David Lien, co-chair of Colorado Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, articulates his feelings about Governor Ritter's Roan Plateau decision in a Rocky Mountain News op-ed. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/dec/26/a-poor-roan-decision/
Surge in Off-Roading Stirs Dust and Debate in West
This article features a quote from TU's Dave Petersen The New York Times By FELICITY BARRINGER and WILLIAM YARDLEY Published: December 30, 2007
DURANGO, Colo. — In the San Juan National Forest here, an iron rod gate is the last barrier to the Weminuche Wilderness, a mountain redoubt above 10,000 feet where wheels are not allowed.
Near the San Juan National Forest, Colorado A hunter from Houston uses an A.T.V. Some hunters say the noise scares away the prey. But the gate has been knocked down repeatedly, shot at and generally disregarded. Miles beyond it, a two-track trail has been punched into the wilderness by errant all-terrain-vehicle riders who have insisted on going their own way, on-trail or off.
From Colorado’s forests to Utah’s sandstone canyons and the evergreen mountains of Montana, federally owned lands are rapidly being transformed into the new playgrounds — and battlegrounds — of the American West.
Outdoor enthusiasts are flocking in record numbers to lesser-known forests, deserts and mountains, where the rules of use have been lax and enforcement infrequent.
The federal government has been struggling to come up with plans to accommodate the growing numbers of off-highway vehicles — mostly with proposed maps directing them toward designated trails — but all-terrain-vehicle users have started formidable lobbying campaigns when favorite trails have been left off the maps.
Even with the plans, federal officials describe an almost impossible enforcement situation because the government does not begin to have the manpower to deal with those who will not follow the rules. To keep the lawbreakers in check, said Don Banks, the deputy state director in Salt Lake City for the federal Bureau of Land Management, the biggest land owner in states like Utah and Nevada, “You’d have to have Patton’s army.
The growing allure of the federal lands coincides with marked changes in how people play, with outdoor recreation now a multibillion-dollar industry. It also comes at a time, according to data compiled by Volker C. Radeloff of the University of Wisconsin, when more than 28 million homes sit less than 30 miles from federally owned land that millions of people increasingly view as their extended backyards.
“Forty years ago when I was out cowboying I never saw a soul,” said Heidi Redd, who operates the Dugout Ranch near Canyonlands National Park in southeastern Utah. “Now it’s at a point where you realize the public land is not yours, you’re just one of the users. And whether it’s A.T.V.’s, horses or climbers, it’s a traffic jam.
Any user can contribute to the traffic jam, but the off-highway vehicles do damage disproportionate to their numbers. In addition to loud engines, they have soft tires and deep treads that bite more deeply than a foot or a hoof. When they go off-trail, consequences often follow: erosion, destruction of fragile desert soils or historical artifacts, and disturbance of wildlife habitats.
The temptation to go off-trail, legally or not, comes from the desire for variety, federal land managers say. “The more a route is used, the less challenging it becomes,” said Mark Stiles, the San Juan forest supervisor. “You end up getting lots of little spurs off the main route.” Even a few errant riders, he said, “can do a lot of damage.
Soaring Numbers of Visitors
The federal government does a spotty job counting the visitors to public lands — most do not have traditional visitor centers or staffed entry gates — but recent estimates by federal land managers in Utah signal the trend.
About 2.7 million people participated in outdoor activities on federal lands near Arches National Park so far this year, roughly double the estimates for 2000. And the number of participants in off highway vehicle trips grew twice as fast as those in other activities, including things like rafting and sightseeing.
This explosive growth — coming at a time when attendance at many of the country’s prized national parks has been below historic highs — has reignited the debate over just what should be done with the country’s public lands.
In eastern Utah, six offices of the federal land management agency recently released proposed land use plans that, among other things, cover recreational uses and the closing of areas to all-terrain vehicles. The proposals have drawn fierce reactions.
Campaigns to save popular trails have cropped up on the Internet. “Help us Save Factory Butte,” says one appeal, in reference to a rock formation, a favorite of daring motorcyclists, that was closed on an emergency basis last year to protect cactuses. Another appeal says that a proposal to fence off cottonwood trees at White Wash Dunes near Moab, Utah, a popular playground for all-terrain vehicles, “must be opposed, en masse, by the off-highway community.
