[Denveraudubon] RITTER ASKS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR ROADLESS 'INSURANCE POLICY'

[droush at denveraudubon.org]

This news release and the letter that follows will be going out to
reporters this afternoon. The governor wanted you to have a copy.





NEWS RELEASE





OFFICE OF GOV. BILL RITTER, JR.





FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2007





Contact:


Evan Dreyer, 720.350.8370




GOV. RITTER ASKS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR

'INSURANCE POLICY' FOR COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS



Gov. Bill Ritter today formally asked the federal government for an
"insurance policy" to protect Colorado's 4.1 million acres of forested
roadless areas from development.



In a four-page letter sent to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
U.S. Forest Service, Ritter asked for several modifications to the
petition former Gov. Bill Owens submitted to the federal government in
November 2006.



Gov. Ritter praised the exhaustive work of the Colorado Roadless Area
Review Task Force, whose recommendations formed the basis of the Owens'
petition. "I am supporting the vast majority of its recommendations,"
Gov. Ritter wrote. "However, there are a limited number of matters that
require some modification."



Ritter said he supports the protections provided by the federal
government's original 2001 roadless rule. A recent court ruling in
California (Lockyer v. U.S. Department of Agriculture) reinstates the
2001 rule and its roadless protections. Ritter said he is concerned that
future court decisions could eliminate the 2001 protections. Earlier this
week, an appeal was filed in the Lockyer case.



"I am therefore requesting a state-specific rule-making process to serve
as Colorado's insurance policy for protection of our roadless areas in the
event the 2001 rule and Lockyer decision are struck down."



Specifically, Gov. Ritter requested:



*       Interim protection for Colorado's roadless areas while the
federal review process is underway. That process could last 18 months or
longer.



*       Cooperating agency status for the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and Division of Wildlife (DOW) on any proposed activity
within the roadless areas.



*       Returning the North Fork coal areas in the Grand Mesa,
Uncompahgre and Gunnison national forests to the roadless-area inventory.
However, limited exceptions could be made that allow temporary roads and
other activities associated with coal exploration and development.



*       That the state DNR and DOW participate in wildlife and habitat
reviews associated with potential expansion of recreational ski areas
within roadless areas.



"The 2006 petition, as modified by this letter, recognizes Colorado's
commitment to protecting our invaluable wild places and at the same time
allowing for limited activity where unique circumstances exist," Ritter
wrote. "This issue is extremely important to Colorado's hunters, anglers
and citizens in general.  With the modifications set forth in this letter,
I look forward to working with you to promulgate a Colorado Rule which
will protect Colorado's roadless areas."



The complete letter is below.

# # #





April 11, 2007



The Honorable Mark E. Rey

Office of the Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Whitten Building, Room 217E

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20250



Re: Colorado Inventoried Roadless Areas 2007 Petition



Dear Mr. Rey:



Colorado's roadless areas are a treasure enjoyed by the citizens of this
state and the visitors who come here to recreate and enjoy the natural
beauty of our National Forests.  Roadless areas provide critical wildlife
habitat, clean drinking water, recreation and unmatched
scenery.   As national lands, these areas belong to all Americans and
are a resource that we must protect and pass on to future generations.
Therefore, I support the national effort to ensure that these last wild
forests are protected in Colorado, as well as across the country.



Although I support the protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Rule
("2001 Rule") which currently protects these special lands in Colorado, I
am concerned that potential future court rulings could place the 2001 Rule
in jeopardy and leave Colorado's roadless areas unprotected.  While the
LaPorte decision (Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 459 F.
Supp 2d 874 (N. D. Cal. 2006)) is currently the law of the land, that
decision has been appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals thus
leaving the longer term status of roadless areas in some doubt.  I am
therefore requesting a state-specific rule-making process to serve as
Colorado's insurance policy for protection of our roadless areas, in the
event the 2001 Rule and the Lockyer decision are struck down.



I have thoroughly reviewed the record and recommendations submitted by the
Colorado Roadless Areas Review Task Force ("Task Force"), a bipartisan
group which put an extraordinary effort into the review of the roadless
areas of the state.  The Task Force recommendations formed the basis for
the initial Colorado Roadless Petition ("2006 Petition") submitted on
November 13, 2006 to the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA").
 The Task Force's insight and thoughtful evaluation of roadless area
management in Colorado has resulted in a recommendation that reflects the
desire of Colorado's residents to protect our roadless areas.  Therefore,
I am supporting the vast majority of its recommendations.  However, there
are a limited number of matters that require some modification.  The
modifications I am suggesting are, in part, based on detailed analysis
provided by the Colorado Division of Wildlife ("DOW").  I appreciate the
DOW input and expect that its analysis will form the foundation for
further involvement by DNR and the DOW as we move forward with the
rule-making process consistent with this petition.



With the incorporation of the modifications set forth below, I am prepared
to move forward and formally present Colorado's request for rule-making
("2007 Petition") to the Roadless Areas Conservation National Advisory
Committee ("RACNAC") and to the USDA for consideration and adoption. 
However, Colorado's submittal of the 2007 Petition and participation in
this process are contingent upon the following agreement prior to
receiving Colorado's commitment to participate in the next phase of
rule-making.



