Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation:
Federal Register: April 15, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 73)
Proposed Rules
Page 21272-21294
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
DOCID:fr15ap11-19
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service 36 CFR Part 294
RIN 0596-AC74
Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the
National Forests in Colorado
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is proposing to establish a State-specific rule to provide management direction for conserving and managing inventoried roadless areas on
National Forest System (NFS) lands in Colorado. A proposed rule was published in the July 25, 2008, Federal Register. In response to public comment on the 2008 Proposed Rule and a revised petition submitted by the State of Colorado on April 6, 2010, the Forest Service is publishing a new proposed rule.
The Agency is inviting public comment on this new proposed rule and accompanying revised draft environmental impact statement (RDEIS). The
Agency is interested in public comments on the changes to exceptions and prohibitions on activities in roadless areas that have been developed in response to public comments on the 2008 Proposed Rule. The
Agency is particularly interested in receiving public comments on the concept, management, and rationale for designation of specific areas within Colorado Roadless Areas identified as ``upper tier.'' In this proposed rule, these areas are provided a higher level of protection than the 2001 Roadless Rule,
DATES: Comments must be received in writing by July 14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent via e-mail to
COComments@fsroadless.org. Comments may also be submitted via the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Written comments concerning this notice should be addressed to: Colorado Roadless Rule/EIS, P.O.
Box 1919, Sacramento, CA 95812.
All comments, including names and addresses, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at http://roadless.fs.fed.us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colorado Roadless Rule Team Leader Ken
Tu at (303) 275-5156. Individuals using telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Page 21273
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
As a leader in natural resource conservation, the Forest Service provides direction for the management and use of the Nation's forests, rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems under its jurisdiction. Similarly, the State of Colorado is committed to sustained natural resource use and conservation of State and Federal land within its borders.
Furthermore, the Forest Service is charged to collaborate cooperatively with States and other interested parties regarding the use and management of the National Forest System (NFS).
Colorado's Roadless Areas are of great importance to the people of
Colorado and the Nation. These magnificent landscapes provide a variety of resources and open space opportunities for all Americans. They provide the setting and backdrop for recreational experiences of all kinds, including non-motorized and/or motorized recreational trail use.
They are sources of clean and safe public drinking water. They contain intact habitat for species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land. The scenic quality of these naturally appearing landscapes is among the highest in the Nation. These areas serve as bulwarks against the spread of non-native invasive plant species and provide reference areas for study and research. The USDA, Forest Service, and State consider these areas an important component of the NFS and are committed to the conservation and protection of Colorado Roadless Areas
(CRAs).
The unique perspectives and knowledge provided by the State and the public was of great assistance throughout the development of this proposed rule. Many of the CRAs form the setting and backdrop for
Colorado communities and have become part of their identity. These areas help provide a high quality of life for local residents. They are also the backdrop for world-class skiing, hunting and fishing, and backcountry experiences for non-residents. Local communities are sensitive to the economic consequences of Federal land management, whether for tourism or other purposes.
The new proposed rule addresses both local and national interests in the management of Colorado Roadless Areas. Recommendations from the
USDA Secretary's Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee
(RACNAC) and public comment on the 2008 Proposed Rule both provided a national perspective. The RACNAC was specifically designed as an advisory committee composed of national interests to provide a national perspective, and it no longer exists. The vast majority of respondents to the 2008 Proposed Rule expressed a desire for a rule that protects roadless area characteristics now and for future generations. However, some respondents suggested alternative, less restrictive roadless regulations. This proposed rule includes prohibitions on tree-cutting, sale, or removal; road construction/reconstruction; and linear construction zones, all with limited exceptions tailored to address specific issues. This proposed rule requires, in many cases, the
Regional Forester to make specific determinations prior to authorizing exceptions.
In this proposed rule, substantially altered acres have been removed from the roadless inventory and new acres with high level of roadless characteristics have been added. In the standard tier, 20,000 acres are in the North Fork coal mining area, where there is an exception for temporary roads for underground coal activities such as methane drainage wells. Existing ski areas (8,300 acres) have been removed from the roadless inventory, although only 1,700 acres would be currently restricted by the 2001 Rule due to the fact that there are existing permits on the other 6,600 ski area acres.
Linear construction zones are prohibited with some exceptions.
There is no prohibition of linear construction zones in the 2001 Rule.
In the proposed rule, there are exceptions for temporary roads for fuels treatment and for ecosystem maintenance and restoration, but these are restricted to locations within one half mile of communities.
Road construction for these purposes is not allowed in the 2001 Rule.
There is an exception for roads for authorized water conveyance structures operated according to a State water court decree in existence at the time of the promulgation of the final rule. There is no exception for roads for water conveyance structures in the 2001
Rule.
In the proposed rule, the tree cutting exceptions for fuel treatment and ecosystem maintenance and restoration are restricted spatially in this proposed rule to a maximum of one and a half miles from communities. The only condition in which tree cutting could occur outside the community protection zone (CPZ) requires a Regional
Forester determination that there is a significant risk from wildfire to a municipal water supply system. The 2001 Rule exception for ecosystem maintenance and restoration allows tree cutting anywhere within roadless areas.
In the proposed rule, an upper tier of protection has been designated with fewer exceptions than the 2001 Rule for road construction and reconstruction and tree cutting. Exceptions are not allowed for road reconstruction and realignment, and temporary roads for public health and safety. The 2001 Rule tree-cutting exceptions for maintenance and restoration of ecosystem characteristics, and for habitat improvement for endangered, threatened or sensitive species are not allowed in the upper tier of the proposed rule.
State of Colorado Petitions
On July 14, 2005, the State of Colorado announced it would submit a petition requesting specific regulatory protections for the inventoried roadless areas within the State. The State's commitment to participate was evidenced by Colorado Senate Bill 05-243, the Roadless Areas Review
Task Force legislation signed into Colorado law on June 8, 2005. The law identified membership and responsibilities of a 13-member bipartisan task force to make recommendations to the Governor regarding inventoried roadless areas in Colorado. The law also identified the
Federal 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule) as the starting point for the task force. The task force held nine public meetings throughout the State, reviewed and considered over 40,000 public comments, and conducted a comprehensive review of Colorado's 4.4 million acres of inventoried roadless areas included in the 2001
Roadless Rule.
Colorado's petition (2006 Petition) was submitted by then-Governor
Owens on November 13, 2006, to the Secretary of Agriculture for consideration under section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act and USDA regulations at 7 CFR 1.28. On April 11, 2007, Governor Ritter resubmitted the 2006 petition with additions (2007 Petition). After reviewing the recommendation from the RACNAC, the Secretary of
Agriculture accepted the 2007 Petition on August 24, 2007, and directed the Forest Service to initiate rulemaking based on the petition. The
State of Colorado was granted cooperating agency status for purposes of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations in a memorandum of
Page 21274
understanding dated January 8, 2008. A notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) was published in the
Federal Register on December 26, 2007 (72 FR 72982). The public comment period ended on February 25, 2008. The Forest Service received about 88,000 responses.
On July 25, 2008, the Forest Service published the 2008 Proposed
Rule to establish State-specific management direction for conserving roadless areas on NFS land in Colorado in the Federal Register (73 FR 43544). A notice of availability for the draft EIS was published in the
Federal Register on August 1, 2008 (73 FR 44991). The availability of the regulatory risk assessment for the 2008 Proposed Rule was published in the Federal Register on September 18, 2008 (73 FR 54125). The comment period for all three documents closed on October 23, 2008.
Information applying to the 2008 Proposed Rule was provided to the
Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute Indian Tribes, located in Colorado, prior to the release of the NOI. An introductory letter, the NOI, background information on the 2008 Proposed Rule, and an offer for additional information or meetings were sent to the Tribes. The 2008
Proposed Rule and DEIS were sent to each Tribe and each was contacted by phone to determine interest in meeting or obtaining information. The
Tribes did not request additional government to government involvement, and no formal comments from any of the Tribes were received. A letter was sent to the Tribes with a draft version of this revised proposed rule and the Forest Service met with those Tribes requesting further consultation. In accordance with Executive Order 13175, consultation efforts will continue throughout the process and preparation of a final
Rule.
As a result of its July, August, and September 2008 notices, the
Forest Service received approximately 106,000 responses of which 105,000 were form letters. Responses included advocacy for a particular outcome or for specific regulatory language, and calls for compliance with laws and regulations. Some responses contained suggestions on further analyses and changes to issues, alternatives, and CRA boundaries.
The RACNAC held public meetings in Washington, DC, and Salt Lake
City, Utah, and submitted recommendations to the Secretary of
Agriculture on December 5, 2008, to be considered in the development of the rule.
Throughout the public involvement process, the USDA, Forest
Service, and State repeatedly heard comments requesting a reduction in the scope of the Colorado State Petition's proposed exceptions for tree-cutting, sale, or removal and road construction and reconstruction. Based on the comments, the State requested the USDA postpone further rulemaking efforts until the State considered revision of its 2007 Petition.
On August 3, 2009, the State of Colorado released a proposed revision of rule language to be used for its formulation of a revised petition to the public. The State received approximately 22,000 comments during the 60-day comment period, the majority of which were form letters. The State considered the public comments and submitted a revised petition to the Secretary on April 6, 2010 (2010 Petition).
Upon receipt of the revised petition and consideration of the public comments submitted on the petition, Secretary of Agriculture
Thomas J. Vilsack instructed the Forest Service to ``analyze the potential of adding substantially to the number of acres receiving a higher level of protection'' (upper tier lands) than the 2001 Roadless
Rule. The 2010 Petition contained 257,000 upper tier acres. Based on the Secretary's direction, acres were added such that there are now 562,200 upper tier acres in this proposed rule. These areas were selected to become upper tier based on their roadless characteristics, and that they were already designated for higher levels of protection in either draft or final forest plans.