On the other side, opponents of the trails have been alarmed that the proposed networks of authorized paths would permanently eliminate large areas of Utah’s unroaded wild lands from consideration as federally protected wilderness areas.
Members of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, an environmental group that wants greater restrictions placed on motorized users, have tallied the total miles of motorized trails that would be allowed (about 15,000 miles) and the number of currently roadless acres that would no longer be eligible for federal wilderness protections (more than 2.5 million acres).
Lawyers for the group estimate that 82 percent of the lands in Utah that the Bureau of Land Management said had wilderness character in 1999 are now open for energy, mining or motorized recreation.
“Everybody’s losing something they thought they had,” said Clifton Koontz, an avid dirt motorbike rider and co-founder of Ride With Respect, a group that teaches people about the bikes and how to minimize damage to the environment.
A Delicate Balancing Act
The preservation movement that coalesced around John Muir in the late 19th century focused on setting aside public lands, first as parks, then wildlife refuges, then after passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act, as wilderness areas “untrammeled by man.
But by the 1990s, federal designations were increasingly disputed by the mining and energy industries. Groups representing makers and riders of off-highway vehicles also had objections, casting the suggested wilderness designations as hostile acts designed to strip riders of their rights.
“They want everybody out,” said Russ Englund, who owns a motorcycle shop outside the Bitterroot National Forest, which straddles the Montana-Idaho border and is one of the many flash points. “They think it has to be kept in this pristine state. These people don’t even use it.
Riders of all varieties complain that their critics are off the mark, that motorized sports are about more than a handful of renegades. They say the activities are enjoyed in large part by law-abiding families, and that the motorized vehicles allow older people and the infirm to visit beautiful and remote places otherwise inaccessible to them.
“I don’t like being looked at as a bad guy all the time,” said Bob Turri, 79, who likes to ride his all terrain vehicle near his home in Monticello, in southeastern Utah.
On a recent trip to Hidden Canyon, 20 miles from Moab and two miles from the nearest paved road, Mr. Koontz of Ride With Respect said it was possible to design trails that separated the machines from the wildlife.
Bighorn sheep sometimes visit Hidden Canyon, and Mr. Koontz pointed to the faint sheep tracks crossing the imprint of tires. “You build the trails below the ridgelines,” he said, explaining that sheep, when startled, are more comfortable heading up to ridges rather than down into canyons, and therefore would naturally stay away from the riders.
But federal managers say the outlaw fringe of motor-vehicle users is driving the need for more regulation. While sales of all-terrain vehicles have dipped slightly since 2004, the slippage comes after astronomical growth. Registrations of all-terrain vehicles and motorbikes in California, Colorado, Idaho and Utah tripled from 1998 to 2006; in Riverside County, east of Los Angeles and a couple hours’ drive from the popular Algodones Dunes, registrations went up fourfold. In Wyoming, the registration increases were starker: up fivefold, to 45,000, from 2002 to 2006.
Many motorized users say wealthy homeowners are selfish, pushing for restrictions to preserve postcard views. So-called quiet users, those who do not use motorcycles or all-terrain vehicles, often portray those riders as reckless people in their 20s who seek out meadows simply to shred them.
Not So Black and White
In truth, there are some young thrill-seekers and wealthy armchair environmentalists, but the demographics on both sides are complicated. Many all-terrain-vehicle riders take their grandchildren with them and go fishing. In Utah, where in some rural counties there is one off-highway vehicle for every three or four people, 8-year-olds ride scaled-down versions and older people use them for Sunday outings.
Many quiet users, meanwhile, are not rich newcomers but longtime locals who spent their lives in the forest. One of them, Tom Powers, a backcountry hunter in Montana who first hunted elk in the Bitterroot as a young man in 1969, still takes his horse into the woods, but less than before, to avoid the summertime traffic of motorcycles, pickups and all-terrain vehicles.
