Enviros up pressure on Ritter over the Roan

http://www.aspendailynews.com/archive_22917 David Frey - Aspen Daily News Correspondent

Fri 11/23/2007 11:00PM MST

Environmentalists and sportsmen's groups are calling for a "final push" encouraging Gov. Bill Ritter to seek more protections from energy development on the Roan Plateau. Their effort comes in the waning days of the review period the governor asked for to study the drilling plan put in place before he took office.

The effort is part of conservationists' two-pronged approach meant to keep gas rigs off the surface of the plateau to protect the landscape and habitat for species like deer and elk.

In addition to pressuring the governor to urge the Bureau of Land Management to ban drilling from the top, drilling foes are encouraging lawmakers to support language in the energy bill that would keep drilling off the Roan for at least a year. Reps. John Salazar and Mark Udall, both Colorado Democrats, succeeded in getting that language included in the House version of the bill.

"Success with both the legislature and the governor's review is going to be really important," said Clare Bastable, conservation director for the Colorado Mountain Club. "What they decide to do in Washington is equally as important as the plan itself."

Ritter's office isn't indicating what action the governor will take after the review period ends in mid-December. Spokesman Evan Dreyer said his options range from endorsing the current plan to making his own recommendations. But even if he offers his own plan, the BLM may not listen.

"There is nothing that obligates the federal government to pay any heed to us should we offer recommendations," Dreyer said, "so in short, it is all still a very unsettled picture."

THE PLAN The BLM has approved a plan that would allow gas drilling on top of the Roan, but with phasing intended to limit surface disturbance and protect wildlife. The plan was based largely on recommendations by the state Division of Natural Resources, which worried that drilling on the plateau could harm the species that call it home.

But that was under Ritter's predecessor, Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican. After Ritter, a Democrat, took office in January, he asked for a chance to review the project. The BLM initially refused until Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., brother of Rep. Salazar, threatened to withhold consideration of President Bush's nominee to head the BLM.

The energy industry is also stepping up its efforts to press for drilling on the plateau. Last month, the group Americans for American Energy released a study that claimed the state could reap $1.2 billion in the first year of drilling on the Roan Plateau, and that local and regional bodies would gain $6 billion in royalties and taxes over 30 years and $11 billion in industry investment. Environmentalists questioned those numbers.

"It only makes sense, I think, to go slow on developing resources like the Roan," said Bastable, who said most of the gas leases already approved haven't been drilled on yet. "We're in no danger of losing revenue."

In recent weeks, conservation organizations and hunting and fishing groups have organized phone banks, appeared in radio ads and have encouraged members to call Ritter and Sen. Salazar to encourage more protections for the Roan.

"Nobody's saying that you can't extract gas out of the ground," said Bill Dvorak, of the National Wildlife Federation. "We're just saying there's ways to do it that will leave the wildlife habitat intact."

Dvorak said he would like to see energy companies use methods like directional drilling to reach the gas under the plateau without drilling new wells. He said he worries not only about protecting the habitat on top of the Roan, but some of the remaining habitat below. That's important winter range, he said, but it's already been impacted by a "web" of wells and roads.

"We think eventually there will be ways to extract the gas," said Suzanne O'Neill, executive director of the Colorado Wildlife Federation, "but we have to have a little bit of patience so we strike the right balance and protect critical wildlife habitat."

In addition to species like deer and elk, the Roan is also home to some rare populations of native cutthroat trout. That has raised concerns among anglers.

"They're a pretty unique population of fish up there," said Ken Neubecker, vice president of Colorado Trout Unlimited. "Right now, while they've survived thousands of years in these small populations, a single accident up there, either from stormwater discharge or a tanker truck spill, could wipe these populations out. There's no need to rush into this and go after this gas."

The energy industry has said the gas could be extracted without harming wildlife. An estimated 8.9 trillion cubic feet of federally-owned natural gas is believed to lie 8,000 to 11,000 feet below, enough to heat 4 million homes for 20 years. Supporters believe that could be an important source of domestic fuel, from an area originally set aside for energy production.

Ritter's spokesman Dreyer said the governor's office hasn't seen a big increase in phone calls or correspondences from either environmental groups or drilling supporters, but that will likely change as the governor's deadline approaches.

Drilling opponents said they hope the governor will seek to keep gas rigs off the surface of the Roan, and the BLM will listen.