The Forest Service analyzed four alternatives for managing roadless areas in this RDEIS. Alternative 1 uses provisions of the 2001 Roadless
Rule and applies them to the 2001 roadless area inventory. Alternative 2 is the proposed rule, applies the rule to inventoried Colorado
Roadless Areas, and includes 562,200 acres in the upper tier.
Alternative 3 uses forest plan direction to manage roadless areas, and alternative 4 uses the proposed rule direction, applies the direction to Colorado Roadless Areas, and includes approximately 2.6 million acres of upper tier. The RDEIS may be found at http:// roadless.fs.fed.us. Following Secretarial instructions, as well as reviewing public comments received to date, and the RACNAC recommendations, the Forest Service in consultation with the State, made additional adjustments and clarifications to this proposed rule.
Roadless Area Inventories in Colorado
Finally, the proposed rule includes an updated inventory of roadless areas. The 2007 State Petition proposed using the inventories used in the 2001 Roadless Rule. In some cases, these were based on inventories from the late 70s. Those inventories used mapping technologies that are now outdated, and also roads had been constructed between the time of the original inventories and their use in the 2001
Roadless Rule. The Forest Service has reviewed and updated the 2001 inventories for the purpose of this rulemaking; making technical corrections, removing private property and making other boundary adjustments, including additions and deletions due to land exchanges.
Newly congressionally-designated areas have also been removed from the
CRA inventory.
During the public comment period on the 2008 Proposed Rule, comments were received on many of the boundaries of individual CRAs.
The Forest Service and Colorado Department of Wildlife field staff worked jointly to identify corrections to the inventories used for the 2008 Proposed Rule. Further information on the boundary changes and a description of the uniqueness of each CRA can be found at http:// roadless.fs.fed.us.
CRA boundaries have been adjusted where they overlap with ski areas that have special use authorizations or land use management plan allocations for ski areas that allow road construction.
Page 21275
Proposed Net Change in Roadless Acres Designations by Forest--Inventoried Roadless Area Acres to Colorado Roadless Area Acres
Corrected IRA acres not
Roadless acres Total roadless 2001 rule
Corrected
included
added to
acres to be
Proposed net total IRA
Colorado IRA
within
Colorado
managed under
change acres
acres \1\
Colorado
roadless areas Colorado rule roadless areas
Region 2 Colorado
Arapaho-Roosevelt......................................
391,000
352,500
10,800
5,400
347,100
(5,400)
GMUG...................................................
1,127,000
1,058,300
280,800
124,200
901,900
(156,500)
Pike San Isabel........................................
688,000
667,300
63,000
170,300
774,600
107,300
Rio Grande.............................................
530,000
529,000
14,300
3,800
518,500
(10,500)
Routt..................................................
442,000
442,300
10,300
1,700
433,700
(8,600)
San Juan...............................................
604,000
543,600
76,600
98,900
565,900
22,300
White River............................................
640,000
639,500
7,500
4,700
636,700
(2,800)
Region 4 Colorado
Manti La Sal...........................................
11,000
11,000
3,800
500
7,700
(3,300)
TOTAL STATE of COLORADO............................
4,433,000
4,243,600
467,100
409,500
4,186,000
(57,600)
Column 1 acres rounded to nearest 1,000 acres; others rounded to nearest 100 acres. Totals may not add due to rounding.
\1\ Net acres after technical corrections to 2001 rule IRA map acres.
Land Management Planning Efforts
The Agency is continuing land management planning efforts at the national level as well on several forests in Colorado concurrent with this rulemaking. The Rocky Mountain Region is presently conducting a revision of the San Juan National Forest land management plan and the revision schedule may be found at http://ocs.fortlewis.edu/forestplan.
A complete schedule of plan revisions is posted at http:// www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/LRMPschedule.pdf. At the national level, the Agency is engaging in a revision of its land management planning regulations. Information is posted at http://www.fs.usda.gov/ planningrule. Some provisions of this proposed rule use terminology and concepts from existing plans and planning regulations (e.g. ``sensitive species''). The use of such terminology is potentially subject to adjustment.
Specific Request for Public Comment
The Agency is particularly interested in receiving public input regarding specific areas within the CRAs that should or should not be included in the upper tier lands including the reason for the inclusion or exclusion (see RDEIS, Appendix B and map packet); and what exceptions to the prohibitions on tree-cutting, sale, or removal, and road construction/reconstruction should apply to upper tier lands. In addition, the Agency is interested in receiving comments on effective means of managing linear facilities, such as electric power lines and telecommunications lines, within roadless areas in context of this proposed rule.
Section by Section Highlights of Changes From the July 2008 Proposed
Rule
This proposed rule replaces the proposed rule published in July 2008. The section numbers of this proposed rule do not correspond with the numbering used in the 2008 Proposed Rule. Minor changes, edits, or corrections are not discussed.
Section 294.40 Purpose
The purpose remains to provide State-specific direction for the protection of roadless areas on NFS land in Colorado that sustains roadless area characteristics now and for future generations.
Section 294.41 Definitions
Several terms have been added for clarification and some terms have been removed where no longer needed.
The term at-risk community as defined in section 101 of the Healthy
Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) has been added.
The term Colorado Roadless Area upper tier acres has been added.
These are specific portions of or entire CRAs identified in the set of
CRA maps. The proposed rule prohibits all tree-cutting, sale, or removal on these acres, except where incidental to the implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited by the rule, or as needed and appropriate for personal or administrative use. The proposed rule would prohibit all road construction or reconstruction on these lands, except where needed pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights or as provided for by statute or treaty. All 562,200 acres analyzed in alternative 2 of the RDEIS are part of the preferred alternative
(proposed rule).
The term Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) is removed and replaced by the term Community Protection Zone (CPZ). A CPZ is defined as either an area one-half mile from the boundary of an at-risk community or an area up to 1[frac12] miles from the boundary of an at-risk community where: the land has a sustained steep slope that creates the potential for wildfire behavior endangering the at-risk community; or has a geographic feature that aids in creating an effective fire break, such as a river or a ridge top; or where the trees are in condition class 3 as defined by the HFRA. The CPZ is measured from the boundary of the at-risk community and not from the boundary of the CRA.
The term hazardous fuels has been added. Hazardous fuels are defined as excessive live or dead wildland fuel accumulations that increase the potential for intense wildland fire and decrease the capability to protect life, property and other resources.
The term roadless area characteristics has been retained, but modified from the definition offered in the 2008 Proposed Rule. The 2008 definition indicated that the enumeration of the various resources and features was not intended to constitute in any way the establishment of any legal standard, requirement, or cause for any administrative appeal or legal action related to any project or activity
Page 21276
otherwise authorized by this rule. The 2010 State Petition recommended removing that language from the definition and inserting interpretive language in the scope and applicability section of the regulation. The proposed rule states in Sec. 294.40 that the intent of this regulation is to protect roadless areas. Activities must be designed to conserve the roadless area characteristics listed in Sec. 294.41, although the proposed rule acknowledges that applying the exceptions in Sec. 294.42, Sec. 294.43, and Sec. 294.44 may have effects to some roadless area characteristics.
The terms catchment, native cutthroat trout, and water influence zone have been added to describe requirements that provide additional protection for native cutthroat trout species when a road construction/ reconstruction or linear construction zone exception is authorized.
The term linear construction zone has been added.
The term utility has been removed, and replaced by linear facility which includes pipelines, electrical power lines, and telecommunication lines.
The definition for water conveyance structures has been modified to include reservoirs to clarify that they are included under the exception for construction, reconstruction or maintenance of roads for authorized water conveyance structures. This exception in the proposed rule applies only to those water conveyance structures operated pursuant to a water court decree existing as of the date of the final rule.
The term Pre-existing Water Court Decree has been defined.
Section 294.42 Prohibition on Tree-Cutting, Sale, or Removal
On lands designated as upper tier, tree-cutting, sale, or removal would be prohibited except when the Responsible Official determines that the activity is consistent with the applicable land management plan (LMP), and incidental to the implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited, or as needed and appropriate for personal or administrative use. Upper tier areas provide for a higher level of protection than the 2001 Roadless Rule because the exceptions in the 2001 Roadless Rule to allow tree-cutting, sale or removal for species habitat and for maintenance and restoration of ecosystem composition and structure, including the reduction of risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, are not applied to upper tier in this proposed rule.
On the remaining CRA lands, the proposed rule would require the
Responsible Official to determine whether any proposed tree-cutting, sale, or removal project would be consistent with the applicable LMP, would maintain or improve one or more roadless area characteristic over the long-term, and would qualify as a listed exception. Tree-cutting incidental to a management activity otherwise authorized by this proposed rule or for personal or administrative use would not be required to maintain or improve one or more of the roadless area characteristics over the long-term.
The exceptions concerning tree-cutting, sale, or removal allowed to reduce fuel loadings to moderate the potential effects of a catastrophic wildland fire have been refined. The proposed rule takes into account that homes that have been constructed adjacent to
Colorado's national forests and the increasing threat of fire to these at-risk communities. Treating hazardous fuels, and creating safety zones for fire crews in areas around communities can make a difference in the ability of firefighters to control wildfire moving toward an at- risk community. Such conditions have been a major consideration in developing the proposed rule language.