“They’ve ruined what used to be a quality experience in the backcountry, where you were just up there with nature,” Mr. Powers said.
The list of complaints is long and varied.
Though some hunters enjoy all-terrain vehicles, others complain that hunters using them get so close that their engines spook the game. “There are so many of these machines,” said Dave Petersen, a bow hunter who monitors public lands issues here in Durango for the environmental group Trout Unlimited. “It’s made our big public lands much smaller, for the wildlife and for us.
Environmentalists worry about the destruction of fragile soils and erosion, when outsize Western rainfalls course through the ruts left by hill-climbing all-terrain vehicles. There are also concerns for streams, rivers and wetlands, precious resources in the arid West and magnets for those who think all-terrain-vehicle riding is best when muddy. “They wouldn’t do this in their backyard,” said Liz Thomas, a lawyer for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. “But it’s not their backyard.
Trespassing is another problem. Since most land used for outdoor recreation is publicly owned, some riders and hikers pay little heed to “No Trespassing” signs on property that abuts popular federal lands. The hikers are not hard to identify and prosecute, but the all-terrain-vehicle riders can be. A Colorado man, Joe Jepson, ordered two riders off his land last year. One ran him down, breaking his leg. The riders were never identified.
Perhaps the biggest damage to the sport’s reputation has come from mass holiday gatherings that have turned ugly or dangerous on public lands like Algodones Dunes in California, a favorite spot at New Year’s. Last Easter weekend at the Little Sahara sand dunes in Utah — a popular spring-break getaway like Florida’s beaches — there was a near-riot, with, among other things, drunken riders forcing women to expose their breasts. A.T.V. fans argue that drunken rowdies are not unique to any particular group.
“We have two groups, one that wants to be quiet and then one that wants to have motorized use,” aid Mary Laws, the recreation program manager for Bitterroot National Forest. “They both want to be in the forest, so we get the great task of coming up somewhere in the middle.”
Farmers Ponder a Super Ditch in the Ark Valley
The eighth in a series by Chris Woodka - Pueblo Chieftain Seven ditch companies, some of which have seen farms sold or past leases, could pool resources and lease water directly to municipalities or other customers, taking corresponding acreage out of production. ...
Arkansas Valley Conduit Moving Ahead
The seventh in a series in the Pueblo Chieftain. Worth reading. http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1198913436/2
Framing Key Water Issues for the Future in Arkansas Valley
This article - the fifth in a series - discusses the loss of productive agricultural land as water rights are sold for municipal use. http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1198742399/3
Moving mountains: Valley users watching Colorado River issue
By CHRIS WOODKA
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1198652773/2 This is a very good series that focuses on the Arkansas River
Oil Shale Effects Profound
Study: Oil shale's effects profoundNearly 2 million acres in 3 states could be leased
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Commercial oil shale development in western Colorado is expected to supplant all current uses of the land in areas slated for oil shale leasing, urbanize small towns, dramatically affect regional air and water quality, stamp out agriculture, cause a decline in some property values and drive away thousands of recreation-related jobs while creating thousands more oil shale-related jobs.
That’s the federal government’s conclusion in a draft environmental study released Thursday of the Bureau of Land Management’s fledgling commercial oil shale leasing program. Called the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, the report is available online at http://ostseis.anl.gov.
The BLM has no specific date for when commercial leasing will begin, but BLM spokeswoman Heather Feeney said it will be at least 10 years before construction can begin on any future leases.
Of three possible oil shale development scenarios outlined in the statement, the BLM’s preferred scenario calls for 1.99 million acres of federal land and mineral estate to be available eventually for commercial oil shale leasing in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. More than 359,000 acres would be available for leasing in Colorado, all of which would be in the Piceance Basin southwest of Meeker and due north of Parachute.
If leasing goes forward, oil shale development would preclude all other uses of the federal land where extraction would occur, including ATV use, agriculture and all other oil and gas development, the statement says.
Oil shale development, the statement says, would create a plethora of new jobs but would decimate the region’s recreation industry. The government projects up to 2,830 recreation-related jobs will be lost in the region because of oil shale.
