 
that are under lease by the Secretary of the Interior as of the 
effective date of the final rule.

Access

    The Forest Service and State are committed to conserving roadless 
area characteristics while also providing reasonable access to public 
and private property and facilities. Several aspects of the proposed 
rule address the need for the State and/or private parties to access 
property and/or facilities (sec. 294.33(b)(2) and (6); (sec. 
294.33(c)(3) and (4); sec. 294.36(g)).

Regulatory Certifications

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule was reviewed under USDA procedures, Executive 
Order 12866 issued September 30, 1993 (E.O. 12866), as amended by E.O. 
13258 and E.O. 13422 on Regulatory Planning and Review, and the major 
rule provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and 
Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 800). These executive orders address regulatory 
planning and review and require that agencies conduct a regulatory 
analysis for economically significant regulatory actions. Economically 
significant regulatory actions are those that have an annual effect on 
the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect the economy or 
economic sectors. Because this rule is projected to have an annual 
effect on the economy of approximately $500 million, this proposed rule 
has been designated as significant and is subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review under E.O. 12866. This proposed rule 
is not expected to interfere with an action taken or planned by another 
agency nor raise new legal or policy issues. This action will not alter 
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs.
    A regulatory impact analysis has been prepared for this proposed 
rule. OMB Circulars as well as guidance regarding E.O. 12866 indicate 
that regulatory impact analysis should include benefit cost analysis 
and an assessment of distributional effects. We are seeking comments on 
assumptions, methods, and conclusions in the Regulatory Impact Analysis 
and Cost-Benefit Analysis. The benefits, costs, and distributional 
effects of three alternatives referred to as follows: the proposed 
Colorado Roadless Rule (proposed rule), 2001 Roadless Rule (2001 rule) 
and land management plans (LMPs) are analyzed over a 15 year time 
period. As of the printing of this proposed rule, the 2001 rule is in 
operation. For the purpose of regulatory impact analysis, the 2001 rule 
represents baseline conditions or goods and services provided by NFS 
lands in the near future in the absence of the proposed rule.
    The proposed rule is programmatic in nature and intended to guide 
future development of proposed actions within roadless areas. The 
proposed rule is intended to provide greater management flexibility 
under certain circumstances to address unique and local land management 
challenges, while continuing to conserve roadless values and 
characteristics. Increased management flexibility is primarily needed 
to reduce hazardous fuels and large-scale insect and disease outbreaks, 
allow access to coal reserves in the North Fork coal mining areas and 
ski area development, and to allow access to future utility and water 
conveyances, while continuing to conserve roadless area values and 
characteristics.
    This proposal does not authorize the implementation of any ground-
disturbing activities, but rather it describes circumstances under 
which certain activities may be allowed or restricted within roadless 
areas. Before authorizing land use activities in roadless areas, the 
Forest Service must complete a more detailed and site-specific 
environmental analysis pursuant to the NEPA and its implementing 
regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508.
    Because the proposed rule does not prescribe site-specific 
activities, it is difficult to predict the benefits and costs or other 
changes of the different alternatives. In addition, the types of 
benefits derived from roadless characteristics and the uses of roadless 
areas are far ranging and include a number of non-market and non-use 
benefit categories that are difficult to measure in monetary terms. As 
a consequence, benefits are not monetized, nor are net present values 
or benefit cost ratios estimated. Instead, increases and/or losses in 
benefits are discussed separately for each resource area in a 
quantitative or qualitative manner. Benefits and costs are organized 
and discussed in the context of local land management challenges or 
concerns (`local challenges') and `roadless characteristics' in an 
effort to remain consistent with the overall purpose of the proposed 
rule, recognizing that benefits associated

[[Page 43550]]

with local challenges may trigger or overlap with benefits associated 
with roadless characteristics in some cases (e.g., forest health). 
Access and designations for motorized versus non-motorized recreation 
is a topic raised in comments during scoping, however, the proposed 
rule does not provide direction on where and when off-highway vehicle 
(OHV) use would be permissible and makes clear that travel planning-
related actions should be addressed through travel management planning 
and individual land management plans.
    Distributional effects or economic impacts, in terms of jobs and 
labor income, are quantified for the oil and gas and the coal sectors 
for an economic area consisting of five Colorado counties (Delta, 
Garfield, Mesa, Montrose, and Rio Blanco) using a regional impact 
model. Fiscal impacts (i.e., mineral lease payments) are estimated for 
counties where changes in mineral activity are expected to be 
physically located (Delta, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa, Montrose, and 
Pitkin). The distributional effects associated with protecting values 
at risk from wildfire are characterized by estimating the number of 
communities-at-risk expecting to benefit from fuel treatments in 
roadless areas. Distributional effects or economic impacts are not 
evaluated for other economic sectors (e.g., timber harvest, recreation) 
due to evidence presented in respective resource sections suggesting 
that the extent or magnitude of changes in output or services are not 
sufficient to cause significant changes in distributional effects.
    Details about the environmental effects of the proposed rule can be 
found in the Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands 
in Colorado Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Effects on 
opportunities for small entities under the proposed rule are discussed 
in the context of Executive Order 13272 regarding proper consideration 
of small entities and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), which amended the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The results of the regulatory impact 
analysis for the proposed rule are summarized in the following tables. 
Table 1 provides information related to roadless area acreage, road 
miles and tree-cutting. Table 2 summarizes the potential benefits and 
costs of the proposed rule, the 2001 roadless rule, and land management 
plans alternatives. Table 3 summarizes distributional effects and 
economic impacts of the proposed rule and alternatives.
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JY08.000