"He's the head of the state government and represents the people in Colorado," Neubecker said. "His voice, I hope, would be important in protecting the resources on top of the Roan in the face of, really, this juggernaut of oil and gas development in western Colorado."

Law prevents work to clear pollution

http://www.gazette.com/articles/water_30226___article.html/mine_law.html By R. SCOTT RAPPOLD

THE GAZETTE

November 27, 2007

In the mountains above the Keystone ski resort, a legacy of the past continues to pollute the future.

From the 1880s through the 1940s, the Pennsylvania Mine was one of Summit County's most profitable. Today, all it produces is acidic and metal-laden drainage water that poisons creeks, kills fish and confounds local officials.

For nearly 15 years, the federal law meant to clean sources of water pollution such as the Pennsylvania Mine has actually prevented work to improve the water.

A 1993 court ruling said that, under the Clean Water Act, anyone who tries to remediate water at an abandoned mine becomes legally liable for discharges there forever. The ruling halted efforts by the state to clean drainage from the Pennsylvania Mine and ensured that little water cleanup was done at any of Colorado's other 23,000 abandoned mines.

A decade of efforts to pass a socalled "good Samaritan" law, legal protection for groups and government agencies who want to clean up mines, has failed, mainly because of resistance from environmental groups. Both of Colorado's U.S. senators backed such a measure last year.

"The Clean Water Act was written and designed to clean up problems like this, and it's the only thing stopping us from doing it, and it's so unfortunate," said Elizabeth Russell, mine restoration coordinator for Trout Unlimited, which wants to be a good Samaritan at the Pennsylvania Mine.

A recent report on Colorado water quality pointed to abandoned mines as a major cause of heavy metal contamination in creeks running down from the high country. Most of the mining companies no longer exist, so there is nobody to hold responsible.

There are a host of nonprofit organizations, local governments and state agencies that would like to get involved in cleanup efforts, particularly in areas such as Summit County where dead, brown waterways like Peru Creek at the Pennsylvania Mine could be bad for tourism. But assuming the legal liability for all future discharges - in today's litigious society - is a risk none will take.

While it may seem a good Samaritan law may be a nobrainer, like most issues of environmental law, it is not.

When Colorado's U.S. senators, Republican Wayne Allard and Democrat Ken Salazar, backed a bill in 2006 to remove parts of the law that discourage cleanup, it drew opposition from environmental groups.

The groups worried changes could allow mining companies to come back into the mines and renew operations and not be responsible for discharges. The opposition was enough to kill the legislation, and it looks unlikely any will advance in 2007.

It's an issue dividing environmentalists.

Russell said she recognizes the concern other environmental groups have about weakening the law. But, she said, "We're the only ones out there trying to do the darn cleanup."

At the Pennsylvania Mine, the lack of legislation has forced cleanup advocates to get creative.

Plans are in the works to create a nonprofit organization, the Snake River Water Foundation, that will take over ownership of a water treatment facility outside the mine. The foundation will have little cash or assets, so it is hoped no one would bother to sue it under the Clean Water Act.

"Nobody's going to sue them because they don't have anything to be sued for. There's no money," Russell said.

Numerous groups, government agencies and ski resorts are involved in the effort, though not Denver Water, because there are no human health issues for Lake Dillon reservoir downstream of the mine, which serves the water supplier.

It's not the ideal way of doing cleanups - it's taken 15 years to reach this point, and plans for the treatment facility still haven't been drawn up. It will cost from $500,000 to $1.5 million, Russell said.

But, for now, it's the only way of cleaning up the polluted water rolling down from the mines of yesteryear.

W. Slope rep calls for fair Roan study

Al White warns state officials against playing politics with a review of possibly lucrative gas drilling on the plateau. By Steve Raabe The Denver Post

Article Last Updated: 11/14/2007 04:05:49 AM MST

Colorado's ranking Republican on the legislature's Joint Budget Committee has joined the debate on drilling for natural gas on the Roan Plateau, warning state officials not to "play politics" with a pending study.

State Rep. Al White, whose western Colorado district includes the targeted drilling area, said the state could lose billions of dollars in needed revenue if a study by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources discourages development of the area.

White said he is undecided on whether the scenic plateau should be opened to large-scale energy development.