“The number of new residents from outside the producing regions and the pace of population growth associated with commercial development of oil shale resources, including large-scale production facilities and ancillary power plants, coal mines and housing developments, would likely lead to substantial demographic and social change in small rural communities,” the statement says.
Construction of a single in situ oil shale processing site, similar to that now being studied by Royal Dutch Shell, would create up to 2,900 jobs, producing up to 950 jobs during peak operations, the statement says. Construction of power plants for the in situ oil shale sites would produce up to 3,100 jobs, with up to 330 remaining during plant operations. Coal mines needed to power the shale production process would create up to 1,300 jobs.
Housing construction for oil shale workers in the three states would create up to 620 jobs, while such construction for power plant workers would create up to 820 jobs. Coal-mine worker housing construction would account for up to 320 jobs, the statement says.
Increases in traffic and access to remote areas would continue the landscape changes already occurring with natural gas development, the statement says, adding that “the value of private ranches and residences in the vicinity of oil shale developments ... may be reduced because of perceived noise, traffic, human health or aesthetic concerns.”
The government doesn’t know how much surface and ground water any method of oil shale extraction would consume, but where the industry acquires water rights, oil shale development “may result in a complete loss of agricultural uses in some areas.”
The amount of water oil shale would consume isn’t known, the government says, because there’s not enough information about the kind of technology that could be used to extract oil shale. But the government expects surface water quality in the region to degrade, natural runoff patterns to be altered, hydrocarbons to contaminate surface and ground water in some areas and a possible reduction or complete loss of water flow into some domestic wells.
The government also projects a dramatic loss in wildlife habitat where oil shale is developed, and habitat for 14 threatened and endangered species could be destroyed.
“What you’re describing to me sounds like a natural catastrophe on the scale of a meteor impact,” Western Colorado Congress President Bill Grant said. “You’re sacrificing a large chunk of western Colorado to oil shale. Is there no alternative to this total destruction to western Colorado?”
Mesa County Commissioner Craig Meis, a member of the Department of Energy’s Strategic Unconventional Fuels Task Force, said he is not surprised about the impact oil shale development would have on the Western Slope.
“If oil shale happens, it certainly displaces the development of natural gas,” he said. “The oil shale is going to have to pick up where natural gas is going to have to decline.”
He said the “time, price and inconvenience” of oil shale development will tell whether the benefits of oil shale are worth its side effects.
“We’re at the point of asking the question, ‘Where are we going to get this energy resource from?’ ” Meis said. “If not from this, then from what other resource? ... I can’t say it’s worth it. That’s a decision we’re going to have to make as a country, how we’re going to do with or without energy in the future. It’s a tough question.”
The release of the environmental impact statement kicks off a 90-day public comment period on the document. Paper copies will be available at the Grand Junction BLM field office, 2815 H Road today.
Let them drill, Ritter says
Roan Plateau proposal includes expanded wildlife protection areas
Article Last Updated: 12/21/2007 06:13:51 AM MST
Gov. Bill Ritter said Thursday that he won't fight a federal plan to drill for gas atop the Roan Plateau but is seeking staggered leasing and an expansion of wildlife protection zones by about 70 percent, to 36,000 acres.
April 2002 — The Bush administration prepares a new management plan for 198 square miles on the Roan Plateau, turning public- lands agencies away from the Clinton administration's preservation orientation.
The governor — calling it a "uniquely Colorado solution" — tried to strike a balance between environmentalists opposed to federal plans for drilling on the Roan and industry officials who see expanded drilling as a boon to the western Colorado economy.
The balancing act drew some praise from environmental groups, energy companies and politicians in both parties.
"This is a Colorado treasure like few others," said Steve Smith, regional director for the Wilderness Society.
The governor's stance "sends a strong signal that Colorado wants this protected," Smith said.
State Sen. Josh Penry, a Grand Junction Republican who fought attempts to block drilling on the Roan, said Ritter "came to the right conclusion in the face of some heavy political pressure from people in his own party and the environmental community."
Ritter's comments followed a 120-day review he had requested after the federal Bureau of Land Management announced plans in June for limited drilling on public lands on top of the 9,000-foot plateau.