[[Page 43551]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JY08.001


[[Page 43552]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JY08.002


[[Page 43553]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JY08.003


[[Page 43554]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JY08.004


[[Page 43555]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JY08.005


[[Page 43556]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JY08.006


[[Page 43557]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JY08.007

BILLING CODE 3410-11-C?>

[[Page 43558]]

Proper Consideration of Small Entities

    This proposed rule has also been considered in light of Executive 
Order 13272 regarding proper consideration of small entities and the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 
which amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 
The Forest Service with the assistance of the State of Colorado has 
determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the E.O. 13272 
and SBREFA, because the proposed rule does not subject small entities 
to regulatory requirements. Therefore, an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required for this proposed rule.
    For small businesses affiliated with most industry sectors involved 
with activities in roadless areas (e.g., coal, oil and gas), potential 
opportunities increase due to easing of restrictions on road 
construction and tree-cutting in certain circumstanced under the 
proposed rule. As a result, there is little or no potential for 
significant adverse economic impacts to small businesses under the 
proposed rule relative to no-action conditions (i.e., 2001 rule).
    There are about 1,390 recreation special use permits currently 
authorized within NFS lands in Colorado of which a large majority are 
small businesses, and 1,066 (77%) are associated with outfitter and 
guide permits, some of which are likely to operate within roadless 
areas. However, there is little difference between alternatives with 
respect to recreation special use authorizations in roadless areas, 
because limitations on roading and tree-cutting under any alternative 
would not be likely to affect ability to obtain or use a recreation use 
authorizations. Exceptions might be special-use permit holders who rely 
on primitive or semi-primitive recreational settings to maintain the 
quality of the outdoor or remote experience. Increases in road 
construction and tree-cutting may have adverse impacts on permit 
holders in specific areas under the proposed rule, but impacts are not 
expected to be significant due to the small percentage (0.2%) of 
acreage affected (7,600 acres of tree-cutting per year) and roads 
constructed (21 miles per year) spread across 4 million acres of 
Colorado Roadless Areas. It is also noted that a significant percentage 
of roads and tree-cutting activity will occur within or near the 
wildland urban interface areas where primitive or semi-primitive 
settings may already be affected.
    Projected harvest volumes from roadless areas from the seven 
affected National Forest units are all greater under the proposed rule 
and land management plans relative to the no-action alternative (2001 
rule). As such there is little or no potential for adverse impacts to 
small entity opportunities, relative to no-action, in aggregate or in 
the context of individual forest unit areas. Volumes are projected to 
be 17,700 hundred cubic feet (ccf) less under the proposed rule, 
relative to the land management plans, and approximately 70% of the 
decrease is due to volume changes on the Pike San Isabel National 
Forest (decrease of 12,720 ccf). All seven National Forest units have 
been in compliance with small business set aside shares for the period 
1/1/2000 to 9/30/2005. The proposed rule, relative to the land 
management plans alternative, may decrease small entity opportunities 
for wood products businesses associated with the Pike San Isabel 
National Forest, recognizing that small business shares are already 
being met and that aggregate volumes sold from NFS lands may not change 
significantly under any alternative due to flat budget assumptions. 
Flat budgets imply that the percentage of harvest from roadless areas 
may change under the alternatives, but aggregate volumes across all NFS 
land are expected to remain relatively unchanged, on average, implying 
little potential for adverse impacts to small entities.
    For leasable minerals associated energy resources (coal, oil and 
gas), significant changes in output are projected across alternatives. 
More than 95 percent of the firms associated with these sectors can be 
classified as small as defined by Small Business Administration 
standards. Any changes in oil and gas, or coal development or 
production can therefore have an effect on small business opportunities 
in these sectors. A five-county region has been defined to model the 
economic impacts associated with energy resources (Delta, Garfield, 
Mesa, Montrose, and Rio Blanco counties). A total of 355 firms 
associated with oil and gas, and coal development and extraction are 
estimated to be located within this region, of which 95% are likely to 
be small (337 firms). However, energy resource sector jobs, supported 
annually by projected activity within roadless areas, are estimated to 
increase from 297 under no-action (2001 rule) to 1,481 jobs under the 
proposed rule. Labor income increases by a similar degree from $17.5 
million to $96.2 million per year. There is a slight increase in job 
numbers under land management plans (1,592 jobs), relative to the 
proposed rule, but the magnitude of the difference between the two 
alternatives does not suggest that adverse impacts will be significant 
if choosing between the proposed rule and land management plans. These 
results indicate that there is no potential for adverse impacts to 
small entities associated with energy resource development and 
extraction under the proposed rule relative to the 2001 rule, and that 
potential adverse impact under the proposed rule relative to land 
management plans are not significant.
    For all other economic sectors considered, changes in resource 
outputs are not projected to be significant to the extent that adverse 
impacts to small entities could occur in aggregate or within regions.
    Among 64 counties in the state of Colorado, 36 counties (56%) are 
considered to be small governments (population less than 50,000). These 
36 counties are considered to be small rural counties having NFS lands 
within IRAs/CRAs. Six counties are energy (coal, oil and gas) producing 
counties. These six counties (Delta, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa, 
Montrose, and Pitkin) are expected to be the counties most likely to 
benefit from mineral lease payments and revenue sharing under the 
proposed rule and land management plans. All of these counties, with 
the exception of Mesa can be considered small governments (population 
less than 50,000), and all are forecast to receive significant 
increases in property tax receipts from coal, and oil and gas 
production, as well as state distributions of severance taxes and 
federal royalties under the proposed rule and land management plans 
relative to the no-action alternative. There are slight increases in 
payments under land management plans, relative to the proposed rule 
(aggregate payments increase from $6.8 million to $7.7 million per 
year). Payments associated with the Secure Rural Schools and Self 
Determination Act (SRSA) and Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) are not 
expected to change significantly, or any decreases would be largely 
offset by increases in federal mineral lease payments.
    The number of at-risk-communities that may potentially benefit from 
fuel treatments in the wildland urban interface (WUI) areas are 
projected to increase under the proposed rule and land management plans 
relative to the 2001 rule (no-action alternative). The likelihood of 
tree-cutting or fuel treatments and corresponding reduction in wildfire 
hazard is projected to increase for a total of 90 at-risk-communities 
in 16 counties with small populations (<50,000) under the

