Forest snow to faucet flow

Denver Post guest commentary by Rick Cables Last week's announcement of a historic, seven-state water-sharing agreement brings to light a perception that water begins at the Colorado River, when actually it is the link between our forest's snow pack and the faucets through which that melted snow flows.

Mountain snows supply 75 percent of the inland West's water, almost half of it from the highest elevations. The health of forests is critical to the quality and quantity of water that flows from them.

Renewing national forests is critical to sustaining their function as the source of most water in the inland West. Forests are nature's sponge, storing and filtering vast amounts of water and slowly releasing it in summer when it is most needed. It all begins in winter with snowfall.

Winter snow will translate into water yields next spring. The mountain snowpack functions as a high-altitude reservoir that feeds headwater river basins. The streams in these basins ultimately flow to our water systems. When we turn on our faucets, we tap into our forests — so our water supply depends on the health of our forests and their streams.

Securing reliable flows of clean water was a prime purpose of the first national forests. In a sense, history is repeating itself today as we in the Forest Service return to our roots by giving priority to water as the greatest value of national forests.

The stakes are now higher than ever with projections of a warming climate, less snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and more severe droughts and wildfires that will strain our water supply and threaten our water source. We need to plan for such a future.

The evidence today is sobering: Spring snowpack has already dropped sharply in the past 20 years, and snowmelt runoff now starts an average of 10 days earlier. Large forest fires are four times more frequent and burn six times more acres. In spite of all this, national forests will remain the water towers of the West, feeding the Colorado River and other river basins.

Water is a finite resource, with infinite potential demand. We may squeeze a bit more from the earth and sky, but there is only so much water there. The real answer lies in working together to save our source and reduce our demand. The water stresses of this century will prove to be a defining conservation issue of our time.

Advocacy for water issues and forests requires public collaboration. One model is the Pike National Forest, where a 2-mile stretch of the South Platte River between Elevenmile Dam and Cheesman Reservoir is the site of an ambitious watershed restoration project. The state of Colorado, Park County, Trout Unlimited, Coalition for the Upper South Platte, and South Platte Enhancement Board will work with us in 2008 on the Happy Meadows project. Drainage control on roads and pullouts and revegetation of burned areas and heavily grazed upstream pastures will reduce sediment loads into the river and improve aquatic habitats and clean water supplies.

The work of rural communities, grassroots groups, businesses and individual volunteers is critical to improving our forest watersheds, to helping heal wounds on the land so streams run clean, and to making forests more resilient to wildfires so the sponge keeps working. And we are grateful.

I applaud the visionary cooperation shown by the seven Colorado basin states, and hope it helps pave the way for more joint water solutions. Our future depends on it.

Rick Cables is the Rocky Mountain Regional Forester.

Sportsmen join forces to protect Garfield County's Roan Plateau

By Phillip Yates December 12, 2007

RIFLE - Anglers, hunters and recreational enthusiasts have formed a new coalition fighting to protect the Roan Plateau from increased gas development atop its rim and in crucial, lower deer and elk winter range.In its announcement Tuesday, Sportsmen for the Roan Plateau - an organization made up of more than 20 groups that include the National Wildlife Federation, state chapters of Trout Unlimited and the Colorado Mule Deer Association - proposed a "two-pronged solution" it hopes would be a fair compromise for sportsmen and energy developers regarding the Roan's future.The proposal calls for no new oil and gas leases on public lands in the Roan Plateau Planning Area until a plan is developed "that allows continued, responsible drilling on existing leases and private industry lands, including directional drilling underneath underdeveloped lands while protecting those underdeveloped public lands in the Roan Plateau Planning area from development-related surface disturbances."

Bill Dvorak, a spokesman for the National Wildlife Federation, said the proposal is not a new strategy to try to restrict gas drilling further afield in the Bureau of Land Management's Roan Plateau Planning Area.

"It has always been our philosophy that you can't have wildlife if you don't have a winter refuge," Dvorak said. "We have always advocated protecting the prime winter range at the base of the Roan."

Dvorak said while many environmental groups have concentrated on protecting the top of the Roan, most people concerned about wildlife consistently have advocated protecting the base as well as the top, because there will not "be any critters to occupy the top if they don't have a place to winter."

The gas-rich Piceance Basin, of which the Roan Plateau is a small part, is about 7,100 square miles in size, but the public lands on the Roan Plateau are less than 67,000 acres or about 1.5 percent of the Piceance Basin, according to the Sportsmen for the Roan Plateau. The group cited a 2006 government study saying 90 percent of the public, BLM-managed natural gas in the Uinta/Piceance basins is already available for leasing.