While the agency has no obligation to incorporate Ritter's recommendations, the governor said he is in "productive discussions" with the U.S. Department of the Interior and believes federal officials will take his recommendations.
The governor called for expanding four wildlife-protection zones by 15,000 acres, to 36,000 acres.
That is same size requested by the state Division of Wildlife in 2005, but it was cut in the federal proposal.
Staggered leasing possible Ritter and Harris Sherman, director of the state Department of Natural Resources, said they will push for phased-in leasing, letting energy companies bid on land ready for development within 10 or 15 years instead of 30 or 40 years.
The incremental leasing would sustain long-term economic benefits for local economies near Rifle, plus allow for advancements in drilling technology, Ritter said.
Environmentalists called Ritter's comments a "positive first step" in protecting the Roan, an ecological gem that is home to the state's largest elk and mule-deer herds, golden and bald eagles, and the rare genetically pure cutthroat trout.
Steve Craig, president of the Colorado council of Trout Unlimited, commended the governor for trying to find middle ground but argued that any drilling is likely to damage streams and animal habitat, and leave near-permanent scars on the land.
"A lot of times when those places are gone, they're gone forever," Craig said.
Oil-and-gas industry officials said the governor's comments serve as vindication, showing it's possible to drill in environmentally sensitive ways.
"We've said it before and prove on a daily basis that energy development and protection of the environment can and do co-exist," Meg Collins, president of the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, said in a statement.
The rock plateau — visible from Interstate 70 — already has 157 miles of roads and 31 wells drilled on private lands. Energy companies have cut two new roads to the plateau top on private lands.
Energy claims staked early In 2002, when the BLM first proposed opening the plateau to drilling, 30 percent of the Roan's 127,000 acres already were owned by energy companies, and 15 percent of public and private lands already had been leased for oil and gas.
Among those awaiting the governor's decision was EnCana Oil & Gas, a Canadian company developing 45,000 acres on the west end of the plateau.
The company is drilling up to 28 wells from a single pad and collecting gas condensates and water more efficiently, reducing the number of trucks to carry it out, said company spokesman Doug Hock.
U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., who is trying to stall drilling on the Roan for a year, said he hoped Ritter's comments would help build "constructive dialogue" with the BLM.
Salazar helped secure the 120-day review for Ritter.
Steven Hall, a BLM spokesman,said the agency can work with the state to stagger drilling and take into account environmental concerns such as wildlife seasons and runoff.
"The goal for everyone is to find a way to recover a tremendous natural-gas resource in an environmentally sensitive manner," he said.
Hall said, however, the agency also is charged under federal law with opening the lands for energy exploration "as soon as practicable."
"It was not set aside as a national park," Hall said. "It has not been designated as a wilderness area. It was designated for multiple use under the BLM's mandate."
The BLM's 52,000-acre development plan was hammered out with 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 new drilling can begin.
Some state lawmakers, led by Penry, want to create a permanent trust fund from Roan drilling revenues that would fund higher education and communities affected by the oil-and-gas industry.
Staff writers Steve Lipsher and Aldo Svaldi contributed to this report. Jennifer Brown: 303-954-1593 or jenbrown@denverpost.com
April 2002 — The Bush administration prepares a new management plan for 198 square miles on the Roan Plateau, turning public- lands agencies away from the Clinton administration's preservation orientation.
April 2003 — Interior Secretary Gale Norton initiates a new policy that prohibits the BLM from considering wilderness protection in future energy planning efforts. Norton's new policy also strips temporary protection granted to areas, including the Roan Plateau.
December 2003 — The Colorado Division of Wildlife's suggestions that four areas on the Roan Plateau be protected from development are omitted from the state's final report to the BLM.
November 2004 — The BLM submits a draft environmental impact report on gas drilling on the Roan Plateau, which gives five alternatives and says it could be 16 years before the first wells are drilled. The state says the report downplays the economic benefits of hunting and recreation on the plateau.