[[Page 43559]]

proposed rule, relative to no-action. Similarly, the likelihood of 
reduced wildfire hazard is projected to increase for 150 at-risk-
communities in 18 small counties under land management plans, compared 
to no-action. No counties are projected to experience a decrease in the 
likelihood of road construction or tree-cutting in the WUI under the 
proposed rule or land management plans, compared to the no action 
alternative. A total of 10 counties may experience a decrease in the 
likelihood of tree-cutting or road construction in the WUI under the 
proposed rule, relative to land management plans. These results 
indicate that adverse impacts to small governments, in association with 
protection of values at risk from wildfire, are not likely, when 
comparing the action alternatives with no-action.
    Therefore, for small governments, including counties with small 
populations and at-risk-communities from wildfire within those 
counties, opportunities for revenue sharing, as well as protection of 
values-at-risk are expected to be maintained or increase for all 
counties under the proposed rule and land management plans compared to 
no-action conditions under the 2001 rule.
    Mitigation measures for small entity impacts associated with the 
proposed rule are not relevant in many cases, because the proposed rule 
eases restrictions on a number of activities in many areas, implying 
increases in potential opportunities for small entities, as noted 
above. Mitigation measures associated with existing programs and laws 
regarding revenue sharing with counties and small business shares or 
set-asides will continue to apply.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    This proposed rule does not call for any additional record keeping 
or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements 
as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or 
not already approved for use and, therefore, imposes no additional 
paperwork burden on the public. Accordingly, the review provisions of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.) and its 
implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.

Regulatory Risk Assessment

    This is a proposed major regulation as defined in 7 U.S.C. Section 
2204e and a regulatory risk assessment is being prepared. The 
regulatory risk assessment will be made available during the comment 
period. A Notice of Availability of the risk assessment will be 
published in the Federal Register and it will be available at the 
Forest Service Internet roadless Web site (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.roadless.fs.fed.us).

Federalism

    The Department has considered this proposed rule under the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 issued August 4, 1999 (E.O. 
13132), Federalism. The Department has made an assessment that the 
proposed rule conforms with the Federalism principles set out in E.O. 
13132; would not impose any compliance costs on the states; and would 
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship 
between the national government and the states, nor on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
Therefore, the Department concludes that this proposed rule does not 
have Federalism implications. This proposed rule is based on a petition 
submitted by the State of Colorado under the Administrative Procedure 
Act at 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and pursuant to Department of Agriculture 
regulations at 7 CFR 1.28. The State's petition was developed through a 
task force with involvement of local governments. The State has been a 
cooperating agency for the development of this proposed rule. State and 
local governments are encouraged to comment on this proposed rule, in 
the course of this rulemaking process.

Consultation With Indian Tribal Governments

    The United States has a unique relationship with Indian Tribes as 
provided in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, and 
federal statutes. These relationships extend to the Federal 
government's management of public lands and the Forest Service strives 
to assure that its consultation with Native American Tribes is 
meaningful, in good faith, and entered into on a government-to-
government basis.
    On September 23, 2004, President George W. Bush issued Executive 
Memorandum Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribal 
Governments recommitting the Federal government to work with federally 
recognized Native American Tribal governments on a government-to-
government basis and strongly supporting and respecting Tribal 
sovereignty and self-determination.
    Management of roadless areas has been a topic of interest and 
importance to Tribal governments. During promulgation of the 2001 
Roadless Rule, Forest Service line officers in the field were asked to 
make contact with Tribes to ensure awareness of the initiative and of 
the rulemaking process. Outreach to Tribes was conducted at the 
national forest and grassland level, which is how Forest Service 
government-to-government dialog with Tribes is typically conducted. 
Tribal representatives remained engaged concerning these issues during 
the subsequent litigation and rulemaking efforts.
    The State's petition identifies that a vital part of its public 
process in developing its petition were the recommendations and 
comments received from Native American Tribes. The Governor's office 
was keenly aware of the spiritual and cultural significance some of 
these areas hold for the Tribes.
    There are two resident tribes in Colorado, both retaining some of 
their traditional land base as reservations via a series of treaties, 
agreements, and laws. The Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute Tribes 
(consisting originally of the Weeminuche, Capote, Tabeguache, and 
Mouaches Bands)--each a ``domestic sovereign'' nation--have reserved 
some specific off-reservation hunting rights in Colorado and retain 
inherent aboriginal rights throughout their traditional territory. Many 
other tribes located outside Colorado maintain tribal interests, 
including aboriginal and ceded territories, and retain inherent 
aboriginal rights within the state.
    The Forest Service has been consulting with Colorado-affiliated 
tribes regarding this proposed rulemaking action and analysis process 
(see chapter 1). Tribal concerns surfaced during phone or e-mail 
consultations. Those concerns related to: maintaining existing tribal 
hunting and access rights within roadless areas, limiting public use of 
temporary roads, and decommissioning temporary roads after they are no 
longer needed. Those land uses and management activities would not be 
affected by the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule; therefore, those 
concerns are briefly discussed but not analyzed in detail in this EIS. 
Consultation with interested or affected tribes will continue 
throughout the analysis and decisionmaking process.
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, 
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,'' the 
Department has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian 
Tribal governments and has determined that the proposed rule does not 
significantly or uniquely affect Indian Tribal government communities.