"Clearly there is room for balance, including protecting what remains of the Roan Plateau," the group said in its statement.

The same day Sportsmen for the Roan released its statement announcing its formation, a pro-industry group called Americans for American Energy criticized U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., for reportedly leading a "back door" attack in Congress against the U.S. Naval Oil Shale Reserve - the old name for the Roan Plateau. The group said Salazar's actions would deprive Colorado of more than $1 billion in new revenues that could possibly "fund improvements to schools, local governments and water projects."

The group accused Salazar of wanting to stick an amendment deep in a spending package being considered "behind closed doors" that would stop a current compromise Roan Plateau management plan from going forward. That plan would allow drilling on the plateau top.

The group praised Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., for his support of the plan. It said Allard is doing the "heavy lifting for Colorado and America on this, and Colorado consumers will owe him a huge debt of gratitude if he succeeds."

Salazar contends the plateau top should be protected from drilling. He said last week he may push to include a one-year moratorium on leasing on the Roan in an Interior Department appropriations bill, to provide time to come up with a more protective management plan.

Ritter walking a Roan tightrope

He says he will opt for "modifications" of the plan - sure to rattle business interests or activists.

By Karen E. Crummy The Denver Post

Article Last Updated: 12/07/2007 12:45:47 AM MST

Gov. Bill Ritter said Thursday that it's unlikely he will recommend a "wholesale" adoption of the federal drilling plan for the Roan Plateau.

"Our recommendations will be a modification, or some may say a departure," said Ritter, who is nearing the end of a 120-day review of the Bureau of Land Management's drilling proposal. "I've never been a person opposed to drilling on the Roan. But we need to make sure any modifications are environmentally sound and we maximize the economic benefit to the state."

No matter what recommendations the first-term governor suggests, he faces a no-win situation, some say. By taking a position, he will probably infuriate either a core constituency, such as environmentalists, or hefty business interests, which are already angry about some of Ritter's recent decisions.

If he's seen as too eager to allow drilling, he also could alienate those who regularly use the area for hunting, fishing and other recreation. Many of them, and other Western Slope voters, lean Republican but played a critical role in Ritter's win last year.

Additionally, the governor has to find a way to balance the concerns of powerful leaders in his own party, such as U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, who is trying to stall drilling on the Roan for a year.

For all the risk, the payoff may be small. The governor's recommendations aren't legally binding and have questionable influence. In the end, the decision is solely controlled by the federal government.

"He is really walking a tightrope," said John Redifer, a political science professor at Mesa State College in Grand Junction. "I don't know where he stands to gain much in any decision he makes."

Ritter, however, says his recommendations are not guided by special-interest groups and his concerns aren't focused on possible political fallout.

"The question is how does the state protect a pristine place and, at same time, extract resources that can have economic benefit to the state?" Ritter said.

And while the governor acknowledges the federal government doesn't have to heed his suggestions, he said he's had a number of conversations with the Interior Department and believes that officials there will take his recommendations seriously.

Years of negotiations

The 52,000-acre development plan, announced in June, was hammered out by the BLM and the state's Natural Resources Department after years of negotiations. It limits drilling operations to no more than 1 percent of the plateau's surface land at any given time and requires that area to be restored before a new area can be drilled. Additionally, half the public lands on the plateau must be free of roads, drilling and pipelines.

After some political wrangling by Salazar last summer, Ritter was granted 120 days by the Interior Department to review the plan.

The plan's 1 percent drilling requirement irked the oil and gas industry, which has a $23 billion economic impact on the state, according to the Colorado Energy Research Institute. However, that is a better alternative than a recommendation from the governor that may further limit drilling.

"If that happens, there will be a continued negative political chill out there that gives companies pause as to whether they want to justify multibillion-dollar investments in projects," said Greg Schnacke, president of Americans for American Energy, which advocates for domestic drilling.

Environmentalists and recreation users are upset with the plan released in June because it permits drilling atop the Roan. Many advocate horizontal drilling from remote locations to avoid disturbing the surface. The energy industry contends horizontal drilling is much more costly and not perfected.

More protections urged

"It would be a missed opportunity if the governor does not push further for more balanced oil and gas drilling," said Elise Jones, executive director of the Colorado Environmental Coalition.

On Thursday, a group of Democratic state lawmakers sent Ritter a letter asking that he recommend more protections for wildlife and the environment, as well as a ban on surface drilling.

However, the latter is a deal-breaker for some Republican lawmakers who see drilling atop the Roan as a way to generate millions of dollars for health care, transportation and education.