June 2006 — Federal land managers choose to open the top of the Roan Plateau to oil and gas drilling without waiting until resources at the bottom of the plateau are tapped, despite requests to keep the top off-limits. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., asks that the new leasing plan be opened to public comment.
February 2007 —Conservationists, wildlife advocates and local officials ask for congressional action to stop or curb the planned drilling on the Roan Plateau.
June 2007 — The BLM decides to allow immediate drilling on nearly 70 percent of the Roan Plateau. U.S. Reps. Mark Udall and John Salazar attempt to put a one-year hold on the plan. Gov. Bill Ritter criticizes the BLM for not giving state officials time to review the plan.
July 2007 — Sen. Salazar presses the BLM to provide a 120-day extension for the state to review the resource management plan for the Roan Plateau.
August 2007 — Reps. Salazar and Udall insert language into a bill to prevent all drilling on the plateau, except when it takes place on private land or at the base of the mountain.
August 2007 — Ritter is given 120 days to review federal plans for development on the Roan Plateau.
Dec. 20, 2007 — Ritter proposes phased drilling and a 70 percent larger area for wildlife protection — 36,000 acres, or slightly more than a quarter of the plateau.
Ritter gives tepid nod to Roan drilling
http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/12/20/122107_1a_Ritter_Roan.html
Thursday, December 20, 2007 Natural gas drilling atop the Roan Plateau should continue, Gov. Bill Ritter acknowledged Thursday, so long as the federal government protects the plateau’s environmentally sensitive assets. “I think we can strike a balance that’s going to benefit Colorado’s environment, economy, communities involved … and certainly the energy industry,” Ritter said. In a letter sent to Sally Wisely, state director for the Bureau of Land Management, Ritter said he hopes the agency will work to ensure watersheds, wildlife habitat and other aspects of critical environmental importance are protected as development moves ahead. Ritter requested the BLM protect several places atop the plateau that the agency has not flagged as areas of critical concern. He also requested incremental leasing of the federal lands. Phased leasing could garner Colorado higher leasing revenue, let Colorado better utilize new drilling technologies and enable communities surrounding the Roan to accommodate development, state Department of Natural Resources Director Harris Sherman said. The governor’s letter and comments came at the end of a 120-day review period, which the Interior Department granted the state in early August. The question of whether and how to develop the Roan Plateau north of Interstate 70 between Parachute and Rifle ignited a political firestorm this year after the BLM decided in late June to open the more than 50,000 acres atop the plateau to leasing. Development advocate Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, praised the governor’s decision in a statement, calling it “a shot across the bow of those who have tried to make energy production a wedge campaign issue in Colorado.” “When you strip away all the politics and all the partisan grandstanding that’s been going on in Washington, the governor finally came around to making the right call on the Roan and he deserves credit for it,” Penry said. In response to Ritter’s letter, Wisely said she looks forward to working with Colorado to responsibly develop the Roan. “I believe we can recover the area’s natural gas resources in an environmentally sensitive manner so as to meet the nation’s energy needs and generate revenue for the people of Colorado,” Wisely said. Conservationists, however, said they were disappointed with the governor’s decision not to fight development atop the Roan. Steve Craig, the president of the Colorado Council of Trout Unlimited, said the governor’s position did not go far enough in advocating against drilling atop the plateau. “While we applaud the governor’s recommendation to expand the so-called ‘areas of critical environmental concern,’ ” Craig said, “we also see a missed opportunity to fully protect the fish and wildlife habitat on the Roan Plateau.” Elise Jones, executive director of the Colorado Environmental Coalition, said she hopes Colorado’s congressional delegation will continue to fight to halt leasing activities atop the plateau. Ritter’s opinion places him at odds with Democratic Colorado lawmakers Rep. John Salazar, Rep. Mark Udall and Sen. Ken Salazar, who have tried to halt Roan development at every turn.
Ritter asks to expand protected areas on Roan Plateau
http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20071220/NEWS/289003089
BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
December 20, 2007
DENVER - Gov. Bill Ritter said Thursday he asked federal land managers to expand areas of the Roan Plateau that would be off-limits to natural gas drilling, calling the western Colorado landmark "a very special place."