In Colorado, about 340 of the HFRA at-risk communities listed in the Federal Register (66 FR 753, January 4, 2001) are within 1\1/2\ miles of a CRA. In the period between 1980 and 2008, over 1,700 ignitions affecting over 45,000 acres occurred within roadless areas in
Colorado. Over 45 percent of these ignitions and 25 percent of the acres burned were within the 1\1/2\ mile CPZ. The proposed rule allows flexible treatment prior to imminent fire activity and provides a more restrictive approach than the 2001 Rule by limiting fuel treatments to the CPZ. In addition, the proposed rule, by requiring treatment areas beyond one-half mile from an at-risk community to be identified in a
Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), ensures consideration of community and practitioner knowledge about conditions in a specific area.
Within the CPZ, tree-cutting, sale, or removal may occur within the first one-half mile of a CPZ only when the Regional Forester determines it is needed to reduce the wildfire hazard to either an at-risk community or a municipal water supply system, including reservoirs and dams, diversion structures, headgates, canals, ditches, tunnels, pipelines, and other surface facilities and systems.
Within the outer one mile of the CPZ, tree-cutting, sale, or removal, if determined to be needed by the Regional Forester, may only occur in an area identified in a CWPP. The CPZ would still be the maximum boundary for allowed treatments within CRAs. If the CPZ boundary exceeds the CWPP boundary, treatments would be limited to the
CWPP area.
Projects within the CPZ are to be focused on small diameter trees to create fuel conditions to modify fire behavior while retaining large trees to the maximum extent practical, as appropriate to the forest type. In forest types such as lodgepole pine, trees may be dead or dying, regardless of size, and may need to be removed, both to prevent hazards to firefighters from falling and fallen trees, and for successful hazardous fuel reduction.
Tree-cutting, sale, or removal for the protection of municipal water supply systems outside of a CPZ is allowed only if the Regional
Forester determines that a significant risk exists to the municipal water supply system or the maintenance of that system. This section states that a significant risk exists under conditions in which the history of fire occurrence and fire hazard and risk indicate a serious likelihood that a wildland fire disturbance event would present a high risk of threat to a municipal water supply system.
Projects outside of the CPZ are to be focused on small diameter trees to create fuel conditions to modify fire behavior, while retaining large trees to the maximum extent practical as appropriate to the forest type. It is expected such projects will be infrequent.
The requested exception that allows tree-cutting, sale, or removal to prevent or suppress an insect or disease epidemic has been replaced with an exception that allows tree-cutting, sale, or removal to restore the characteristics of ecosystem, composition, structure and processes.
This exception is intended to be used infrequently.
Tree-cutting, sale or removal for the purposes of wildlife habitat improvement is limited to Federally threatened, endangered, and proposed species or those listed as a regionally designated sensitive species by the Forest Service, instead of all wildlife and plant species as was allowed in the previously proposed rule.
Tree-cutting that is incidental to a management activity that is otherwise not prohibited by the rule is allowed. Examples include, but are not limited to, trail construction or maintenance; removal of hazard trees adjacent to forest roads for public health and safety reasons; fire line construction for wildland fire suppression or control of
Page 21277
prescribed fire; survey and maintenance of property boundaries; or for road construction and linear construction zones where allowed by this rule.
Tree-cutting for personal or administrative use is allowed and includes, but is not limited to, activities such as Christmas tree and firewood cutting.
Section 294.43 Prohibition on Road Construction and Reconstruction
The proposed rule revises the exceptions to the prohibitions on road construction or reconstruction from the previous proposal. Upper tier land designations have been added that prohibit all road construction/reconstruction, except when pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights or as provided for by statute or treaty. Even in such a situation, the Responsible Official would be required to make a series of determinations to decide whether a proposal fits the exception within the upper tier lands. The determinations would include: consideration of technically feasible options without road construction; when proposing to construct a forest road, consideration of whether a temporary road would provide reasonable access; and within a native cutthroat trout catchment or identified recovery watershed, a determination whether road construction will diminish, over the long- term, conditions in the water influence zone and in the native cutthroat habitat.
The rule provisions concerning proposed road construction or reconstruction for authorized water conveyance structures have been modified. The definition of water conveyances has been expanded to include reservoirs, and the exception is limited only to those conveyances operated pursuant to a pre-existing water court decree as of the effective date of a final rule. Water court decrees dated after the final date of the rule would not be eligible for roaded access in
CRAs. Finally, the Regional Forester would be required to determine the need for the road access.
The exception for temporary road construction associated with tree- cutting, sale, or removal to reduce the wildfire hazard to an at-risk community or municipal water supply system and tree-cutting associated with maintenance and restoration of characteristics of ecosystem composition, structure and processes, is limited to the first half mile of the CPZ and would require a determination by the Regional Forester.
The road construction exception for the management of livestock grazing has been eliminated. New grazing authorizations would be limited to use of existing roads.
Temporary road construction may be authorized when associated with exploration or development of an oil and gas lease that was issued prior to the effective date of the rule and when the lease and stipulations do not prohibit surface occupancy or roading.
Approximately 9,000 acres of the Currant Creek CRA, have been removed from the North Fork Coal Mining Area exception due to public comments regarding the wildlife values of this particular CRA and the lack of existing coal leases in this area. In the remaining proposed 20,000 acres, temporary road construction would be allowed for coal exploration and coal-related surface support activities, such as the drilling of vent holes to extract methane gas to facilitate miner safety. These same temporary roads could also be used for the purpose of collecting and transporting coal mine methane to avoid venting methane into the atmosphere. The authorized road right-of-way would serve as the site for buried infrastructure, such as pipelines. The proposed rule allows for the opportunity to develop this important low- sulfur, cleaner-burning coal resource in a limited portion of the CRA inventory, with areas being returned to long term management for roadless area protection following the decommissioning of the associated temporary roads.
Under all road exceptions, projects would have to be designed and completed to reduce unnecessary or unreasonable surface disturbance.
All roads constructed would be decommissioned and the affected landscape restored when a road was no longer needed for the original purpose and/or when the authorization expired, whichever was sooner.
These decommissioning requirements would be included in all related contracts or permits and could not be waived.
To prevent roads from affecting the landscape longer than intended, temporary roads authorized under this subpart would not be converted to a forest road (be designated as a permanent road), unless the specific exception under which the temporary road was constructed allows for forest road construction and reconstruction. All roads would also restrict use to the purpose for the road, limiting the traffic and overall impact to the area. Motorized use by the general public including use by off-highway vehicles would be prohibited. General use restrictions would not apply to administrative use by the Forest
Service, motor vehicle use that is specifically under an authorization issued under Federal law or regulation, or use for public health and safety or law enforcement reasons. Maintenance of temporary or forest roads would be permitted.
Section 294.44 Prohibition on Linear Construction Zones
Prohibitions on linear construction zones (LCZs) have been added to the proposed rule. The 2001 Roadless Rule did not restrict the use of
LCZs. LCZs would be prohibited in CRAs unless they meet one of three exceptions: water conveyance structures with a pre-existing water court decree; electrical power or telecommunication lines; and pipelines associated with oil and gas leases that allow surface use within CRAs or an oil and gas lease outside of CRA that connects to infrastructure inside of CRAs. For all three LCZ exceptions, the Regional Forester would be required to determine that motorized access is not possible without an LCZ that the LCZ is consistent with applicable LMP, and that in the long term the LCZ will not diminish conditions in native cutthroat trout habitat.
The Regional Forester may authorize a LCZ when needed for construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of an authorized water conveyance structure that was operated pursuant to a pre-existing water court decree, as of the effective date of this rule. This exception is similar to the road construction/reconstruction for water conveyance structures, but can be selected when a road is not necessary.
Colorado's petition and public comment identify that the current electrical power line system, some of which is already located in CRAs, will need to be maintained and upgraded. Additionally, demand for additional lines is expected. The rule recognizes these possibilities and would allow LCZs, when appropriate, as the method requiring the least disturbance. For the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of existing or future electrical power lines or telecommunication lines within a CRA, the Regional Forester would determine if a LCZ is needed.
The rule further clarifies that any future electrical power lines or telecommunication lines could only be authorized within a CRA if there is no opportunity for the project to be implemented outside the CRA without causing substantially greater environmental damage. The agency is inviting public comments on this exception.
Page 21278
The rule similarly recognizes that it may be appropriate to authorize a LCZ within CRAs to allow the movement of product to market from within a pre-existing oil and gas lease within the CRA. The proposed rule also allows an LCZ when a proponent requests to connect from outside the CRA to an existing infrastructure within a CRA in order to avoid creation of a duplicate pipeline system and unnecessary environmental harm. The Regional Forester would be required to determine that such a connection would cause substantially less environmental damage than alternative routes. An LCZ would not be allowed for new pipelines that would merely pass through a CRA.
All LCZs would be constructed in a manner that minimizes ground disturbance, and would include a reclamation plan. After installation of the linear facility, the LCZ and all areas of surface disturbance would be reclaimed according to the reclamation plan, and those requirements would not be waived.
Section 294.45 Environmental Documentation
The Forest Service will comply with NEPA for activities within
CRAs. The Forest Service NEPA regulations at 36 CFR 220.5(a)(2) normally require preparation of an EIS for any proposal that would substantially alter the undeveloped character of an inventoried roadless area, including CRAs.
The Forest Service would be required to offer the State of Colorado cooperating agency status for all proposed projects and planning events within CRAs. When the Forest Service is not the lead agency and does not have the authority to offer formal cooperating agency status to the
State of Colorado, the Forest Service would offer to coordinate with the State.