Drilling moratorium

"If the governor supports a balanced approach to energy production on the Roan, we will sing his praises on the Capitol steps," said Republican state Sen. Josh Penry of Grand Junction. "If he doesn't go along with drilling on top of the Roan, we will continually remind him of the millions of dollars he walked away from that the state needs."

Although Democratic U.S. Reps. Mark Udall and John Salazar added an amendment to the energy bill that would have banned surface drilling, it was left out of the House energy bill approved Thursday.

Ken Salazar says he will seek a one-year moratorium on Roan drilling in the Senate, but that will probably not occur until next year.

Even if the BLM plan goes forward, it will take anywhere from "several months to a year" for the lease sales to go through, said BLM spokesman Jim Sample.

Healing Troubled Waters - TU Climate Change Report

TU's climate change report, " Healing Troubled Waters" was released yesterday. You can download a copy, read the FAQ and related links at: www.tu.org/climatechange.

Study: Climate change will endanger trout

http://www.jhguide.com/article.php?art_id=2500 By Cory Hatch December 6, 2007 A survey of scientific studies on climate change and fish shows that Western populations of trout could diminish by as much as 60 percent as water warms, bugs disappear and droughts become more prevalent.

The report, compiled by Trout Unlimited, looks at the effects of climate change on trout and salmon habitat across the country. The report also suggests ways to make habitat more resilient to threats associated with a predicted 2 to 10 degree global temperature increase during the next 100 years.

Jack Williams, chief scientist for Trout Unlimited, said trout and salmon are good indicators of ecosystem health because they require cold, clean water for spawning, egg survival and rearing of young.

"We're already seeing the effects of climate change," said Williams, who pointed out that mayflies, an important food source for trout, are starting to emerge at an earlier time of year. "We've got a lot of trout populations that are poised to lose about half of their range."

In addition to warmer water and impacts on insects, Williams said, climate change could mean greater floods, reduced snowpack, earlier runoffs, more wildfires and increased insect infestations in forests, all of which can hurt trout populations.

Bob Gresswell, a research biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey's Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, studies cutthroat trout in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, including one project below Jackson Lake Dam. Gresswell says trout across the West are so susceptible to climate change because development and irrigation pressures have already pushed populations into more isolated, high-elevation streams.

Further, humans have introduced non-native fish such as rainbow trout, brook trout, lake trout and brown trout into cutthroat trout ecosystems, increasing the risk of hybridization and predation. Climate change could amplify the negative effects non-native fish have on trout, Gresswell said.

For instance, reproduction times for rainbow trout and cutthroat trout are somewhat isolated by the spring runoff. Cutthroat trout spawn just after the peak runoff and rainbow trout spawn just before. But with spring runoff coming earlier each year, Gresswell said, rainbow trout could eventually come to a point when they can't spawn any earlier, and the chance of hybridization could increase.

Gresswell pointed to fish die-offs and fishing closures in Yellowstone and Montana as a probable sign that global warming is already affecting trout populations.

"I worked in the park for 17 years and we never closed the fishery even once [because of warm water]," he said.

Both Gresswell and Williams said that while it could be too late to stop climate change, it isn't too late to make trout habitat more resilient to its effects.

"Let's start working right now on things that we can do to our local stream systems to prepare for the kinds of impacts that we know are coming," Williams said.

Restoration efforts include trying to reconnect larger low-elevation waterways to the smaller upper-elevation streams native trout now inhabit.

"That allows the fish to basically move around and find better habitat conditions," Williams said. Other ways to protect trout include removing old culverts, planting native trees and shrubs along streams to provide shade and protect stream banks, and placing logs and boulders in the stream to provide sections with deeper, cooler water.

Salmon, trout populations will be hurt by global warming, but it's not too late to act, report states

http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/20071205/NEWS/71205008 December 5, 2007

Climate change will hurt trout and salmon populations, but there is still time to act before it's too late, a report released today from Trout Unlimited states.

"Healing Troubled Waters" highlights how global warming will affect the nation's game fish populations, stating that they are likely to decline by 50 percent or more, and some populations, such as the bull trout found in high-mountain areas in the West could be cut by as much as 90 percent.

But Congress could appropriate money in the future to find ways to help make coldwater fish populations sustainable despite the climate change, and in fact Congress is making some progress on that very issue even today, the report stated.

The complete report is available at www.tu.org/climatechange.

Roan cut from energy bill

Washington - Legislation that would have stopped drilling atop the Roan Plateau and slowed oil shale development in the state was cut from the energy bill the House will consider today. The language had been in a bill passed by the House this summer, put there by Rep. Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, and Rep. John Salazar, D-Manassa. But when lawmakers merged that House bill with a Senate-passed energy bill, they did not include the provision.