[[Page 43560]]

The proposed rule would establish direction governing the management 
and protection of Colorado Roadless Areas, however, the proposed rule 
respects prior existing rights, and it addresses discretionary Forest 
Service management decisions involving road construction, timber 
harvest, and some mineral activities. The Department has also 
determined that this proposed rule does not impose substantial direct 
compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments. This proposed rule does 
not mandate Tribal participation in roadless management of the planning 
of activities in Colorado Roadless Areas. Rather, the Forest Service 
officials are obligated by other agency policies to consult early with 
Tribal governments and to work cooperatively with them where planning 
issues affect Tribal interests.

No Takings Implications

    This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630 issued March 
15, 1988. It has been determined that the proposed rule does not pose 
the risk of a taking of private property.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. After adoption of this proposed rule, (1) all 
State and local laws and regulations that conflict with this proposed 
rule or that would impede full implementation of this proposed rule 
will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect would be given to this 
proposed rule; and (3) this proposed rule would not require the use of 
administrative proceedings before parties could file suit in court 
challenging its provisions.

Unfunded Mandates

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Department has assessed the effects of this 
proposed rule on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private 
sector. This proposed rule does not compel the expenditure of $100 
million or more by State, local, or Tribal governments or anyone in the 
private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is 
not required.

Energy Effects

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13211 of 
May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that this 
proposed rule does not constitute a significant energy action as 
defined in the executive order.
    Based on guidance for implanting EO 13211 (Actions concerning 
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution and 
use) issued by Office of Management and Budget (Memorandum for Heads of 
Executive Departments and Agencies, and Independent Regulatory Agencies 
(M-01-27), July 13, 2001), this proposed rule would not create 
significant adverse effects in a material way the productivity, 
competition, or prices in the energy sector for the reasons discussed 
below.
    The difference in potential natural gas production between the 
proposed rule and the 2001 Rule (i.e., conditions under the no action 
alternative) is positive, as is the difference between land management 
plans and the no action alternative. The only potential adverse impact 
would be a comparison of potential gas production under the proposed 
rule and the land management plans alternative; the estimated 
difference in potential gas production in this case is only 3.6 million 
mcf and is below the criteria of 25 million mcf under EO 13211. The 
difference in oil production is approximately 350 barrels, well below 
the criteria of 4,000 barrels.
    Potential coal production is estimated to increase by 4 million 
tons under the proposed rule as well as the third alternative 
considered (management of inventoried roadless areas under Land 
management plans) compared to conditions under the no action 
alternative (continuance of 2001 Roadless Rule). No adverse outcomes 
are anticipated in association with energy supply, distribution or use 
related to coal production.
    The proposed rule is expected to result in an increase in potential 
opportunities for gas production, relative to conditions under the no 
action alternative (i.e., the 2001 Roadless Rule). When comparing the 
proposed rule to the third alternative considered (i.e., management of 
inventoried roadless areas in accordance with relevant Land management 
plans), there is slight potential for a decrease in opportunities for 
gas production. However, this decrease (3.6 million mcf) is estimated 
to be only 0.3% of total gas production from Colorado wells in 2006 
(1.21 billion mcf) and is not anticipated to affect regional (or 
national) productivity, competition, or prices.
    No novel legal or policy issues regarding adverse effects to 
supply, distribution or use of energy are anticipated beyond what has 
already been addressed in the draft EIS, or the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (RIA). None of the proposed corridors designated for oil, gas, 
and/or electricity under Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
are within Colorado Roadless Areas.
    The proposed rule does not disturb existing access or mineral 
rights and restrictions on saleable mineral materials are narrow. The 
proposed rule also provides regulatory mechanism for consideration of 
requests for modification of restrictions if adjustments are determined 
to be necessary in the future. Therefore, this action is not a 
significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is 
required.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 294

    National Forests, Recreation areas, Navigation (air), State 
petitions for inventoried roadless area management.

    Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Forest 
Service proposes to amend part 294 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations by adding new subpart D to read as follows:

PART 294--SPECIAL AREAS

* * * * *
Subpart D--Colorado Roadless Areas Management
Sec.
294.30 Purpose.
294.31 Definitions.
294.32 Colorado Roadless Areas.
294.33 Road construction and reconstruction in Colorado Roadless 
Areas.
294.34 Prohibition on timber cutting, sale, or removal in Colorado 
Roadless Areas.
294.35 Oil and gas pipelines.
294.36 Scope and applicability.
294.37 Administrative corrections.
294.38 List of designated Colorado Roadless Areas.