Section 294.46 Other Activities
The proposed rule would prohibit temporary and permanent road construction and reconstruction associated with new oil and gas leases issued within a Colorado Roadless Area. Some comments suggested that the Colorado Roadless Rule establish restrictions to be applied retroactively to oil and gas leases within CRAs. The proposed rule does not implement that suggestion. Consistent with other past Department rulemakings concerning roadless area management, this proposed rule is not designed or intended to alter previously approved decisions but instead establishes prospective management direction for the protection and management of CRAs. Nevertheless, the proposed rule would establish requirements to limit future discretionary decisions concerning oil and gas leasing within CRAs. Specifically, the proposed rule would require that only temporary roads could be developed in association with pre- existing leases. In addition, the proposed rule would prohibit the
Agency from authorizing the Bureau of Land Management to grant any request for a waiver, exception, or modification to any oil or gas lease, if doing so would result in any road construction within a
Colorado Roadless Area beyond that authorized at the time of issuance of the lease.
Comments were also received for and against establishment of a prohibition on new oil and gas leasing or surface occupancy within
CRAs. Again, like prior rules, the proposed rule does not establish such prohibitions. Instead, the proposed rule would allow only such leasing that can be accomplished without road construction or reconstruction and would require mandatory and non-waiveable stipulations prohibiting road construction. The proposed rule identifies regulatory requirements in 36 CFR 294.44 that would be imposed for any linear construction zone associated with new leases.
The proposed rule also confirms that the forest travel management processes will continue to be used for all future decisions regarding motorized and non motorized use on trails within CRAs. Motorized access not involving the construction or reconstruction of roads would continue according to existing authorizations. CRA designation would not eliminate or preclude any lands from being available for livestock grazing.
Section 294.47 Modifications and Administrative Corrections
The Chief of the Forest Service would be able to modify CRA boundaries based on a changed circumstance such as, the inclusion or exclusion of lands due to land exchanges, and updated inventories. Such changes to the boundaries would require public notice and a minimum 90- day public comment period. Changes due to new congressional designations would not require a modification, and would be adjusted to conform to the applicable statute.
The Chief of the Forest Service would be able to make administrative corrections to CRA boundaries. Administrative corrections would require public notice and a 30-day comment period.
Administrative corrections include adjustments such as to correct clerical errors or to reflect improved field data due to updated imagery, global positioning data, or other collected field data.
Rulemaking would be required for any modification to final rule language. The Secretary would provide for public notice and a minimum 90-day comment period, and the State would be consulted on any rulemaking proposals.
Section 294.48 Scope and Applicability
The proposed rule's applicability would be limited to authorizations for occupancy and use of NFS lands issued after the effective date of a final rule. The proposed rule's provisions would not affect project or activity decisions issued prior to the effective date of a final rule.
Components of a LMP can be more restrictive than the rule and will continue to provide guidance and direction for projects within CRAs.
The proposed rule does not compel amendment or revision of a LMP. A project decision or LMP amendment or revision may not waive or supersede the provisions of this proposed rule.
The proposed rule does not waive any requirements during project analyses to consult with Tribes and other agencies, comply with applicable laws, and involve the public.
If any provision of the rule or its application were held to be invalid, the Department's intention is that the remainder of the regulation would remain in force.
After promulgation of a final rule, the rule promulgated on January 12, 2001, would have no effect within the State of Colorado.
Section 294.49 List of Designated Colorado Roadless Areas
There are 363 Colorado Roadless Areas in the proposed rule; an increase of 18 CRAs from the July 2008 Proposed Rule.
Regulatory Certifications
Regulatory Planning and Review
The proposed rule was reviewed under USDA procedures, Executive
Order 12866 (E.O. 12866), and the major rule provisions of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 800). E.O. 12866 addresses regulatory planning and review and requires agencies conduct a regulatory impact assessment for economically significant regulatory actions. Economically significant regulatory actions are those that have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect the economy or economic sectors. Total annual
Page 21279
output associated with oil, gas, and coal production in the affected areas is projected to be approximately $970 million under the proposed rule, compared to approximately $1,030 million under baseline conditions, implying the annual impact of the proposed rule is estimated to be a decrease of approximately $60 million for energy mineral sectors. Due to the potential magnitude of economic impacts and the level of interest in inventoried roadless area management, this proposed rule has been designated as significant and is subject to
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under E.O. 12866.
A regulatory impact assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule. OMB Circular A-4 as well as guidance regarding E.O. 12866 indicate that regulatory impact analysis should include an assessment of distributional effects. The benefits, costs, and distributional effects of four alternatives are analyzed over a 15-year time period.
These four alternatives referred to as follows: Alternative 1--the provisions of the 2001 Roadless Rule (2001 rule); alternative 2--the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule (proposed rule); alternative 3--Forest
Plans (no action); and alternative 4 (the proposed rule with public identified upper tier acreage). The difference between alternative 2 and 4 is the number and location of upper tier acres identified within the CRAs. For the purpose of regulatory impact assessment, the forest plan alternative represents baseline conditions or goods and services provided by NFS lands in the near future in the absence of the proposed rule. In August 2008, the Wyoming District Court set aside and enjoined the 2001 Roadless Rule. Colorado is under the Wyoming Court's ruling.
In the revised DEIS the baseline conditions are therefore assumed to mean that IRAs in Colorado will be managed according to direction set forth in the applicable forest plan (alternative 3).
The proposed rule is programmatic in nature and intended to guide future development of proposed actions in roadless areas. The proposed rule is intended to provide greater management flexibility under certain circumstances to address unique and local land management challenges, while continuing to conserve roadless values and characteristics. Increased management flexibility is primarily needed to reduce hazardous fuels around communities to allow access to coal reserves in the North Fork coal mining areas, and to allow access to future water conveyances.
The proposed rule does not authorize the implementation of any ground-disturbing activities, but rather it describes circumstances under which certain activities may be allowed or restricted in roadless areas. Before authorizing land use activities in roadless areas, the
Forest Service must complete a more detailed and site-specific environmental analysis pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations.
Because the proposed rule does not prescribe site-specific activities, it is difficult to predict changes in benefits and costs or other changes under the different alternatives. It should also be emphasized that the types of benefits derived from uses of roadless areas in Colorado are far ranging and include a number of non-market and non-use benefit categories that are difficult to measure in monetary terms. As a consequence, benefits are not monetized, nor are net present values or benefit cost ratios estimated. Instead, increases and/or losses in benefits are discussed separately for each resource area in a quantitative or qualitative manner. Benefits and costs are organized and discussed in the context of local land management challenges or concerns (`local challenges') and `roadless area characteristics' in an effort to remain consistent with the overall purpose of the proposed rule, recognizing that benefits associated with local challenges may trigger or overlap with benefits associated with roadless area characteristics in some cases (e.g., forest health).
Access and designations for motorized versus non-motorized recreation is a topic raised in comments, however, the proposed rule does not provide direction on where and when off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be permissible and makes clear that travel planning-related actions should be addressed through travel management planning and individual forest plans.
Distributional effects or economic impacts, in terms of jobs and labor income, are quantified for the oil and gas and the coal sectors for an economic area consisting of five Colorado counties (Delta,
Garfield, Mesa, Montrose, and Rio Blanco) using a regional impact model. Fiscal impacts (i.e., mineral lease payments) are estimated for counties where changes in mineral activity are expected to be physically located (Delta, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa, Montrose, and
Pitkin). The distributional effects associated with reducing wildfire hazard are characterized by estimating the extent to which CPZ areas
(i.e., 0.5 to 1.5 mile buffer areas surrounding communities at-risk from wildfire) overlap roadless areas where tree-cutting for fuel treatments has been identified as being likely to occur. Distributional effects or economic impacts are not evaluated for other economic sectors (e.g., timber harvest, recreation) due to evidence presented in
Table 2 suggesting that the extent or magnitude of changes in output or services are not sufficient to cause significant changes in jobs and income for those economic sectors.
Details about the environmental impacts associated with the proposed rule can be found in the RDEIS. Effects on opportunities for small entities under the proposed rule are discussed in the context of
E. O. 13272 regarding proper consideration of small entities and the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), which amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The results of the regulatory impact assessment for the proposed rule are summarized in the following tables. Table 1 provides information related to roadless area acreage, road miles, and tree- cutting. Table 2 summarizes the potential benefits and costs of alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4. Table 3 summarizes distributional effects and economic impacts of the proposed rule and alternatives.
Table 1--Framework for Analysis: Comparison of Roadless Area Acreage, Road Miles, and Tree-Cutting
Alternative 4
Proposed Rule with
Alternative 1 2001
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Public Identified
Roadless Rule
Proposed Rule
Forest Plans
Upper Tier Acres
\1\
Roadless Areas.................. Inventoried
Colorado Roadless 4,243,600 acres... Colorado Roadless
Roadless Areas
Areas (CRAs) =
Areas
(IRAs) =
4,186,000 acres.
(CRAs) = 4,186,000 4,243,600 acres.
acres.
Total Existing Authorized Road 1,260 miles in
8.5 miles in CRAs. 1,260 miles in
8.5 miles in CRAs.
Miles in Roadless Areas \1\.
IRAs.
IRAs.
Page 21280
Road Construction and
14 miles/year (11 20 miles/year (16 28 miles/year..... 18 miles/year (14
Reconstruction Projected in the miles in IRAs).
in CRAs).
in CRAs).
Analysis Area.
Tree-cutting Projected in the
2,300 acres/year 7,000 acres/year 16,900 acres/year. 3,000 acres/year
Analysis Area.
(1,200 in IRAs).
(5,800 acres in
(1,800 acres in
CRAs).
CRAs).
\1\ Approximately 24 miles of roads are projected to be decommissioned in IRAs and 8 miles decommissioned in
CRAs. Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 2 with the exception that more roadless areas are assigned to the upper tier restrictions.