Udall said Senate lawmakers did not want the language in the bill. But Steve Wymer, spokesman for Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., said that House Democratic leaders chose not to include it.

Lawmakers in Colorado's congressional delegation have split on whether drilling should be allowed atop the 9,000-foot-tall plateau in northwestern Colorado. Udall, Rep. Salazar and Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., want to limit or stop it. Allard supports drilling and believes the issue should be left to local authorities.

The energy industry says the area's vast supplies of natural gas are needed to serve an energy-hungry nation. Development advocates have calculated that the 56,238-acre Naval Oil Shale Reserve - one of the Roan's richest areas - has enough natural gas to supply 4 million homes for 20 to 25 years.

An energy advocacy group has said that gas production on the plateau could bring revenue to Colorado of up to $6 billion over 30 years. Critics, including environmentalists and a mineral royalty accountant, said the value could be 80 percent less.

Sen. Salazar will now be working toward a one-year drilling moratorium, spokesman Cody Wertz said.

Udall said he plans to work with both Salazars.

"You can be assured I'm not going to stop until we protect the Roan," Udall said.

Eagle River deal secures water for growing Vail area

Settlement called 'first step in a larger process'

Environmentalists said the settlement is an important victory for the rivers and the West Slope. Drew Peternell, an attorney for Trout Unlimited, said the agreement comes after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled this fall that cities must begin to limit how much water they can claim for future growth. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/nov/30/eagle-river-deal-secures-water-for-growing-vail/  

By Jerd Smith, Rocky Mountain News Friday, November 30, 2007

Vail and other communities in the fast-growing Eagle River Basin won a key victory this week in a deal that protects streamflows and effectively guarantees that no more water from the scenic stream will be transferred to the Front Range.

The agreement was reached as a settlement in a bitter year-long court battle between the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and Denver Water, the state's largest water utility.

The deal allows Denver to hold onto a valued reservoir site north of Wolcott and to preserve some of its water rights for use in trades on the West Slope.

In exchange, Denver gave up the rights to thousands of acre-feet of Eagle River water it had once planned to bring across the Continental Divide. "Now we have certainty that there is no longer a threat of a large transmountain diversion yet to be developed," said Chris Treese, director of external affairs for the Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District, a party to the case.

"With confidence, the Eagle Basin can look to the future and know that nobody with a large water right is going to come in," Treese said.

The settlement comes as Denver and other Front Range and West Slope entities, such as Grand and Summit counties, remain deadlocked over how to protect supplies in the headwaters of the Upper Colorado River, which includes the Blue and Fraser rivers, as well as the Eagle.

All the rivers serve high-profile resort areas, such as Keystone and Winter Park, as well as Vail and Beaver Creek, and all need water for their own growth, for recreation and for the health of the rivers themselves.

Grand County Commissioner James Newberry, a critic of Denver Water in the past, said this time the giant utility deserves some credit for agreeing to give up the Eagle River water. "We're fighting for all the water we can get up here," Newberry said. "For Denver to do that, they're stepping up to the plate."

Treese and others said this week's Eagle River Settlement may help break the stalemate in the Upper Colorado because it provides certainty about demands on the Eagle River and restores some good will between Denver and its longtime adversaries. "The most important thing about all of this is that this is a first step in a larger process," Treese said.

Environmentalists said the settlement is an important victory for the rivers and the West Slope. Drew Peternell, an attorney for Trout Unlimited, said the agreement comes after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled this fall that cities must begin to limit how much water they can claim for future growth.

"I think, after that decision this fall, that Denver knew it would have lost either at the trial or Supreme Court level if it continued (the court battle)," Peternell said.

Tom Gougeon, president of Denver Water, disagrees with the notion that the West Slope prevailed in this dispute. "The point here isn't about keeping score," he said. "There are a lot of people here trying to figure things out. This settlement was the right thing to do."

Water rights may get clearer for kayak parks

By: Steve Lipsher, The Denver Post11/29/2007

DENVER

Kayak parks and other recreational water uses will be considered "more fairly" after political changes on the Colorado Water Conservation Board, state water officials said Wednesday.

The appointment this week of a new agency director and the replacement of a board member known for his antipathy toward "non-consumptive uses" marks a turning point in how those proposals will be viewed under Gov. Bill Ritter, according to water officials and advocates.

"We're looking to dramatically change our position," Alexandra Davis, assistant water director for the Division of Natural Resources, told the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments' influential Water Quality and Quantity Committee.