Subpart D--Colorado Roadless Areas Management

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 472, 529, 551, 1608, 1613; 23 U.S.C. 201, 
205.


Sec.  294.30  Purpose.

    The purpose of this subpart is to provide, within the context of 
multiple-use management, lasting protection for roadless areas within 
the National Forests in Colorado.


Sec.  294.31  Definitions.

    The following terms and definitions apply to this subpart.
    At-Risk Community: As defined under section 101 of the Healthy 
Forest Restoration Act (Pub. L. 108-148).
    Colorado Roadless Area (CRA): Areas identified in a set of roadless 
area maps maintained at the national headquarters office of the Forest 
Service, including

[[Page 43561]]

records regarding any corrections or modifications to such maps 
pursuant to Sec.  294.37.
    Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP): As defined under section 
101 of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (Pub. L. 108-148), the term 
``community wildfire protection plan'' means a plan for an at-risk 
community that:
    (1) Is developed within the context of the collaborative agreements 
and the guidance established by the Wildland Fire Leadership Council 
and agreed to by the applicable local government, local fire 
department, and State agency responsible for forest management, in 
consultation with interested parties and the Federal land management 
agencies managing land in the vicinity of the at-risk community;
    (2) Identifies and prioritizes areas for hazardous fuel reduction 
treatments and recommends the types and methods of treatment on Federal 
and non-Federal land that will protect one or more at-risk communities 
and essential infrastructure; and
    (3) Recommends measures to reduce structural ignitability 
throughout the at-risk community.
    Condition Class 3: As defined under section 101 of the Healthy 
Forests Restoration Act (Pub. L. 108-148) the term ``condition class 
3'' means an area of Federal land, under which:
    (1) Fire regimes on land have been significantly altered from 
historical ranges;
    (2) There exists a high risk of losing key ecosystem components 
from fire;
    (3) Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by 
multiple return intervals, resulting in dramatic changes to:
    (i) The size, frequency, intensity, or severity of fires; or
    (ii) Landscape patterns; and
    (iii) Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from 
the historical range of the attributes.
    Forest transportation atlas: As defined at 36 CFR 212.1, a display 
of the system of roads, trails, and airfields of an administrative 
unit.
    Forest road: As defined at 36 CFR 212.1, a road wholly or partly 
within or adjacent to and serving the National Forest System that the 
Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, 
administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the 
use and development of its resources.
    Long-term temporary road: A road necessary for oil and gas, or coal 
operations in CRAs and authorized by contract, permit, lease, or other 
written authorization. A long-term temporary road is not a forest road, 
but is included in a forest transportation atlas, and is expected to be 
in place during the lease period. When no longer needed for the 
established purpose or upon termination or expiration of the contract, 
permit, lease or written authorization, whichever is sooner, the road 
shall be decommissioned and the affected landscape restored.
    National Forest System road: As defined at 36 CFR 212.1, a forest 
road other than a road which has been authorized by a legally 
documented right-of-way held by a State, county, or other local public 
road authority.
    Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV): As defined at 36 CFR 212.1, any motor 
vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or 
immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or 
other natural terrain.
    Responsible official: The Forest Service line officer with the 
authority and responsibility to make decisions regarding protection and 
management of CRAs pursuant to this subpart.
    Road: As defined at 36 CFR 212.1, a motor vehicle route over 50 
inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail.
    Road construction or reconstruction: As defined at 36 CFR 212.1, 
supervising, inspecting, actual building, and incurrence of all costs 
incidental to the construction or reconstruction of a road.
    Road maintenance: As defined in FSM 7705, the ongoing upkeep of a 
road necessary to retain or restore the road to the approved road 
management objective.
    Roadless area characteristics: Resources or features that are often 
present in and characterize CRAs. The enumeration of these resources 
and features does not constitute in any way the establishment of any 
legal standard, requirement, or cause for any administrative appeal or 
legal action related to any project or activity otherwise authorized by 
this rule. These characteristics include:
    (1) High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air;
    (2) Sources of public drinking water;
    (3) Diversity of plant and animal communities;
    (4) Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and 
sensitive species, and for those species dependent on large, 
undisturbed areas of land;
    (5) Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive 
motorized classes of dispersed recreation;
    (6) Reference landscapes;
    (7) Natural-appearing landscapes with high scenic quality;
    (8) Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and
    (9) Other locally identified unique characteristics.
    Temporary road: A road necessary for emergency operations or 
authorized by contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization 
that is not a forest road and that is not included in a forest 
transportation atlas (ref 36 CFR 212.1), and is not necessary for long-
term management. When a temporary road is no longer needed for the 
established purpose or upon termination or expiration of the lease, 
contract, or permit, whichever is sooner, it shall be decommissioned 
and the affected landscape restored.
    Utility and water conveyance structures: Facilities associated with 
the transmission and distribution of utilities and water across 
National Forest System lands. For purposes of this rule, utilities are 
existing and future transmission lines used for electrical power and 
water conveyance structures are existing and future diversion 
structures, headgates, pipelines, ditches, canals, and tunnels (but 
shall not include reservoirs).
    Wildland-Urban Interface: As defined under section 101 of the 
Healthy Forest Restoration Act (Pub. L.108-148), the term ``wildland-
urban interface'' means--
    (1) An area within or adjacent to an at-risk community that is 
identified in recommendations to the Secretary in a community wildfire 
protection plan; or
    (2) In the case of any area for which a community wildfire 
protection plan is not in effect:
    (i) An area extending \1/2\-mile from the boundary of an at-risk 
community;
    (ii) An area within 1\1/2\-miles of the boundary of an at-risk 
community, including any land that:
    (A) Has a sustained steep slope that creates the potential for 
wildfire behavior endangering the at-risk community;
    (B) Has a geographic feature that aids in creating an effective 
fire break, such as a road or ridge top; or
    (C) Is in condition class 3, as documented by the Secretary in the 
project-specific environmental analysis; and
    (iii) An area that is adjacent to an evacuation route for an at-
risk community that the Secretary determines, in cooperation with the 
at-risk community, requires hazardous fuel reduction to provide safer 
evacuation from the at-risk community.