Table 2--Comparison of Environmental Consequences by Alternative
Alternative 4
Alternative 1 2001
Alternative 2
Alternative 3 (No Proposed Rule with
Issue or affected resource
Roadless Rule
Proposed Rule
Action) Forest
Public Identified
Plans
Upper Tier Acres
Local Challenges and Resources: Roadless Area Management
Fire and Fuels (Hazardous Fuel
Tree-cutting
Tree-cutting
Tree-cutting
Tree-cutting
Reductions).
projected for
projected for
projected for
projected for 1,800 acres per
5,900 acres per
13,100 acres per 2,200 acres per year in the
year in the
year in the
year in the analysis area to analysis area to analysis area to analysis area to reduce hazardous reduce fuels
reduce fuels;
reduce fuels fuels (900 of
(5,300 of which
this amounts to
(1,600 of which which are within are within CRAs); 20% of annual
are within CRAs);
IRAs); this
this amounts to
fuel treatments
this amounts to amounts to 3% of 9% of annual fuel on all NFS lands 3% of annual fuel average annual
treatments on all in CO.
treatments on all fuel treatments
NFS lands in CO. Greatest
NFS lands in CO. on all NFS lands More flexibility
flexibility to
Within the CRAs in CO.
to conduct
conduct hazardous that are not
Least flexibility hazardous fuel
fuel reduction
upper tier acres, to conduct
reduction and
and reduce fire
the flexibility hazardous fuel
reduce fire risk risk to
to conduct reduction and
to communities
communities and
hazardous fuel reduce fire risk and municipal
municipal water
reduction and to communities
water supply
supply systems.
reduce fire risk and municipal
systems.
to communities water supply
Unable to conduct
and municipal systems.
hazardous fuels
water supply reduction on 12%
systems is of 0.5 mile CPZ
identical to and 13% of 1.5
alternative 2, mile CPZ due to
but there are upper tier acre
more upper tier prohibitions.
acres that cannot be treated.
Unable to conduct hazardous fuels reduction on 48% of 0.5 mile CPZ and 52% of 1.5 mile CPZ due to upper tier acre prohibitions.
Ecosystem Maintenance and
500 acres per year 1,000 acres per
3,500 acres per
800 acres per year
Restoration Treatments.
in the analysis
year in the
year within the
in the analysis area have
analysis area
analysis area
area have projected tree-
have projected
have projected
projected tree- cutting
tree-cutting
tree-cutting
cutting activities (300
activities (400
activities.
activities (200 acres within
acres within
Greatest
acres within
IRAs). Fewest
CRAs). More
opportunities to
CRAs). More opportunities to opportunities
maintain and
opportunities to maintain and
than alternatives restore ecosystem maintain and restore ecosystem 1 and 4, but
characteristics, restore ecosystem characteristics, fewer
including
characteristics, including
opportunities
resilience to
including resilience to
than alternative insect and
resilience to insect and
4 to maintain and disease outbreaks insect and disease outbreaks restore ecosystem and climate-
disease outbreaks and climate-
characteristics, induced stressors. and climate- induced stressors. including
induced stressors resilience to
than alternative insect and
1 but less than disease outbreaks
alternative 3 and and climate-
alternative 2 due induced
to upper tier stressors. Unable
acres. to treat upper tier acres.
Timber.......................... Tree-cutting (sale or removal) in the roadless analysis area is projected to occur in association with treatments on 2,300, 3,000, 7,000, and 16,900 acres per year respectively under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4. However, average annual treatment acreage on all NFS land is not expected to be affected substantially by the alternatives, with the only change being the extent to which treatments occur in roadless versus non-roadless areas on NFS lands.
Minimal impacts to the wood products sector are therefore expected.
Oil and Gas..................... Projections are for approximately 686 Projections are
Same as oil and gas wells in the analysis
for approximately Alternative 1 and area with access to 1,046 bcfg over a 783 oil and gas
-
15-year period (same for Alternatives wells in the 1, 2, and 4). Projected annual road
analysis area construction and reconstruction is
with access to about 10 miles in roadless areas.
1,154 bcfg over a 15-year period, providing slightly more opportunity compares to the other alternatives.
Annual road construction/ reconstruction is 11 miles.
Page 21281
Coal Analysis Area.............. Projections are
Projections are
Projections are
Same as for 16 miles of
for 52 miles of
for 73 miles of
Alternative 2. new roads in the new roads in the new roads in the analysis area, of analysis area, of analysis area, of which 7 are in
which 50 are in
which 64 are in
IRAs.
CRAs.
areas that
Restricts access
Reduces
overlap IRAs. to potential coal restrictions on
Least restrictive resources in IRAs access to
on access to more than other
potential coal
potential coal alternatives.
resources in CRAs resources in IRAs 8,600 acres of
compared to the
compared to the road-accessible
2001 rule, but is other two reserves (7,100
more restrictive alternatives. in current
than Alternative 39,600 acres of leases; 1,500 in 3 (limits new
road-accessible unleased areas
roads to the
reserves (7,100 outside of IRAs)
North Fork coal
in current with access to
mining area).
leases; 32,500 in 157 million tons. 27,500 acres of
unleased areas) road-accessible
with access to reserves (7,100
724 million tons. in current leases; 18,900 in unleased areas outside of CRAs) with access to 514 million tons.
Within North Fork coal mining area, 15,600 unleased within CRAs, 5300 in unleased areas outside of CRAs.
Geothermal...................... Opportunities for geothermal development in roadless areas would not occur under the 2001 rule, the proposed rule, and Alternative 4 due to new road prohibitions. Opportunities for geothermal development in roadless areas would occur under the forest plans alternative as most land management plans allow new roads in roadless areas for this purpose. There are no current leases on NFS lands in Colorado, though potential for geothermal resources is being studied.
Public Safety................... All of the alternatives provide flexibility to respond to emergency situations or major threats to public health and safety in roadless areas (refer to features common to all alternatives). In contrast, the potential for accidents and safety hazards increases as the amount of activity and traffic increases. The Forest Service will continue to respond to wildfires, chemical or oil spills, abandoned mine hazards, road-design hazards, hazard trees, and other similar situations. Roads for this purpose must be temporary under the proposed rule, and would be expected to be temporary under the 2001 rule and forest plans. Upper tier acres in Alternatives 2 and 4 do not have a specific public health and safety exception for road construction, as does alternative 1.
Special Uses: Non-recreational
Special use authorizations issued prior to the effective date of rulemaking
(pipelines, electrical or
would be unaffected. telecommunication lines, water conveyances).
Future special use Future special use Future special use Same as authorizations in authorizations in authorizations
alternative 2.
IRAs would
CRAs would
would generally generally
generally
allow for road prohibit road
prohibit road
construction; construction, but construction.
except where there would be no Limited exceptions prohibited under prohibition on
for the
forest plans. the use of LCZs. construction of
There would be no 3.2 miles per year LCZ for future
prohibition on of LCZs projected. oil and gas
the construction pipelines,
of LCZs. electrical power 3.6 miles per year lines or
of LCZs projected. telecommunication lines, and water conveyance structures in
CRAs. 3.2 miles per year of LCZs projected.
Developed Ski Areas............. Least
Greater
Same as
Same as opportunities for opportunity for
alternative 2.
alternative 2. ski area
ski area
Forest plans can development and
development and
be amended or expansion.
expansion.
revised to expand
Road construction Road construction ski area and tree-cutting and tree-cutting allocations permitted on
permitted on
beyond the 6,600 acres
6,600 acres under current within IRA
permit as well as allocation. boundaries and
the additional also under permit 1,700 acres of prior to the
ski areas effective date of allocated under this rule. Roads forest plans and and tree-cutting located outside would be
existing permits. prohibited in 1,700 acres of ski areas allocated under forest plans but outside of existing permits.
Other Developed Recreation...... Only one mile of new road is current projected for recreational purposes over the next 15 years under No Action; effects on developed recreation opportunities therefore do not differ substantially across alternatives.
Livestock Management............ None of the projected activities in roadless areas that vary by alternative would be likely to have any substantial beneficial or adverse impacts on livestock management operations in roadless area grazing allotments.
Roadless Area Characteristics and Values
Scenic Quality.................. Projected activity levels (e.g., tree-cutting) occur on relatively small percentages of total roadless area under all alternatives.
Least risk to
More risk to
Greatest risk to
Same as scenic resources. scenic resources scenic resources. alternative 2 than alternatives
within CRA 1 and 4. Upper
boundaries that tier acres same
are not upper as alternative 1.
tier; upper tier areas same as alternative 1.
Page 21282
Wilderness and Other
No major difference among the alternatives related to the risk of adverse
Congressionally Designated
effects on congressionally designated areas. There would be no potential
Areas.
direct effect on these areas as they are outside the roadless areas that are the subject of each alternative.
Effects on areas in forest plans as recommended wilderness would not differ by alternative as land management plans generally prohibit road construction and tree-cutting and removal activities in those areas. However, restrictions on activities in IRAs under the 2001 rule provide a greater opportunity to maintain future options for recommending roadless acres as wilderness in the future, compared to the proposed rule and forest plans.
Indirect effects on wilderness area
Higher risk of
Similar to characteristics or experience from
indirect adverse
Alternatives 1 activities in adjacent roadless areas effects on
and 2. Greater are expected to be low under
wilderness
opportunity to
Alternatives 1 and 2 because
experience from
establish uniform projected activities are not expected activities in the management to occur adjacent to wilderness area analysis area due approaches for boundaries.
to higher
recommended likelihood that
wilderness activities could through placement occur adjacent to of roadless areas wilderness
in upper tier. boundaries.