But he's concerned, he said, that the DNR study, ordered by Gov. Bill Ritter, may underestimate the value of the Roan's gas and the economic benefit to Colorado.

A politically motivated underestimate of the resource would "increase the perceived political risk of execution by the private sector and will actually end up reducing Colorado's future receipts," White said in a Nov. 1 letter to Harris Sherman, executive director of the DNR.

The pending study will be forwarded next month to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which has proposed a plan to open up about 52,000 acres on the plateau for development.

The issue has been highly controversial. Environmental groups have been critical of a report issued by the energy-industry-backed Americans for American Energy, which said lease payments and royalties from gas production in the area could bring revenue to Colorado of up to $6 billion over 30 years.

White said a BLM energy-lease sale last week that attracted a high bid of $26,000 an acre for a Garfield County parcel "seems to justify some of the higher-end (industry projections) as opposed to the lowball numbers the enviros are throwing around."

Environmental groups have said the revenue potential is as little as one-fifth of the industry's estimate of $1.2 billion in the first year of drilling.

Department of Natural Resources spokeswoman Deb Frazier said the agency's analysis "will be solid and thorough and based on defensible assumptions."

Steve Raabe: 303-954-1948 or sraabe@denverpost.com

Drilling health concerns debated

Testimony in Washington suggests harmful effects Dennis Webb Glenwood Springs, CO Colorado November 1, 2007

A Colorado physician called government's failure to track and study potential health impacts related to energy development "a disgrace" Wednesday, during a congressional hearing that also included testimony by two people who say they became ill after living near gas development in Garfield County.Daniel Teitelbaum, a medical toxicologist and adjunct professor of environmental scientist at the Colorado School of Mines, was one of several witnesses to call for heightened environmental regulations of the oil and gas industry. He spoke before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in Washington, D.C."I have watched, with growing concern, the widespread development of the oil and gas industry in our state in the absence of any rational public health oversight of the consequences of this development, and of any resource for the evaluation and treatment of human illnesses that have arisen and will arise as a consequence of these activities," Teitelbaum testified.

Also speaking were Steve Mobaldi and Susan Wallace-Babb (formerly Susan Haire), who both said they were forced to move from their homes after suffering from ill effects related to nearby natural gas development.

Mobaldi and his wife, Elizabeth "Chris" Mobaldi, suffered symptoms such as headaches and burning eyes that they believe were related to drilling, which occurred as close as 300 feet from their Rifle-area home. But Chris Mobaldi's maladies went further, including rashes and blisters, pituitary tumors and development of a severe speech disorder that includes pronouncing some words with a foreign accent.

"Several times Chris said 'something is killing me living in this house' so we packed up and abandoned the house in 2004 after trying to sell it for years," Steve Mobaldi testified.

The couple now lives in Grand Junction.

Wallace-Babb said she became a prisoner inside her own home outside Battlement Mesa after repeated exposures to chemicals near gas wells, including a cloud from condensate tanks that caused her to nearly pass out. She took to wearing a respirator whenever she went outside her home to do chores.

She since has moved to Texas.

She told the committee she used to believe governmental agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency protected citizens.

"I now know the EPA has been stripped of its power to do its defined job. All activities related to exploration for and recovery of oil and gas are exempt from the laws made to protect our environment and citizens. The oil and gas industry in Colorado is regulated by those who benefit from non-regulation and irresponsible actions where oil and gas are concerned. In a situation where the fox guards the hen house, it's deadly being a hen," she told the House committee.

Amy Mall, senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said decades of deal-making between Congress, regulatory agencies and the oil and gas industry have resulted in it being exempted from water and air protection laws, and those requiring public reporting of toxic chemical use. She said those loopholes need to be closed.

Carbondale resident Ken Neubecker, speaking on behalf of Trout Unlimited, called for the reversal of a 2005 energy bill provision that exempts the industry's construction activities from storm water runoff regulations. He said such activities threaten everything from fisheries to public drinking water supplies.

But Benjamin Grumbles, assistant administrator for water for the EPA, noted that the exemption doesn't preclude states from imposing their own regulations. That's something Colorado has chosen to do.

"EPA ... recognizes that environmental protection strategies must evolve as the characteristics of U.S. industries and their operations change over time and that one-size-fits-all regulatory approaches do not always achieve superior environmental performance," he told the committee.