Sec.  294.32  Colorado Roadless Areas.

    (a) Designations. All National Forest System lands within the State 
of

[[Page 43562]]

Colorado identified in Sec.  294.38 are hereby designated as Colorado 
Roadless Areas (CRAs).
    (b) Maps. The Chief of the Forest Service shall maintain and make 
available to the public a map of each CRA, including records regarding 
any corrections or modifications to such maps pursuant to Sec.  294.37.


Sec.  294.33  Road construction and reconstruction in Colorado Roadless 
Areas.

    (a) General. A road may not be constructed or reconstructed in a 
CRA except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
    (b) Roads. Notwithstanding the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this 
section, a road may be constructed or reconstructed in a CRA if the 
responsible official determines that one of the following circumstances 
exists:
    (1) A road is needed to conduct a response action under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
(CERCLA), Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, or the Oil Pollution Act;
    (2) A road is needed pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights, 
authorizations, or as provided for by statute or treaty;
    (3) Road realignment is needed to prevent irreparable resource 
damage that arises from the design, location, use, or deterioration of 
a forest road and that cannot be mitigated by road maintenance;
    (4) Road reconstruction is needed to implement a road safety 
improvement project on a forest road determined to be hazardous on the 
basis of accident experience or accident potential on that road;
    (5) The Secretary of Agriculture determines that a Federal Aid 
Highway project, authorized pursuant to Title 23 of the United States 
Code, is in the public interest or is consistent with the purposes for 
which the land was reserved or acquired and no other reasonable and 
prudent alternative exists;
    (6) Consistent with applicable land management plan, a road is 
needed to allow for construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of 
existing or future authorized utility and water conveyance structures 
as defined by this rule in section Sec.  294.31.
    (7) Consistent with applicable land management plan and allotment 
management plans, a road is needed for the management of livestock 
grazing.
    (c) Temporary Road (including Long-Term Temporary Road).
    (1) Notwithstanding the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this 
section, a temporary road may be constructed or reconstructed in a CRA 
as set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 4.
    (2) For all temporary roads authorized under this rule, the 
responsible official may only consider construction of a temporary road 
after reviewing and rejecting other access options, resource and 
community protection needs, and consistency with applicable forest 
plans. If it is determined that a temporary road is needed, 
construction must be conducted in a manner that minimizes effects on 
surface resources, prevents unnecessary or unreasonable surface 
disturbances, and complies with all applicable land management plan 
directions, regulations, and laws. When a temporary road is no longer 
needed (for the established purpose) or upon termination or expiration 
of a contract, authorization, or permit, whichever is sooner, all 
temporary roads shall be decommissioned and the affected landscape 
restored. Restoration shall be designed considering safety, costs, and 
impacts on land and resources (16 U.S.C. 1608) to achieve complete 
stabilization and restoration to a condition generally consistent with 
the pre-existing roadless characteristics. Except as allowed under this 
rule in Sec.  294.33(b), a temporary road shall not change designation 
to a forest road, nor will the construction of a temporary road, 
including long-term temporary road alter the management status of any 
designated CRA. A temporary road constructed for oil and gas, or coal 
related activities may include as part of its established purpose, the 
potential need to be used as a long-term temporary road.
    (3) A temporary road is needed for treatment actions and in areas 
identified in a community wildfire protection plan or, if a community 
wildfire protection plan is not present, within areas of the wildland-
urban interface; or
    (4) A temporary road is needed for public health and safety in 
cases of threat of flood, fire, or other potential catastrophic event 
that, without intervention, would cause the loss of life or property; 
or
    (5) A temporary or long-term temporary road is needed in 
conjunction with an oil and gas lease, including the construction of 
infrastructure necessary to transport the product, on lands that are 
under lease by the Secretary of the Interior as of the effective date 
of this rule. The Forest Service shall not agree to waive, except, 
modify or otherwise remove any oil and gas lease stipulation that 
prohibits or restricts road building or otherwise prohibits surface 
occupancy within CRAs; or
    (6) A temporary or long-term temporary road is needed for coal 
exploration and coal-related surface activities for certain lands 
within CRAs in the North Fork coal mining area of the Grand Mesa, 
Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests as defined by the North Fork 
coal mining area map within the Colorado Roadless Area Conservation 
Rule environmental impact statement. Such roads may also be used for 
the purpose of collecting and transporting coal mine methane. All 
infrastructure needed for the capture of methane will be located within 
the road right-of-way of coal-related temporary and/or long-term 
temporary roads or within areas of surface disturbance for methane 
venting wells otherwise needed for coal mining purposes. No additional 
roads shall be constructed to facilitate capture of coal mine methane. 
When a road is no longer needed for coal mining purposes or coal mine 
methane capture, the road shall be decommissioned and the affected 
landscape restored.
    (d) Road Closures. All roads constructed pursuant to paragraphs (b) 
and (c) shall be closed to motorized vehicles (including OHVs) unless 
specifically used for the purpose for which the road was established; 
except the use of motor vehicles for administrative use by the Forest 
Service; emergency access for fire and law enforcement purposes; motor 
vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written 
authorization issued under Federal law or regulations; or motor vehicle 
use by any fire, emergency, or law enforcement personnel.
    (e) Environmental Documentation. An EIS will be prepared pursuant 
to section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act and 40 CFR 1500 
for any proposed action or alternative that includes constructing a 
forest road within a CRA. A no-road and a temporary road alternative 
shall be considered in the EIS. For projects proposing temporary roads 
within a CRA, an environmental analysis will be documented pursuant to 
the Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508 
and will include a no-road option.
    (f) Road Maintenance. Maintenance of forest roads and NFS roads is 
permissible in CRAs.