Soil............................ No major difference among alternatives related to the risk of soil impacts.
Alternative 1 and 4 would have the least risk of adverse effects, and alternative 2 would have a slightly higher risk, followed by alternative 3.
However, these differences are expected to be small in magnitude and spread over a wide geographic area. Most of the potential effects would be mitigated by site-specific mitigation measures. The risk of post-fire soil erosion may be higher under Alternative 1 and lowest under Alternative 3 as a result of projected levels of fuel treatments.
Water and Water Quality......... Activities under all alternatives are unlikely to contribute to water quality impairment (i.e., exceeding water quality standards) due to application of mitigation measures and BMPs as a result of NEPA process and site-specific analysis.
Lowest risk of
Slightly greater
Higher risk of
Similar to direct adverse
risk of direct
direct adverse
Alternative 2 effects from tree- adverse effects
effects from tree- though slightly cutting and road from tree-cutting cutting and road lower risk from construction.
and road
construction.
tree-cutting and
Higher risk from construction.
Greatest decrease road construction adverse impacts
Decreased risks
in risk from
activities. from floods and
from floods and
floods and sedimentation
sedimentation
sedimentation resulting from
resulting from
resulting from wildfires.
wildfire,
wildfire due to relative to
increased fuel alternatives 1
treatments to and 4, due to
protect increased fuel
communities and/ treatments to
or water supplies. protect communities and/ or water supplies.
Air Resources................... Differences in effects on air quality do not substantially differ between the alternatives. Atmospheric emissions within the analysis area are not expected to increase to a level that would be likely to exceed State or Federal air quality standards.
Threatened Endangered or
No adverse impacts to threatened or endangered plants because no road
Sensitive Plants.
construction or tree-cutting, sale, or removal is projected to occur where threatened or endangered plants exist. Site-specific design criteria and mitigation measures are expected to minimize risk. Individual sensitive plants may be affected by projected activities; however, none of the alternatives are expected to result in the loss of viability nor cause a trend toward Federal listing of sensitive species.
Least risk to
More risk of
Greatest risk of
More risk of adverse impacts
adverse impacts
adverse impacts
adverse impacts to sensitive
to sensitive
to sensitive
to sensitive plants, including plants, including plants, including plants, including threats from
threats from
threats from
threats from invasives.
invasives, than
invasives.
invasives, than alternatives 1 or
alternative 1; 4; less than
less than alternative 3.
alternatives 2 or 3.
Aquatic Species and Habitat..... No long-term adverse effects are expected on threatened and endangered (T&E) species, sensitive species, and MIS population trends; downstream T&E species; or wetlands and riparian areas under any alternative due to the assumption that mitigation measures and best management practices would help avoid or minimize impacts from the projected activities.
Least risk for
Increase in risk
Greatest potential Lower risk of adverse impacts
of adverse
for adverse
adverse impacts on aquatic
impacts to
impacts to
to aquatic species.
aquatic species. aquatic species. species compared
Provides greater
to alternative 2 protection for
and 3. A portion cutthroat trout
of upper tier compared to
acres are within alternatives 1
watersheds and 3.
occupied by TES fish, implying potential improvements in protection relative to
Alternative 2.
Terrestrial Species and Habitat. For all alternatives, potential adverse effects are expected to be avoided or minimized through compliance with standards and guidelines in land management plans and other applicable laws and policies. For all alternatives, activities may affect individual animals but are not likely to adversely affect populations or critical habitat of T&E species, nor result in the loss of viability or cause a trend toward Federal listing for sensitive species.
Least risk to
Increased risk to Greatest risk to
Increased risk to terrestrial
terrestrial
terrestrial
terrestrial species and
species and
species and
species and habitat.
habitat due to
habitat due to
habitat, but less
Limitations of
activity
activity
than Alternative tree-cutting to
projections.
projections.
2 due to activity small diameter
projections and trees helps
acreage maintain larger
allocation to trees and
upper tier. variability in forest structure.
Page 21283
Tree-cutting to
Opportunities to
Tree-cutting to improve habitat
improve early
improve habitat for threatened,
seral stage and
for TEPS species endangered, and
lower elevation
prohibited on a protected species habitat is
greater number of
(TEPS) prohibited highest as a
upper tier acres in upper tier
result of
compared to acres but fewer
increased
Alternative 2. upper tier acres flexibility to
Opportunities to compared to
treat fuels.
improve early
Alternative 4.
seral stage and
Opportunities to
lower elevation improve early
habitat is lower seral stage and
than alternative lower elevation
2 but higher than habitat is higher
alternative 1 as a result of
(due to treatment improved capacity
projections). to treat fuels.
Restricting tree- cutting inside and outside of
CPZs to small diameter trees helps maintain larger trees and forest structure
(also applies to
Alternative 4).
Biodiversity.................... The value of roadless areas in conserving biodiversity is likely to increase as habitat loss and habitat degradation increase in scope and magnitude in lands outside of roadless areas. Opportunities for protected large contiguous blocks of habitat, biological strongholds, and habitat connectivity would be greatest for the 2001 rule and lowest under the forest plans alternative.
Increasing opportunities for treatments under Alternatives 4, 2, and 3 respectively to address hazardous fuels and maintenance and restoration of ecosystem characteristics may have off-setting beneficial effects on long- term biodiversity.
Invasive Plants................. Site-specific design criteria and mitigation measures are expected to minimize risk.
Lowest risk of
Some higher risk
Greatest risk of
Slightly higher spread due to low of the spread due the spread due to risk of the projections of
to greater
the greatest
spread compared road construction projections of
projections for
to Alternative 1 or tree-cutting. road construction road construction but less than or tree-cutting. or tree-cutting
alternatives 2
Acres removed may compared to other and 3 due to experience
alternatives.
projected levels increased rates
of road of spread while
construction and acres added may
tree-cutting. have decreased rates (same applies for
Alternative 4).
Recreation--Primitive and Semi- Tree-cutting activity is projected to occur on only a small percentage of primitive Recreation Settings
roadless areas over 15 years across the alternatives. Dispersed recreation and Opportunities.
opportunities (including hunting and fishing) are therefore not expected to change under any alternative, but feelings of remoteness and solitude may change for periods of time in areas where activity occurs.
Likely to retain
Likely to retain a Greatest risk of
Same as the greatest
high proportion
shifts from
Alternative 2 but proportion of IRA of CRA acreage in primitive/semi-
more likely to acreage in a
a semi-primitive primitive
retain high primitive or semi- setting; although settings to
proportion of primitive setting. some CRA acres
roaded natural
primitive/semi-
The substantially would shift
settings in areas primitive acres altered areas and toward roaded
where the most
given slight developed ski
natural settings roads and energy reductions in areas in IRAs may in areas where
operations are
construction and continue to
the most roads
projected to
tree-cutting appear
and energy
occur.
activity. inconsistent with operations are semi-primitive
projected to characteristics
occur in CRAs. expected in roadless areas.
The newly
By not including identified
substantially roadless acres
altered areas and
(409,500 acres)
developed ski where road
areas in CRAs and construction and adding unroaded tree-cutting,
areas to CRAs, sale or removal
the CRAs would is projected to
appear more occur that are
consistent with not within the
semi-primitive
IRAs could shift characteristics to less primitive expected in settings.
roadless areas.
Outfitters and Guides
Out of 1,390 recreational special use permits authorized on NFS lands in
(recreation).
Colorado, 1,066 are associated with outfitters and guides, some of which are likely to operate in roadless areas. The alternatives are expected to have negligible adverse effects on recreational special uses, including outfitter and guide opportunities, based on the magnitude and distribution of reasonably foreseeable activity projections; 7,000 acres of tree-cutting and 20 miles of road construction per year are projected over more than 4 million
CRA acres under the proposed rule. Limitations on road construction and tree- cutting under any alternative would not be likely to affect ability to obtain or use a recreation use authorization.
Cultural Resources.............. Least risk of
Slightly higher
Highest risk of
Same or less than damage to
risk of damage to damage to
alternative 2 due cultural
cultural
cultural
to larger number resources because resources because resources because of acres in the this alternative this alternative this alternative upper tier. has the least
has a high
has the highest projections for
projection of
projection of tree-cutting,
tree-cutting,
tree-cutting, sale, or removal. sale, or removal sale, or removal and road
and road construction.
construction.
Site-specific
Site-specific
Site-specific
Site-specific design criteria
design criteria
design criteria
design criteria and mitigation
and mitigation
and mitigation
and mitigation measures are
measures are
measures are
measures are expected to
expected to
expected to
expected to minimize risk.
minimize risk.
minimize risk.
minimize risk.
Page 21284
Native Plants, Including Special No major difference among alternatives related to the risk of adverse effects
Status Plants.
on native threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant species. There would be very little to no increases in roads, tree-cutting, or energy development activities in the roadless areas that support those plant species. The main difference is the higher risk under the proposed rule and the forest plans alternative that invasive plants would increase from the higher levels of ground-disturbance, thereby increasing this threat to native plant communities.
Geological and Paleontological
None of the projected activities in roadless areas that vary by alternative
Resources.
would be likely to adversely affect geological or paleontological resources, which would either be avoided or otherwise protected from potential adverse impacts.
Climate Change.................. None of the alternatives are expected to cause a measurable change in the amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions. With regard to energy resources, it is assumed that if production is not allowed in roadless areas, the same greenhouse impacts will be moved to sites outside roadless areas and contribute the same amount to the atmosphere. In terms of fuels treatments, biomass removed can be burned, used in products, replace fossil fuels, or be left in piles elsewhere on the landscape. Except for prescribed burning, any of these disposal methods would slow release of carbon to the atmosphere.