David Bolin, deputy director of Alabama's State Oil and Gas Board and a representative of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), said states and the industry examined the storm water management issue and found it wasn't feasible to develop a single standard to fit diverse requirements around the country.

"The bottom line with respect to the storm water issue is that there is no issue. Based on the conclusions of the IOGCC study, the states were already adequately regulating this activity," he said.

Bolin also responded to concerns that hydraulic fracturing used to stimulate gas well production could cause fracturing fluids consisting of undisclosed substances to contaminate groundwater.

"Approximately 35,000 wells are hydraulically fractured annually in this country with close to one million wells having been hydraulically fractured in the United States since the technique's inception with no documented harm to groundwater. Hydraulic fracturing has been regulated by the states since its inception," he said.

Bolin said creating new federal storm water and fracturing regulations wouldn't make oil and gas production any safer, but would increase its costs, thus reducing domestic supply.

House Passes Mining Reform, White House Threatens Veto

By Brodie Farquhar, 11-01-07 (From NewWest.net) The House voted 244-166 to reform a 135-year-old mining law Thursday afternoon, and force the hardrock mining industry to pay royalties on minerals extracted from public lands – just like the coal, oil and gas industries.

The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act (HR 2262) requires miners on federal lands to pay royalties of 8 percent of gross income on new mining operations, four percent on existing operations.

Republicans like Rep. Bill Sali of Idaho, predicted that the bill will destroy the American mining industry, exporting jobs and the industry to overseas countries that have little or no environmental regulations and have child labor in the mines.

The White House has threatened a veto, saying that placement of royalties on existing mining operations invites lawsuits. The House vote is not big enough to override the threatened veto.

“The bill approved today by the House falls far short of the reforms we have worked hard to achieve to provide a fair return to the taxpayer for the use of federal lands and greater regulatory certainty,” said National Mining Association (NMA) President and CEO Kraig R. Naasz. “The enormous costs that would be imposed on the hardrock mining industry by the bill and the failure to provide mining companies with greater security when operating on federal lands will only increase the nation’s growing reliance on imported minerals vital to our economy and our national defense.”

In contrast, conservationists were ecstatic over the win.

“Today the U.S. Congress takes an important step towards updating one of the last remaining laws that gives away our public lands and minerals,“ said Stephen D’Esposito, president of EARTHWORKS, which has long advocated reform of the 1872 mining law. “Although the law was passed before women could vote and long before the advent of national environmental laws, it still governs mining for precious minerals – such as gold, copper and uranium – on public lands.”

Before the final vote Thursday afternoon, the House voted on a number of procedural bills and motions, including seven amendments – five from Republican members. From the first Thursday vote to the last, the Democratic majority lost only one vote, but attracted the support of 24 Republicans – most from the East or MidWest.

Out in New West country, the voting was strictly by party line, although Rep. Barbara Cubin, R-Wyoming, didn’t vote all week, due to the ill health of her husband.

Of the Democratic congressmen who spoke in favor of the bill, Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colorado, expressed a few reservations, but overall endorsed the idea of reform. His district includes Golden, home of the Colorado School of Mines and several hardrock mining companies.

Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., chairman of the powerful House Natural Resources Committee, has been trying to reform the 1872 mining law for the past 20 years. With half a million abandoned mines scattered across the country and an estimated $30-70 billion price tag on environmental remediation, Rahall compared the old mining law to grand scale bank robbery. Indeed, Rahall said, the greatest bank robberies of history are “chump change” compared to the rip-off that the U.S. taxpayer has experienced over the past 135 years.

During floor debate, Rahall noted that David H. Bieter, the mayor of Boise, Idaho had written Rahall a letter, complaining that the city was “powerless” to protect the city’s source of drinking water from a Canadian mining company’s heap-leach cyanide operation.

“Over the years, the Mining Law of 1872 has helped develop the West and allowed needed minerals to be extracted from the Earth - but we have long passed the time when this 19th century law can be depended upon to serve the country’s 21st century mineral needs,” Rahall said. “At stake here are the health, welfare, and environmental integrity of our people and our precious federal lands, the public interest of all Americans, and the future of the hardrock mining industry in this country.”