First, interim protection of the identified roadless areas in the 2007
Petition during rule making is of paramount importance.  No action should
occur during the rule-making process which would undermine the status quo
as the 2007 Petition is considered.  We recognize that Colorado's
Inventoried Roadless Areas ("IRAs") are currently protected by the LaPorte
decision but in the event that any judicial decision alters the current
protection, Colorado must have a commitment in place that will ensure that
lands covered by the 2007 Petition will not be adversely impacted during
the timeframe necessary to complete the rule-making process.  Therefore, I
am requesting that Colorado receive a written commitment from the
Secretary of Agriculture or his designee, prior to Colorado's presentation
to the RACNAC, that the lands within the 2007 Petition will be protected
during the USDA/FS rule-making process.  Because the rule-making is
expected to take eighteen months or more to complete, interim protection
will assure that no activity inconsistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule will
be authorized during the time necessary to promulgate the Colorado Rule.



Second, Colorado is concerned that the 2007 Petition could be modified
during the rule-making process.  While I understand that you cannot
guarantee any particular outcome during rule-making, Colorado reserves the
right to withdraw its 2007 Petition, or to withhold its signature from the
Record of Decision if the rule-making outcome is unacceptable to the
state.  We would appreciate your written acknowledgement of Colorado's
right to terminate the process if the 2007 Petition is changed in a way
the state finds unsatisfactory before we can proceed with the RACNAC
review.



Additional modifications to the 2006 Petition



North Fork coal mining areas



The 2006 Petition identified portions of seven specific IRAs in the Grand
Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests and removed these areas
from the Roadless Inventory during the period of coal exploration and
development.  My preference in the 2007 Petition is to leave these areas
in the Roadless Inventory but to make clear in the Colorado Rule that such
areas may be managed in a way that permit roads and other activities
associated with coal exploration and development.  Any other non-coal
related activities resulting in the use or development of new roads would
not be allowed.  Restrictions identical to those referenced in the 2006
Petition (see (A)(b) and (B) regarding restrictions on motorized access)
would be retained.  Once coal mining is complete, all roads would be
reclaimed and all activities within the area would be consistent with
Roadless designation.



The DOW evaluation confirmed that coal mining activity in these areas
could have negative short-term effects if the construction of roads to
facilitate coal activities is not closely monitored.  The DOW believes it
can mitigate these potential short-term negative effects by participating
in review and evaluation of the proposed activities.
Therefore, I request that the Colorado Department of Natural Resources
("DNR") and DOW will be provided cooperating agency status with the Forest
Service to evaluate all future environmental analysis documents
accompanying plans and any permitting activity relating to coal
exploration and development in these areas.



Ski areas



The 2006 Petition removed approximately 10,000 acres from the Roadless
Inventory to facilitate limited expansion of ski areas within current
special use permit areas and in areas allocated for such use by forest
plans currently under revision.  The 10,000 acres are split between as
many as twelve existing ski areas around Colorado.  Because of the
relatively small acreage involved, and the fact that these areas are
already within existing special use permits or identified for such use
under forest management plans currently under revision, I am willing to
adopt the 2006 Petition recommendations relating to ski areas with one
proviso: Any proposed activity within these areas must be evaluated
consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, including full
participation by the State - including DNR and DOW - as cooperating
agencies.  Many of these areas provide important wildlife habitat, as
identified by DOW.  For the same reasons set forth in the North Fork coal
mining section of the 2006 Petition, the DOW has recommended that it is
critical that site-specific wildlife evaluation occur prior to any
approvals or activities to ensure that the impacts to the environment
resulting from any proposed activities within these areas are minimized.
DNR and DOW participation as cooperating agencies will provide this
assurance.



State Land Board Minerals

The Colorado Constitution requires the State Land Board ("SLB") to seek a
reasonable investment return on land within its portfolio.  To fulfill
this mandate, the SLB sought authority to lease their mineral interests
underlying United States Forest Service ("USFS") surface interests within
IRAs in the 2006 Petition.  While we must reserve the right to do this,
the Colorado Rule should emphasize that the land exchange delineated in
the last paragraph of the SLB Minerals portion of the 2006 Petition is the
more appropriate resolution of this issue.  A "value for value" exchange
would allow for the unification of currently split estates and provide the
USFS with both the mineral and surface interests of all land within the
existing IRAs and the accompanying protection.
The SLB would, conversely, own undivided estates without the development
constraints imposed on IRAs within Colorado.  This solution would allow
the USFS to manage their IRAs in a more consistent manner while allowing
the SLB to fulfill its constitutional mandate.



Adjustments of IRAs



Finally, I would like to re-emphasize the portion of the 2006 Petition
dealing with adjustment of IRA boundaries.  It is imperative that the USFS
undertake an evaluation of boundaries as part of the forest plan revisions
when there is information, brought forward by any interested party,
showing that existing boundaries are inaccurate.  Upon the presentation of
information showing that certain areas are incorrectly either omitted or
included, such areas should be considered for Roadless designation and
protection or exclusion consistent with the Colorado Rule.



I would like to again acknowledge the tremendous effort by the Task Force.
 Its dedication to this important issue resulted in a fundamentally sound
recommendation.  The 2006 Petition, as modified by this letter, recognizes
Colorado's commitment to protecting our invaluable wild places and at the
same time allowing for limited activity where unique circumstances exist. 
The vast majority of comments received during the state process supported
protection of IRAs within Colorado.  This issue is extremely important to
Colorado's hunters, anglers and citizens in general.  It is my intention,
by requesting these modifications, to provide protections consistent with
the expectations of Colorado's citizenry as reflected in the public
sentiment expressed during the Task Force proceedings.  With the
modifications set forth in this letter, I look forward to working with you
to promulgate a Colorado Rule which will protect Colorado's Roadless
Areas.



Sincerely,





Bill Ritter, Jr.

Governor