Agency Costs
Vegetation and Fuel Treatments.. Treatments are
Increased
Capacity to shift Management likely to be less flexibility to
even more
flexibility is efficient and
achieve
treatment acres
similar to more costly in
management
into IRAs;
Alternative 2,
IRAs.
objectives in
increased
but projected critical insect
efficiency,
treatment amounts and disease
effectiveness and are lower due to areas; increase
timeliness of
constraints ability to
wildfire
imposed by more strategically
suppression
upper tier locate treatments response as well acreage under and improve
as fuel
Alternative 4. efficiency.
reductions in
CPZs.
Other Costs..................... Administrative costs are unlikely to change due to flat or static budgets and corresponding constraints on projects. Emphasis on road decommissioning and temporary roads is expected to ease demands on maintenance backlog. Overall need to address invasive plants is expected to remain relatively constant across alternatives; although new roads can contribute to the spread of invasive plants, roads can also be an asset in helping to effectively control invasive populations.
Table 3--Summary of Distributional Effects and Economic Impacts of the Proposed Rule and Alternatives
Alternative 4
Alternative 1 2001
Alternative 2
Alternative 3 (No Proposed Rule with
Roadless Rule
Proposed Rule
Action) Forest
Public Identified
Plans
Upper Tier Acres
Leaseable Minerals: Coal, Oil
$636 million/yr
$969 million/yr
$1,026 million/yr $969 million/yr and Gas--Output Value, Jobs
Output.
Output.
Output.
Output. and Income (2006$) Contributed 1,557 Jobs
2,679 Jobs
2,796 Jobs
2,679 Jobs
(1).
supported.
supported.
supported.
supported.
$101.4 million per $183.2 million per $190 million per
$183.2 million per year Labor Income. year Labor
year Labor
year Labor
Income.
Income.
Income.
Revenue Sharing: Mineral Lease State Total: $28.4 State Total: $47.3 State Total: $49.7 State Total: $47.3
Payments and Tax Revenues
million.
million.
million.
million.
(2007$) (2).
Energy-Affected
Energy-Affected
Energy-Affected
Energy-Affected
Counties: $7.3
Counties: $10.2
Counties:
Counties: $10.2 million.
million.
$11.1 million.
million.
All other CO
All other CO
All other CO
All other CO
Counties: $1.1
Counties: $1.9
Counties: $2.0
Counties: $1.9 million.
million.
million.
million.
Values at risk: Number of
Decrease: 13
Decrease: 2
NA.
Decrease: 18
Counties Where Potential for
counties.
county.
counties.
Fuel Treatments in CPZs May
Increase: 1 county. Increase: 3
Increase: 5
Increase or Decrease Compared
counties.
counties. to Baseline Conditions (3).
(1) Jobs and income contributed annually (2006 dollars) based on projected levels of coal, oil, and gas production and regional economic modeling multipliers derived from an IMPLAN model representing the five counties where employment effects are assumed to occur (Delta, Garfield, Mesa, Montrose, and Rio Blanco).
(2) Payments consist of property tax receipts from coal, oil, and gas production; State distribution of severance taxes and Federal royalties. Energy-affected counties are Delta, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa, Montrose, and Pitkin counties. Changes in payments associated with the Secure Rural Schools and Self Determination Act and Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) are not expected to change significantly.
(3) CPZs = community protection zones (0.5 to 1.5 mile buffer area surrounding communities that have been identified as being at-risk to wildfire. ``Potential for fuel treatments'' implies that at least one CPZ area in a county overlaps with an IRA or CRA where tree-cutting has at least a low likelihood of occurring, according to national forest unit field staff.
Proper Consideration of Small Entities
The proposed rule has also been considered in light of Executive
Order 13272 (E. O. 13272) regarding proper consideration of small entities and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), which amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The Forest Service with the assistance of the State of
Colorado has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the E.O. 13272 and SBREFA, because the proposed rule does not directly impose small entities to regulatory requirements. The effects on small businesses will not be substantial. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this proposed rule.
For small businesses affiliated with most industry sectors involved with activities in roadless areas (e.g., coal, oil and gas), there are minimal differences between the proposed rule and baseline or no-action conditions (i.e., forest plans alternative). As a result, there is little or no potential for significant adverse economic impacts to small businesses under the proposed rule relative to forest plans.
There are about 1,390 recreation special use permits currently authorized within NFS lands in Colorado of which a large majority are small businesses, and 1,066 (77%) are associated with outfitter and guide permits, some of
Page 21285
which are likely to operate within roadless areas. However, there is little difference between alternatives with respect to recreation special use authorizations in roadless areas, because limitations on roading and tree-cutting under any alternative would not be likely to affect ability to obtain or use recreation use authorizations. Impacts under the proposed rule compared to forest plans are not expected to be significant due to the small percentage of acreage affected (7,000 acres of tree-cutting per year) and roads constructed (20 miles per year) spread across more than 4 million acres of Colorado Roadless
Areas. It is also noted that a significant percentage of roads and tree-cutting activity will occur within or near the community protection zones where primitive or semi-primitive settings may already be affected. Flat budgets imply that the percentage of harvest from roadless areas may change under the alternatives, but aggregate volumes across all NFS land are expected to remain relatively unchanged, on average, implying little potential for adverse impacts to small entities.
For leasable minerals associated energy resources (coal, oil and gas), significant changes in output are projected across alternatives.
More than 95 percent of the firms associated with these sectors can be classified as small as defined by Small Business Administration standards. Any changes in oil and gas, or coal development or production can therefore have an effect on small business opportunities in these sectors. A five county region has been defined to model the economic impacts associated with energy resources (Delta, Garfield,
Mesa, Montrose, and Rio Blanco counties). A total of 355 firms associated with oil and gas, and coal development and extraction are estimated to be located within this region, of which 95% are likely to be small (337 firms). However, energy resource sector jobs, supported annually by projected activity within roadless areas, are estimated to increase from 1,557 under the 2001 rule alternative to 2,679 jobs under the proposed rule (as well as alternative 4), and 2,796 jobs under the no action (forest plans) alternative. Labor income increases by a similar degree from $101 million to $183.2 million and 190 million per year under all alternatives. There is slightly higher job numbers
(2,796) under the forest plan alternative (alternative 3) relative to the proposed rule (2,679) alternatives (alternatives 2 and 4), but the magnitude of the difference between these alternatives does not suggest that adverse impacts will be significant if choosing between the proposed rule and forest plans. These results indicate minimal adverse impacts to small entities associated with energy resource development and extraction under the proposed rule relative to the forest plans alternative.
For all other economic sectors considered, changes in resource outputs are not projected to be significant to the extent that adverse impacts to small entities could occur in aggregate or within regions.
Among 64 counties in the State of Colorado, 36 counties (56%) are considered to be small governments (population less than 50,000). These 36 counties are considered to be small rural counties having NFS lands within IRAs/CRAs. Six counties are energy (coal, oil and gas) producing counties. These six counties (Delta, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa,
Montrose, and Pitkin) are expected to be the counties most likely to benefit from mineral lease payments and revenue sharing under the proposed rule (as well as alternative 4), and forest plans. All of these counties, with the exception of Mesa can be considered small governments (population less than 50,000), and all are forecast to receive significant increases in property tax receipts from coal, and oil and gas production, as well as State distributions of severance taxes and Federal royalties under the proposed rule and forest plans relative to the 2001 rule. There are slight increases in payments under forest plans, relative to the proposed rule (aggregate payments increase from $10.2 million to $11.1 million per year). Payments associated with the Secure Rural Schools and Self Determination Act
(SRSA) and Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) are not expected to change significantly, or any decreases would be largely offset by increases in
Federal mineral lease payments.
Under the proposed rule, as compared to the no action alternative, the potential opportunities for fuel treatments near communities-at- risk (i.e., within community protection zones (CPZs)) may increase for two 'small population' counties (i.e., populations less than 50,000).
In contrast, potential opportunities for fuel treatments near communities-at-risk may decrease for nine and eight 'small population' counties under Alternative 1 (2001 rule) and Alternative 4 (proposed rule with additional upper tier acreage) respectively, compared to the no action alternative. These results indicate that adverse impacts to small governments, in association with protection of values at risk from wildfire, are not likely, when comparing the proposed rule with no action.
Therefore, for small governments, including counties with small populations and at-risk-communities from wildfire within those counties, opportunities for revenue sharing, as well as protection of values-at-risk are not expected to significantly decrease under the proposed rule relative to forest plans. Mitigation measures associated with existing programs and laws regarding revenue sharing with counties and small business shares or set-asides will continue to apply.
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
This proposed rule does not call for any additional record keeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use and, therefore, imposes no additional paperwork burden on the public. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.
Federalism
The Department has considered this proposed rule under the requirements of Executive Order 13132 issued August 4, 1999 (E.O. 13132), Federalism. The Department has made an assessment that the proposed rule conforms with the Federalism principles set out in E.O. 13132; would not impose any compliance costs on the States; and would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, nor on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Therefore, the Department concludes that this proposed rule does not have Federalism implications. This proposed rule is based on a petition submitted by the State of Colorado under the Administrative Procedure
Act at 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and pursuant to Department of Agriculture regulations at 7 CFR 1.28. The State's petition was developed through a task force with the involvement of local governments. The State is a cooperating agency pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6 of the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations for the development of the supporting environmental impact statement. State and local governments are encouraged to comment on this proposed rule, in the course of this rulemaking process.