Current law permits multi-national conglomerates to stake mining claims on federal lands in the 11 western states and Alaska and to produce valuable hardrock minerals such as gold, silver, and copper without paying any royalty to the public. Further, the law contains no mining and reclamation standards, and provides for claimed lands to be sold for between $2.50 and $5.00 an acre.

Laren Pagel, a lobbyist for EARTHWORKS, said even the mining industry admits what some degree of reform is warranted, and there is bipartisan support for reform in the Senate.

“We just don’t know what that would look like,” she said.

What is clear is that Senate action on reforming the nation’s basic mining law will start in the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee. Chaired by Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and with Sen. Pete Dominici as the ranking member, the committee is heavily stocked with Western senators – eight Democratic and four Republican members, from the Western states of New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, South and North Dakota, Hawaii, Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Montana and Idaho.

“It’ll probably be next year before we see any action in the Senate,” said Pagel.

Final mining reform bill voting in the House Montana * Dennis Rehberg-R: No Idaho * Bill Sali–R: No * Mike Simpson – R: No Wyoming * Barbara Cubin – R: Absent Colorado * Diana DeGrette – D: Yes * Mark Udall – D: Yes * John Salazar – D: Yes * Marilyn Musgrave – R: No * Doug Lamborn – R: No * Tom Tancredo – R: No * Ed Perlmutter – D: Yes Oregon * David Wu – D: Yes * Greg Walden – R: No * Earl Blumenau – D: Yes * Peter DeFazio – D: Yes * Darlene Hooley – D: No Utah * Rob Bishop – R: No * Jim Matheson – D: Yes * Chris Cannon – R: No New Mexico * Heather Wilson – R: No * Stevan Pearce – R: No * Tom Udall – D: Yes Nevada * Shelli Berkley – D: Yes * Dean Heller – R: No * Jon Porter – R: No

Grand County drill leases halted

BLM notes the furor over 31,000 acres with little energy imprint.

By Steve Lipsher The Denver Post

Article Last Updated: 10/31/2007 01:22:34 AM MDT

 The federal government on Tuesday removed 23 oil-and-gas-exploration leases in Grand County from its upcoming sale after residents protested what they considered an unwarranted intrusion into unmarred country.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management officials announced that they would defer the Nov. 8 sale of 12,802 acres of BLM land and 18,276 acres of "split-estate" property - in which the landowner does not control the mineral rights beneath the ground - including scenic parcels just outside the county seat of Hot Sulphur Springs.

"We acknowledge that, with little federal oil-and-gas leasing in Grand County in recent years, all parties involved will benefit from additional discussions and outreach on the federal oil-and-gas leasing process," said BLM deputy state director Lynn Rust.

Granby Mayor Ted Wang expressed relief, saying that he recognized a groundswell of opposition to energy exploration in the fast-growing ranching and tourism region.

Wang and officials in four other Grand County towns indicated they had not been aware of the extent of the exploration that could occur and expressed concerns over the impacts to roads, housing, social services and the local economy.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife and environmental groups including Trout Unlimited also protested the leases.

Wildlife officials still harbor concerns about the leases proposed for parcels in Jackson, Routt and Moffat counties that could intrude into big-game habitat and undermine efforts to protect endangered fish.

The BLM plans to continue with sales of 135 parcels covering 129,726 acres across Colorado despite receiving protests on all of them, although no exploration will be allowed until those concerns are considered.

Grand County is not believed to harbor a significant profitable quantity of natural gas, a big reason that records say just one drilling permit has been issued there since 1988.

Wildlife defenders take a stand

By Charlie MeyersThe Denver Post

Article Last Updated: 10/30/2007 11:14:58 PM MDT

Amid the continuing bad news from the Roan Plateau and other energy development hotspots, one light continues to shine brightly. Even in the face of political sellouts and unbending bureaucrats, defenders of wildlife values keep slugging away with an organized determination that should serve their cause well, now and in future battles.

Following the dictates of their Washington, D.C., masters, regional operatives of the Bureau of Land Management have announced plans to expand leasing beyond these earlier centers to include key parcels that will impact high-country wildlife habitat.

A planned Nov. 8 auction of 189,000 acres in 170 scattered parcels includes public land in Jackson, Grand, Moffat and Dolores counties. These contain big-game wintering range, important sage grouse habitat, and streams that contain wild and native trout populations.

Wildlife proponents, caught by surprise, have been quick to react.