The recreational water rights — first created by state water courts in 1992 and established in law a decade later — are part of the state's seniority-based priority system and require that upstream users allow sufficient amounts of water to flow past.

Under recently retired director Rod Kuharich, the 11-member appointed board often opposed proposals for attractions such as kayak parks sought by more than a dozen towns, ranging from Steamboat Springs to Pueblo.

"Our sense is the last director burned a lot of bridges on the Western Slope, with the environmental community and with the conservation community," Davis said.

Charged with "building those bridges back," Davis said, is Jennifer Gimbel, a water-law expert who was named as the board's new director Tuesday.

Geoff Blakeslee, the Yampa River project director for the Nature Conservancy, took the seat formerly held by rancher Tom Sharp, an outspoken critic of setting aside water for recreation rather than traditional uses, such as agriculture and municipal supplies.

"I think the board lost a lot of credibility in its almost obstinate opposition to the idea that recreational use is a legitimate use of water," said board chairman John Redifer.

Drew Peternell, director of the Colorado Water Project for Trout Unlimited, said the water-conservation board has appeared philosophically reluctant to approve recreational rights in a state where demand exceeds supply.

"The CWCB guards very jealously that authority and historically has gone to great lengths to prevent those from being recognized," he said. "My impression is that things are going to be more friendly."

Summit County Commissioner Tom Long, a water rights authority and fourth-generation rancher, brushed off the suggestion that recreational uses have gotten short shrift from the old guard, noting that procuring any new water right is difficult.

"It does represent a change. I won't deny that," Long said. "But most of the communities over here got (recreational water rights) in spite of the CWCB."

Steve Lipsher: 970-513-9495 or slipsher@denverpost.com

Industry greets new state rules with skepticism

Dave Nickum of Trout Unlimited said he is concerned oil and gas development may de-water sensitive streams on the Western Slope, and he wondered if the COGCC rulemaking process will tackle how energy companies’ water use will be regulated. http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/11/28/112807_1a_COGCC_side.html

By BOBBY MAGILL The Daily Sentinel

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

DENVER — The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s proposal for how it will create new oil and gas permitting rules was met Tuesday with skeptical questions from the energy industry and concerns from conservationists.

During a series of meetings about the proposal Tuesday, attorney Ken Wonstolen, who represents the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, asked the COGCC’s acting director, David Neslin, if there is any indication the rules already in place aren’t adequate to assess environmental and public health impacts of energy development.

“The question is: Is that going to be a fiat rulemaking or based on administrative record?” he said.

“To the extent that there are disputes over draft rules, we will provide appropriate support as part of the rulemaking process,” Neslin responded, moving quickly to the next question.

Colorado Oil and Gas Association president Meg Collins said there were few surprises in the proposal, and she’s especially glad the COGCC is giving the industry two weeks to respond to it before it is widely released to the public.

But it’s too early to say what the meaning of the proposal is because the industry hasn’t had a chance to digest it, Colorado Petroleum Association President Stan Dempsey said. Most industry members had not seen the proposal before Tuesday morning.

Dempsey said he wants to be sure the commission isn’t duplicating other state regulations, such as those addressing odor control.

Parachute resident Sid Lindauer said he is concerned about how the proposal addresses noise and dust caused by oil and gas operators.

“From where I’m located, you can look often to the north and to the west 25 miles and see bunches of dust,” he said, adding he wonders how it might affect wildlife.

Neslin said no changes to the commission’s rules on dust are in the works. Division of Wildlife biologist John Broderick said the agency has no details on how dust affects wildlife, and the state has no recommendations for how the industry can minimize it.

Dave Nickum of Trout Unlimited said he is concerned oil and gas development may de-water sensitive streams on the Western Slope, and he wondered if the COGCC rulemaking process will tackle how energy companies’ water use will be regulated.

DOW Assistant Director John Bredehoft said that while the DOW has concerns about how the energy industry could deprive streams of their water, he said he couldn’t remember if the new rules will tackle that issue.

“We need to make note of that,” he said.

Kim Phillips of the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance in Garfield County told Neslin she is concerned the proposal may not require enough transparency about the chemicals that companies use in their drilling processes.

“We’re often introduced to the idea that we should just trust that those (chemicals) are safe,” she said, adding the public should have the right to know about the health effects of drilling.

“This is a potential win for industry,” she said. “We need to do testing on specific levels of specific ingredients that we know to be harmful to public health.”

Other concerned residents were less skeptical.

“I want to say this really is such an exciting thing for us,” Palisade-based home builder and Western Colorado Congress member Duke Cox said to Neslin, praising the proposal. “We’ve waited for this day for a very long time.”