Ritter said he and his staff also continue to negotiate with the Bureau of Land Management on how the rest of the federal land on the plateau is developed.
The Roan Plateau has become a battle ground in the push for more domestic energy production because it's both rich in natural gas - several trillion cubic feet in deposits - and rich in wildlife and ecological diversity.
"I'm confident that we're making progress on what I believe is a uniquely Colorado solution," Ritter said during a news briefing in his office.
The BLM issued a final management plan in June that covered about 70 percent of the 73,602 acres of federal land on the plateau. A final decision is pending on areas deemed environmentally sensitive - about 30 percent of the federal land - because the areas weren't adequately described in the plan.
The proposal for the Roan Plateau had been in the works for seven years but Ritter sought, and received, more time to study it because he had just taken office in January.
In comments sent Thursday to the BLM, Ritter recommended expanding the environmentally critical areas to be protected from the 21,034 acres in the agency's plan to 36,184 acres. The Colorado Division of Wildlife previously endorsed the larger acreage.
The Ritter administration is also suggesting changes to the plan for the rest of the federal land even though the BLM gave final approval to that part of the proposal. He said talks with BLM and Interior Department officials have been productive.
"I think we're making progress on a plan that is better than the current one," Ritter said.
BLM spokesman David Boyd said the agency will have to review the state's suggestions to determine if they can mesh with the plan. "We want to keep working with them," he said.
Ritter and Harris Sherman, executive director of the state Department of Natural Resources, said the earliest the BLM would issue any gas leases for the area would likely be late next summer. They said that should give them time to continue talking to federal officials.
State officials have suggested phasing in leases on top of the plateau rather than leasing the land all at once. Sherman said he believes that would increase what companies are willing to pay because the current plan calls for the development to occur in stages. He said companies are unlikely to pay a lot of money for leases they can't develop for a while.
The state and federal governments split the revenue from federal leases offered in auctions.
Sherman said another advantage of pacing the leases over several years is that as technology improves, the impacts of drilling will be reduced.
The BLM's plan projects 193 well pads and 1,570 wells over 20 years, including 13 pads and 210 wells on top. The BLM says the proposal would preserve 51 percent of land on top of and below the plateau while allowing recovery of more than 90 percent of the natural gas.
On top, the BLM calls for oil and gas drilling to be done in stages and clusters to limit disturbance to 1 percent of the federal land at any time. Development would be focused on slopes with less than a 20 percent angle.
Environmentalists, hunting and angling groups and some area residents oppose plans to drill on top of the plateau. The Roan Plateau, about 180 miles west of Denver, looms over the Colorado River and alternates between open flat spots, deep canyons and rugged peaks as high as 9,000 feet.
The plateau is home to the state's largest deer and elk herds, mountain lions, peregrine falcons, bears, rare plants and genetically pure native cutthroat trout dating to the last ice age. Local elected officials have said the Roan Plateau, which draws hunters and anglers from across the country, contributes millions of dollars to the area economy.
The area also sits atop the region's largest oil shale reserves and enough natural gas, according to industry estimates, to heat every home in Colorado for a quarter century.
Some industry groups and elected officials have criticized efforts to block drilling on the plateau, saying the country needs to reduce its reliance on foreign fuel. They also said delays could cost the state billions of dollars from leases and mineral royalties.
Reps. Mark Udall and John Salazar and Sen. Ken Salazar, all Colorado Democrats, proposed unsuccessful bills to ban or postpone drilling on top of the Roan Plateau.
The Colorado Oil and Gas Association, a trade group, said it was pleased that Ritter recognizes the plateau's potential resources and that technology can be used to extract the gas in an environmentally sensitive way.
Ritter's recommendations for the plateau drew mixed reactions from conservation groups.
"We are really pleased that the governor endorsed the original recommendations of the Division of the Wildlife" on environmentally sensitive areas, said Suzanne O'Neill, executive director of the Colorado Wildlife Federation, made up of hunters, anglers and wildlife advocates.
But some members of the Colorado chapter of Trout Unlimited expressed concern that drilling would be allowed on top of the plateau.