Sec.  294.34  Prohibition on tree cutting, sale, or removal in Colorado 
Roadless Areas.

    (a) Trees may not be cut, sold, or removed in CRAs, except as 
provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) Notwithstanding the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this 
section, trees may be cut, sold, or removed in CRAs if the

[[Page 43563]]

responsible official determines that one of the following circumstances 
exists and the activity is consistent with the applicable forest plan.
    (1) The cutting, sale, or removal of trees is needed for one of the 
following purposes:
    (i) For management and improvement of wildlife and plant species 
(including threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species) in 
coordination with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, 
including the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Such activities should be 
designed to maintain or improve roadless characteristics as defined by 
this rule.
    (ii) To reduce the hazard of wildfire effects or large-scale insect 
and disease outbreaks, in areas covered by and as provided in a 
community wildfire protection plan or, if a community wildfire 
protection plan is not present, within areas of the wildland urban 
interface. Consistent with the purposes of this paragraph, the 
responsible official shall implement projects to reduce the wildfire 
hazard to communities after careful consideration to roadless area 
characteristics as defined by this rule.
    (2) The cutting, sale, or removal of trees is incidental to the 
implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited by 
this subpart; or
    (3) The cutting, sale, or removal of trees is needed and 
appropriate for personal or administrative use, as provided for in 36 
CFR 223.
    (c) In authorizing the cutting, selling, or removal of trees within 
a CRA, the responsible official shall consider the need for the 
cutting, sale, or removal of trees along with other resource and 
community protection needs and effects to roadless characteristics.


Sec.  294.35  Oil and Gas Pipelines.

    The construction of permanent or temporary pipelines for the 
purposes of transporting oil or gas through a CRA, from a source or 
sources located exclusively outside of a CRA, shall be prohibited after 
[final rule effective date] of the rule and shall not be excepted, 
allowed, or otherwise authorized.


Sec.  294.36  Scope and applicability.

    (a) This subpart does not revoke, suspend, or modify any permit, 
contract, or other legal instrument authorizing the occupancy and use 
of NFS land issued prior to [final rule effective date].
    (b) This subpart does not revoke, suspend, or modify any project or 
activity decision made prior to [final rule effective date].
    (c) This subpart does not compel the amendment or revision of any 
land management plan.
    (d) The prohibitions and restrictions established in this subpart 
are not subject to reconsideration, revision, or rescission in 
subsequent project decisions or land management plan amendments or 
revisions undertaken pursuant to 36 CFR part 219. Nothing in this rule 
shall be construed as limiting the authority of a responsible official 
to establish additional restrictions regarding any management 
activities, including matters covered by this rule, within CRAs through 
a land management plan amendment or revision undertaken pursuant to 36 
CFR Part 219.
    (e) When the Forest Service is the lead agency, the Forest Service 
will offer cooperating agency status to the State of Colorado, pursuant 
to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508 
for all proposed projects and planning activities to be implemented on 
lands within CRAs, and those ski area acres identified in Table 50 of 
the Rulemaking for Colorado Roadless Areas final EIS. Where the Forest 
Service does not have the authority to offer cooperating agency status, 
the Forest Service shall coordinate with the State.
    (f) Nothing in this rule shall be construed as expressly or 
implicitly affecting the current or future management of existing 
trails or existing roads in CRAs. Decisions concerning the future 
management and/or status of existing roads or trails within CRAs under 
this rule shall be made during the applicable forest travel management 
processes.
    (g) Nothing in this rule shall be construed as limiting the 
authority of the Forest Service to issue grazing permits on lands 
within a CRA. An area's classification as a CRA shall not, by itself, 
be reason to not authorize grazing.
    (h) If any provision this subpart or its application to any person 
or to certain circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the 
regulations in this subpart and their application remain in force.
    (i) After [final rule effective date] the rule promulgated on 
January 12, 2001, (66 F.R. 3244) shall have no effect within the State 
of Colorado.


Sec.  294.37  Administrative corrections.