Page 21286
Consultation With Indian Tribal Governments
The United States has a unique relationship with Indian Tribes as provided in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, and
Federal statutes. The relationship extends to the Federal government's management of public lands and the Forest Service strives to assure that its consultation with Native American Tribes is meaningful, in good faith, and entered into on a government-to-government basis.
On November 5, 2009, President Obama signed a Memorandum emphasizing his commitment to ``regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Tribal officials in policy decisions that have
Tribal implications including, as an initial step, through complete and consistent implementation of Executive Order 13175.'' He charged agencies with engaging in consultation and collaboration with Indian
Tribal governments; strengthening government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian Tribes; and reducing the imposition of unfunded mandates upon Indian Tribes.
Management of roadless areas has been a topic of interest and importance to Tribal governments. During promulgation of the 2001
Roadless Rule, Forest Service line officers in the field were asked to make contact with Tribes to ensure awareness of the initiative and of the rulemaking process. Outreach to Tribes was conducted at the national forest and grassland level, which is how Forest Service government-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.
Tribal concerns surfaced during phone or e-mail consultations.
Information applying to the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule was provided to the Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute Indian Tribes, located in Colorado prior to the release of the NOI. The San Juan
National Forest staff held meetings with both Tribes to discuss the proposed rule as well as other Forest issues. At these meetings, the
Tribes expressed concerns about hunting access, and unauthorized roads.
Nothing in this rule changes access or existing rights. The management of unauthorized roads is addressed through travel management processes.
Additionally, an introductory letter and the NOI along with background information on the proposed Colorado Roadless Rule and an offer for additional information or meetings was sent to the following
Tribes and committees: Hopi Tribal Council, Navajo Nation, Northern
Cheyenne Tribal Council, Pueblo of Jemez, Pueblo of Namb[eacute], Ohkay
Owingeh, Pueblo of Picuris, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Pueblo of San
Ildefonso, Pueblo of Santa Clara, Pueblo of Taos, Pueblo of Tesuque,
Pueblo of Zuni, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of
Oklahoma, Ute Business Committee, Shoshone Business Committee, and the
Arapaho Business Committee. These 18 Tribes and committees were selected based on their current proximity to Colorado, their current use of lands in Colorado, and their historic use of lands within
Colorado.
The 2008 Proposed Rule and DEIS were sent to each Tribe and each was contacted by phone to determine interest in meeting or obtaining information. The Tribes did not request additional government-to- government involvement, and no formal comments from any of the Tribes were received. A letter was sent outlining the key points of this revised proposed rule and the FS met with those Tribes requesting further consultation. Consultation efforts will continue throughout the process and for the final Rule.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000,
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,'' the
Department has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian
Tribal Governments and has determined that the proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect Indian Tribal Government communities.
The proposed rule would establish direction governing the management and protection of Colorado Roadless Areas, however, the proposed rule respects prior existing rights, and it addresses discretionary Forest
Service management decisions involving road construction, timber harvest, and some mineral activities. The Department has also determined that this proposed rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal Governments. This proposed rule does not mandate Tribal participation in roadless management of the planning of activities in Colorado Roadless Areas. Rather, the Forest Service officials are obligated by other agency policies to consult early with
Tribal governments and to work cooperatively with them where planning issues affect Tribal interests.
No Takings Implications
The proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630 issued March 15, 1988. It has been determined that the proposed rule does not pose the risk of a taking of private property.
Civil Justice Reform
The proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. After adoption of this proposed rule, (1) all
State and local laws and regulations that conflict with this proposed rule or that would impede full implementation of this proposed rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect would be given to this proposed rule; and (3) this proposed rule would not require the use of administrative proceedings before parties could file suit in court challenging its provisions.
Unfunded Mandates
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Department has assessed the effects of this proposed rule on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. This proposed rule does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or Tribal governments or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is not required.
Energy Effects
Based on guidance for implementing Executive Order 13211 (E.O. 13211) of
Page 21287
May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use, issued by Office of Management and
Budget (Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, and
Independent Regulatory Agencies (M-01-27), July 13, 2001), this proposed rule constitutes a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
E.O. 13211 because projected reductions in coal production under the proposed rule are in excess of 5 million tons per year after 2024.
Projections of natural gas production are discussed in the RDEIS and the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposed Colorado Roadless
Rule. Based on those projections, it has been determined that natural gas production varies across alternatives for only two National Forests
(the Grand Mesa, Gunnison, and Uncompahgre (GMUG) and White River
National Forests). It has also been determined that there is no appreciable difference in projected natural gas production between
Alternatives 1 (2001 rule) and 2 (proposed rule) or alternative 4. The difference in potential natural gas production between alternatives 1, 2, or 4 (27 billion cubic feet per year) and alternative 3 (no action)
(31 billion cubic feet per year) is a decrease of only 4 bcf/year, or 4 million mcf/year, which is well below the E. O. 13211 criterion for adverse effects of 25 million mcf.
Projected oil production ranges from approximately 50,000 barrels under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 to approximately 110,000 barrels under
Alternative 3 over a period of 15 to 30 years. The corresponding reduction in oil production per day under alternatives 1 or 2 or alternative 3 (no action) is inconsequential compared to the E. O. 13211 criterion of 10,000 barrels per day.
Based on average annual coal production rates estimated for economic impact analysis purposes, annual aggregate production across the three mines operating in the affected area is projected to be the same under the proposed rule and the no action alternative (i.e., forest plans alternative) for the first 24 years after implementation
(2011 to 2034). Coal production and production schedules are also projected to be the same for the proposed rule and alternative 4. It is only after 24 years (2035) that annual coal production is projected to decrease under the proposed rule compared to the no action alternative by an amount of 5.6 million tons per year which is the average annual production from the Elk Creek mine which ends after 2034. This estimated decrease is based on the known extent of coal resources and the exclusion of the Currant Creek area from the North Fork coal mining area. A decrease of 5.6 million tons is only slightly above the E. O. 13211 criterion of 5 million tons per year for significant adverse effects. Production is estimated to decrease by 6.0 million tons per year under the proposed rule compared to no action by 2058 when production ceases for all mines under the proposed rule. Coal production is projected to continue for an additional 22 years (until 2079) under the no action alternative.
The total reduction in recoverable coal reserves from roadless areas that are made accessible under the proposed rule, relative to no action alternative, is estimated to be 210 million tons (i.e., 724-514
= 210 million ton reduction). In comparison, the recoverable coal reserves \1\ reported for the State of Colorado by the U.S. Energy
Information Administration ranges from 629 million tons in 2002 to 328 million tons by 2007,\2\ recognizing that direct comparisons of accessible coal reserves under the alternatives with recoverable reserves estimated by USEIA are difficult due to differences in estimation procedures. However, the reduction of 210 million tons made accessible under the proposed rule is only 2% of the total estimated recoverable reserves \3\ for the State of Colorado in 2007 (9,692 million tons) and less than 0.1% of total estimated recoverable reserves for the nation in 2007 (262,689 million tons).
\1\ ``Recoverable Coal Reserves'' consist of the quantity of coal that can be recovered (i.e., mined) from existing coal reserves at reporting mines. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
(EIA), Independent Statistics and Analysis (Table 14--Recoverable
Coal Reserves and Average Recovery Percentage at Producing Mines by
State, 2000--2007) http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/reserves/ reserves.html.
\2\ ``2008 Coal Production and Employment for Colorado''
Colorado Mining Association, Denver CO. http:// www.coloradomining.com.
\3\ ``Estimated recoverable reserves'' consist of coal in the demonstrated reserve base considered recoverable after excluding coal estimated to be unavailable due to land use restrictions or currently economically unattractive for mining. Source: U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA), Independent Statistics and
Analysis (Table 15--Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines,
Estimated Recoverable Reserves, and Demonstrated Reserve Base by
Mining Method, 2000-2007) http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/ reserves/reserves.html.
The estimated reductions in the production life of affected mines under the proposed rule compared to the no action alternative may be significant, particularly when considering potential increases in demand for coal from western mines \4\ and the Nation as a whole.\5\
However, both the proposed rule and the no action alternatives are projected to sustain similar production rates over an extended period of 24 years after implementation of the rule, and there are many other factors that are likely to have a more significant effect on energy markets after that time, compared to the effect of reduced production under the proposed rule which begins 25 years after implementation of this rule would occur (i.e., 2034). It is also noted that approximately 67% of all coal produced from Colorado in 2008 (32.7 million tons) was exported to other States, suggesting that regional markets and prices are likely to be heavily influenced by national prices, supplies, and market trends.
\4\ In 2007, the Energy Information Administration called for a 5% per year increase in coal production from western mines, but revised this statement in 2009, suggesting a slower rate of increase.
\5\ Demand for coal is anticipated to increase as a consequence of 153 new coal-fired electricity plants to be built by 2025, many of which will be in States such as FL, TX, IL, KY that import
Colorado coal. (``Colorado Mineral and Energy Industry Activities, 2006'', Colorado Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources,
Denver CO.)
The reduction in coal production under the proposed rule (as well as alternative 4), relative to the no action alternative are not expected to have adverse effects on the productivity, competition, or prices in the energy sector regionally (or nationally) due to the following observations:
--Potential reductions in coal production under the proposed rule, relative to no action are not projected to occur until 24 years in the future (2035) and estimated reductions after year 24 (i.e., 5.6 million tons/yr) exceed the criterion of 5.0 million tons per year by only a small fraction. A second decrease in production of similar magnitude
(6.0 million tons per year) is projected to occur farther in the future
(2059) when all mines cease operation under the proposed rule.
--The reduction in total accessible coal reserves under the proposed rule relative to the no action alternative amounts to a relatively small percentage of total estimated recoverable reserves in the State of Colorado (2%) and the nation (