"This lease sale is indicative of the BLM and its mad rush to drill new country, despite the existing values these places harbor," said Scott Linn of Granby, president of the Colorado Rivers Headwaters Chapter of Trout Unlimited. "For sportsmen, this sale could be a real mess and the fact that we're just hearing about it is troubling."

Even as wildlife advocates fight this new fire, the battle continues on the Roan Plateau, where state officials join conservation groups in trying to limit damage that seems to spread daily. From road kills to outright poaching by energy workers to general environmental degradation, the Roan has become a symbol for all that's wrong with this push by the Bush administration to give developers everything they want.

As a case in point, the BLM determination to drop the drilling boundaries along three streams - Trapper, Northwater and the East Fork of Parachute Creek - holding remnant populations of threatened Colorado River cutthroat trout down the slopes above the streams.

"We wanted to keep the drilling along the tops of the ridges to reduce sediment going into the streams," said JT Romatzke, district wildlife manager for the Colorado Division of Wildlife. "If the leases go through, the wells will be all over it."

At the same time, the Colorado Mule Deer Association has filed a protest over another BLM ploy to intensify drilling along South Parachute Gap. In conjunction with the Colorado and National Wildlife Foundations, CMDA has appealed to BLM's state director as part of an action it plans to force all the way to the Internal Board of Land Appeals.

"We hope to force BLM to start managing the land as they're supposed to do, to get the oil companies to tell us what they propose to do," said Bob Elderkin of Silt, a member of CMDA's board of directors and retired BLM employee.

Considering that BLM seems determined to flaunt whatever blurred rules it uses to direct these operations, court action may be required to sort things out. Should proponents choose that alternative, one beneficial result could be a delay in development of certain sensitive areas until the administration changes early in 2009.

Meanwhile, wildlife advocates continue a fight that the wild places of Colorado can't afford to lose.

Nov. 8 energy lease sale prompts protests

By BOBBY MAGILL The Daily Sentinel

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Oil and gas leasing where nary a drilling rig has ever touched the ground will exact a tremendous toll on wildlife, tourism and the Colorado River, Grand County officials, environmentalists and wildlife managers said Wednesday.A slate of environmental groups, the Colorado Division of Wildlife and U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., are asking the Bureau of Land Management to either remove thousands of acres of parcels from the agency’s Nov. 8 oil and gas lease sale or cancel the sale outright.

Massive tracts of public land —  including more than 31,000 acres in Grand County and more than 56,000 acres in wildlife-rich Jackson County —  are slated for the auction block next month in Middle Park, North Park, sensitive wildlife habitat in Moffat County and in the Paradox Basin south of Grand Junction.

“North Park, Middle Park, the area around Craig: Those are core areas of most of the greater sage grouse in Colorado,” which could be devastated by widespread energy development, DOW Regional Manager Ron Velarde said.

Habitat damage from energy development, he said, could lead the federal government to list the sage grouse as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

To stop the damage before it starts, the DOW is asking the BLM to remove more than 120,000 acres of parcels in North and Middle parks and Moffat County from the BLM’s lease sale, Velarde said.

Wildlife officials are hardly alone. Udall asked the BLM on Wednesday to postpone the entire 189,000-acre lease sale because local communities and wildlife officials haven’t had enough time to analyze the impact of potential oil and gas drilling in an area that has seen little development.

Udall said he wants the BLM in Colorado to follow the lead of the agency’s Utah office, which canceled that state’s November oil and gas lease sale because of inadequate environmental analysis.

“My impression is everyone was caught a little off guard by this,” Hot Sulphur Springs Mayor Hershal Deputy said. “I’m not sure we particularly saw this coming.”

Neither did the town of Granby, Mayor Ted Wang said.

The BLM announced the sale at the end of the summer, and its details have been available on its Web site, www.co.blm.gov, since then.

“Granby is a cooperating agency with the BLM, and we had no notification about this at all,” Wang said. “My board is not pleased they didn’t let us know.”

BLM spokeswoman Jaime Gardner said the BLM does not communicate with individual towns, but instead relies on county commissioners and the media to spread the word about oil and gas leases sales.

Even though Grand County Commissioner Gary Bumgarner said he thinks there has been adequate communication between the BLM and the county about the lease sale, “We are protesting.”