    Correction or modification of designations made pursuant to this 
rule may occur under the following circumstances, after coordination 
with the State:
    (a) Administrative Corrections. Administrative corrections to the 
maps of lands identified in Sec.  294.32(b) include, but are not 
limited to, adjustments that remedy clerical, typographical, mapping 
errors, or improvements in mapping technology. The Chief of the Forest 
Service may issue administrative corrections after 30 days public 
notice and opportunity to comment.
    (b) Modifications. The Chief may add to, remove from, or modify the 
designations listed in Sec.  294.38 based on changed circumstances or 
public need. The Chief shall provide at least 60 days public notice and 
opportunity to comment for all modifications.


Sec.  294.38  List of Designated Colorado Roadless Areas.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................  Bard Creek
2..............................  Byers Peak
3..............................  Cache La Poudre Adjacent Area
4..............................  Cherokee Park
5..............................  Comanche Peak Adjacent Areas
6..............................  Copper Mountain
7..............................  Crosier Mountain
8..............................  Gold Run
9..............................  Green Ridge--East
10.............................  Green Ridge--West
11.............................  Grey Rock
12.............................  Hell Canyon
13.............................  Indian Peaks Adjacent Areas
14.............................  James Peak
15.............................  Kelly Creek
16.............................  Lion Gulch
17.............................  Mount Evans Adjacent Areas
18.............................  Mount Sniktau
19.............................  Neota Adjacent Area
20.............................  Never Summer Adjacent Area
21.............................  North Lone Pine
22.............................  North St. Vrain
23.............................  Rawah Adjacent Area
24.............................  Square Top Mountain
25.............................  Troublesome
26.............................  Vasquez Adjacent Area
27.............................  White Pine Mountain
28.............................  Williams Fork
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison National Forest
------------------------------------------------------------------------
29.............................  Agate Creek
30.............................  American Flag Mountain
31.............................  Baldy
32.............................  Battlements
33.............................  Beaver
34.............................  Beckwiths
35.............................  Calamity Basin
36.............................  Cannibal Plateau
37.............................  Canyon Ck/Antero
38.............................  Carson
39.............................  Castle
40.............................  Cataract
41.............................  Cimarron Ridge
42.............................  Clear Fork
43.............................  Cochetopa Creek
44.............................  Cochetopa Hills
45.............................  Cottonwoods
46.............................  Crystal Peak

[[Page 43564]]


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

[[Page 43565]]


249............................  San Miguel
250............................  South San Juan Adjacent
251............................  Storm Peak
252............................  Treasure Mountain
253............................  Turkey Creek
254............................  Weminuche Adjacent
255............................  West Needles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       White River National Forest
------------------------------------------------------------------------
256............................  Adam Mountain
257............................  Ashcroft
258............................  Assignation Ridge
259............................  Baldy Mountain
260............................  Basalt Mountain A
261............................  Basalt Mountain B
262............................  Berry Creek
263............................  Big Ridge to South Fork A
264............................  Big Ridge to South Fork B
265............................  Black Lake East
266............................  Black Lake West
267............................  Blair Mountain
268............................  Boulder
269............................  Budges
270............................  Buffer Mountain
271............................  Burnt Mountain
272............................  Chicago Ridge
273............................  Corral Creek
274............................  Crystal River
275............................  Deep Creek
276............................  Dome Peak
277............................  East Divide/Four Mile Park
278............................  East Vail
279............................  East Willow
280............................  Elk Creek B
281............................  Elliot Ridge
282............................  Fawn Creek/Little Lost Park
283............................  Freeman Creek
284............................  Gallo Hill
285............................  Game Creek
286............................  Grizzly Creek
287............................  Gypsum Creek
288............................  Hardscrabble
289............................  Hay Park
290............................  Holy Cross City
291............................  Homestake
292............................  Hoosier Ridge
293............................  Housetop Mountain
294............................  Hunter
295............................  Little Grand Mesa
296............................  Lower Piney
297............................  Mamm Peak
298............................  Maroon East
299............................  Maryland Creek
300............................  McClure Pass
301............................  McFarlane
302............................  Meadow Mountain A
303............................  Meadow Mountain B
304............................  Morapos A
305............................  Morapos B
306............................  Mormon Creek
307............................  No Name
308............................  North Elk
309............................  North Independent A
310............................  North Independent B
311............................  North Woody
312............................  Pagoda Peak
313............................  Piney Lake
314............................  Porcupine Peak
315............................  Ptarmigan A
316............................  Ptarmigan B
317............................  Ptarmigan C
318............................  Ptarmigan Hill A
319............................  Ptarmigan Hill B
320............................  Red Dirt A
321............................  Red Dirt B
322............................  Red Mountain
323............................  Red Table
324............................  Reno Mountain
325............................  Ripple Creek Pass/Trappers Lake
326............................  Ryan Gulch
327............................  Salt Creek
328............................  Sloan Peak
329............................  Spraddle Creek A
330............................  Spraddle Creek B
331............................  Sweetwater A
332............................  Sweetwater B
333............................  Tenderfoot Mountain
334............................  Tenmile
335............................  Thompson Creek
336............................  Tigiwon
337............................  Treasure Mountain
338............................  West Brush Creek
339............................  West Lake Creek
340............................  Wildcat Mountain
341............................  Wildcat Mountain B
342............................  Wildcat Mountain C
343............................  Williams Fork
344............................  Willow
345............................  Woods Lake
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: July 21, 2008.
Abigail R. Kimbell,
Chief, U.S. Forest Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-17109 Filed 7-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P