The BLM didn’t do adequate environmental analysis of the lease sale because it is using a 15-year-old analysis, he said.

“We’d like to have (the BLM’s) management plan updated before they went ahead with oil and gas leases,” Bumgarner said. “They’re in the process of upgrading that management plan now.”

“If it becomes like Rifle and down in that country, it would be a major impact,” he said.

Wang said if such large tracts of land in the county are leased, it could hurt water quality in the headwaters of the Colorado River and send an influx of workers into an area already in a construction boom.

“I think the changes would be really profound,” he said. “We have so little water in the river now because of transmountain diversions. Consequently, the Colorado and its tributaries are in a perpetual state of drought.”

More silt from new roads and new oil and gas well pads and any new interference with an already strained Colorado River “could be disastrous,” Wang said, adding that he expects most of Grand County’s municipalities to join Granby’s protest of the lease sale.

Kremmling Mayor Thomas Clark said his town will not protest the lease sale.

“I think it’s a pretty high-risk area for oil and gas,” he said.

The town board, he said, agreed that the county, state and federal governments have enough safeguards in place to ensure energy development won’t harm the environment.

But he said he understands how Hot Sulphur Springs and Granby are frightened by the prospect of a natural gas boom akin to that in Garfield, Rio Blanco and Mesa counties.

“Looking at what’s going on on the Roan Plateau and thinking that’s going on here, it could really scare them,” Clark said.

In North Park, where there are more state wildlife areas than towns, Jason Bodner of North Park Anglers said he worries energy development could hurt the quality of the area’s fishing.

Oil and gas drilling “is also going to detract from recreation if it screws up the watershed,” he said. “It’s my biggest concern.”

Walden Mayor Dirk Ramsey said energy development is a concern “to a point,” but he needs to “look into it further.”

At least seven environmental and sportsmen’s groups have also filed protests against the lease sale, including the Colorado Wildlife Federation, the Audubon Society, Trout Unlimited, the Wilderness Society, the San Juan Citizens Alliance, the Colorado Environmental Coalition and the Center for Native Ecosystems, whose objections to Utah’s lease sale proved successful in getting it cancelled.

“This lease sale is indicative of the BLM and its mad rush to drill new country despite the existing values these places harbor,” said Scott Linn, president of the Colorado River headwaters chapter of Trout Unlimited. “These areas are extremely important to hunters and anglers. The habitat for fish and game is just excellent.”

Wildlife Managers Concerned About ATV Use

(AP) St. Paul A conservation group released a national survey of state wildlife and fisheries managers showing that many of them believe all-terrain vehicles destroy habitat and disrupt outings for hunters and anglers. The Izaak Walton League of America, which released the report Thursday, also said those managers indicated that more enforcement was needed. The group called on Congress to look into the issue.

"Off-road vehicles are important to many people's lifestyles both for work and recreation, including many Izaak Walton League members who ride them responsibly everyday in states across the country," said Kevin Proescholdt, director of the national group's Wilderness and Public Lands Program. "However, our survey of agency managers clearly indicates a reckless contingent of riders is harming fish and wildlife habitat and ruining hunting and fishing experiences for many people."

The survey, conducted in July and August, contacted each of the 50 state wildlife managers and each of the 50 state fisheries managers. A total of 34 agencies, representing 27 different states, responded.

About 83 percent of the wildlife managers who responded to the survey said they have seen "resource damage to wildlife habitat" from those vehicles. About 72 percent cited "disruption of hunters during hunting season" as another impact. About 60 percent agreed or strongly agreed that the machines have a negative effect on hunting and fishing and those habitats in their states.

Wild, scenic and free

"I think the notion of trying to get people to sit down and come to an agreement about a vision for the future of a river is a good thing to do," said David Nickum, executive director of Colorado Trout Unlimited. "It gets people out of the mode of drawing battle lines. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5692976,00.html

By Jerd Smith, Rocky Mountain News

September 8, 2007

Hundreds of Colorado streams are being analyzed for possible protection under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the largest such review in more than 30 years.

The study comes as cities and water districts race to develop water in many of those same streams, efforts that will be much more difficult - and, in some cases, impossible - once the federal protective process is under way.

In the decades since Congress passed the law, Colorado water utilities and the Colorado Water Conservation Board have often fought use of the scenic rivers act because they fear it will limit their ability to deliver much-needed water to cities and farms.

Since its passage in 1968, just one stream segment in the state - on the Poudre River north of Fort Collins - has been formally protected under the act.

Several other streams have been recommended for wild- and-scenic status but have never been formally listed by Congress in part because of Colorado's opposition.

But the state's position may be shifting, said Mike King, deputy director of Colorado's Department of Natural Resources.

"It is not this administration's perspective to say carte blanche that wild and scenic is not something that should be considered. We think, under some circumstances, it is appropriate," King said. "We think you need site-specific analysis on potential impacts . . . and we will be involved closely in those discussions."

Water utilities, though, are deeply worried about the reviews by the Bureau of Land Management - particularly about a provision that says stream segments initially identified as eligible have to be managed to protect stream flows and shorelines until Congress makes a decision on whether or not to include them under the act.

And Congress can delay action for decades, creating what water providers view as a hellish, legal limbo.

River advocates, however, believe the reviews will provide much-needed stream protection, as Colorado seeks water projects to offset the effects of chronic droughts, global warming and population growth.

"I'm hopeful that we'll get some new (wild-and-scenic) designations in Colorado," said Andrew Fahlund, vice president of conservation programs at Washington, D.C.-based American Rivers.

"When folks think about Colorado, they think about its outstanding, remarkable values and its rivers. Designating a few of them shouldn't be as controversial as it has been."

Water crunch

Still, the reviews have begun at a time water demands in the state are skyrocketing. Studies indicate Colorado will need 53 percent more water in pipelines and reservoirs by 2030.

Last year, Russell George, then director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, urged the BLM not to do reviews in the Yampa River Basin until the state had finished its own water planning, a process that may result in a new water project on the Yampa.

But the BLM is required by law to do the studies.

As a result, a segment of the Little Snake River, a tributary of the Yampa, is now close to being listed as suitable by the BLM, a move that water utilities, including the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, adamantly oppose because it could hamper any new project there.

Roy Smith, who is spearheading the BLM reviews, said the wild-and-scenic analyses don't automatically mean rivers can't be tapped for additional water supplies.

"People need to understand that we've gone through this process in lots of places and the world did not blow up," he said.

Colorado's water utilities are on edge, though, because the reviews are under way in critical Western Slope hot spots such as the Blue and Colorado rivers, as well as segments of the Eagle and Yampa rivers.

All have potential water projects that will require federal permits if they move forward.

"We share a concern that a lot of water users share about what a designation means for the future management of that stream," said Eric Wilkinson, manager of the water conservancy district, which serves Greeley, Fort Collins and Boulder, among other cities.

"What we need for the future is as much flexibility as we can get. Our chief concern on the Yampa is the development of water supplies that are available right now. This really could bind our hands."

Last week, water utilities from the Front Range met with the BLM to urge a slower approach to the reviews and looking at other ways to protect the streams rather than designating them as wild and scenic.

"This puts us in a challenging position," Smith said. "It may be a couple more years before the state and the water utilities decide where they want to build projects. In the meantime, we have our own deadlines to meet. It puts us in a really, really challenging position."

Alternatives are possible

In the meantime, river advocates say they're willing to consider alternatives to wild-and- scenic designations if strong protections for stream flows and shorelines can be negotiated with the water utilities.

"I think the notion of trying to get people to sit down and come to an agreement about a vision for the future of a river is a good thing to do," said David Nickum, executive director of Colorado Trout Unlimited. "It gets people out of the mode of drawing battle lines.

"When Congress passed the act," Nickum said, "it said it was to establish a national protection policy for rivers to balance the policy of dam building. The idea was to not look at these rivers as workhorses only. But we've had so much development on these streams that it's important to look at the best of what we have while we still have it. That the Poudre River is the only one that's ever been formally designated in our state is a sad statement."

This month, more talks are planned among the state, water utilities and the BLM to look at, among other things, how to preserve what's left of the Colorado River as it flows through Grand County, Gore Canyon and down into Glenwood Springs.

Few expect solutions that satisfy the federal law and Colorado's water utilities to emerge quickly.

"This process is always controversial in the West," said Steve Glazer, president of the High Country Citizens Alliance, an environmental group active on the Western Slope.

"The only place it ever goes smoothly is east of the Mississippi."