Category: News (Older posts)

  • CO Oil and Gas Rules Bill Signed by Gov. Ritter

    The oil and gas rules review bill was signed by Governor Ritter on April 22.  The bill had passed the General Assembly on March 25.      Congratulations to all who have worked so hard and effectively for a very long time.

    On March 6 the Colorado General Assembly’s Committee on Legal Services approved the oil and gas rules and moved them forward to the House Floor.   The rules passed 2nd reading on the House Floor on March 12 and  3rd reading on the 13th.  Now the rules move to the Senate.  The rules  passed Senate Committee on the 18th.  the bill passed the Senate Floor second reading on March 24 by a vote of 22-12.  The bill passed on third reading on  March 25.

    The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission adopted the rules on December 11, 2008.   The Rules are posted on the Commission website.

  • Oil and Gas Rules Information Sheet

    DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
    Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor
    Wildlife Protection in COGCC’s Amended Rules
    As unanimously adopted, House Bill 1298 directs that oil and gas operations in Colorado were to be managed in a way that balances development with wildlife conservation and declared it to be the policy of the State that wildlife and their environment are to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit and enjoyment of the State’s residents and visitors. It directs the COGCC to provide for consultation with the Wildlife Commission and the Division of Wildlife on decisions that impact wildlife resources. It also directs the COGCC to adopt rules to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife resources, which is defined to mean avoiding adverse impacts where possible, minimizing the extent of impacts that cannot be avoided, and mitigating the effects of unavoidable remaining impacts. Finally, it provides that permit-specific conditions for wildlife habitat protection were to be attached only with the consent of the surface owner.
    The COGCC’s amended rules:
    ¢ Identify sensitive wildlife areas, largely located in western Colorado
    ¢ Provide for limited consultation with the Division of Wildlife on permit applications
    ¢ Require surface-owner consent on permit-specific conditions for wildlife habitat protection
    ¢ Require the use of certain best management practices to protect wildlife
    The COGCC’s amended rules respond to this legislative direction by providing for consultation with the Division of Wildlife regarding development in sensitive wildlife habitat and avoidance of the most critical habitat where feasible. They also impose certain operating requirements to protect wildlife and ensure that surface owner consent is obtained before permit-specific wildlife conditions are imposed.
    Identification of Sensitive Wildlife Areas
    In order to ensure that potential impacts to wildlife habitat are taken into account, the amended rules identify two categories of valuable habitat which are designated on maps incorporated into COGCC’s rules. The first category is œsensitive wildlife habitat, which is largely found in western Colorado and includes areas such as mule deer critical winter range, bighorn sheep winter range, and greater sage grouse production areas. An operator locating a new facility within sensitive wildlife habitat will consult with the COGCC, the Division of Wildlife, and the surface owner, as discussed below. The second category is œrestricted surface occupancy areas, which are likewise mostly found in western Colorado and include the highest-value habitat such as lands within 1/4 mile of an active Bald Eagle nest sites, areas within 0.6 mile of any greater sage-grouse lek, and areas within 300′ of designated Cutthroat Trout stream segments or œGold Medal fisheries. Operators must avoid new development in these relatively small areas to the extent technically and economically feasible. If avoidance is infeasible, then the operator may develop in these areas after consultation with the COGCC, the Division of Wildlife, and the surface owner, as discussed below.  The number of species covered by these sensitive wildlife areas was reduced during the rulemaking to ensure that only the most valuable species and habitats were included.
    Consultation with the Division of Wildlife
    The amended rules provide for consultation with the Division of Wildlife on decisions that impact wildlife resources, as directed in HB 1298. C.R.S. §§ 24-60-128(3)(a). An operator will be required to consult with the COGCC, the Division of Wildlife, and the surface owner in limited circumstances, such as where an oil and gas facility is proposed in sensitive wildlife habitat, where the operator seeks a variance from one of the wildlife rules, or where the Division of Wildlife requests consultation because a proposed development site is in habitat of a threatened or endangered species. The consultation approach taken by the COGCC with regard to wildlife protection was proposed by industry during the rulemaking process.
    Consultation with the Division of Wildlife will take place within a 40-day period that runs concurrently with the public comment period on and the COGCC’s consideration of the application. This will ensure that the COGCC permitting process remains timely and efficient, as directed by the General Assembly in HB 1298.
    During consultation, the operator will work with the Division of Wildlife to identify measures to minimize impacts to sensitive wildlife habitat. As a result of this consultation, the Division of Wildlife may make written recommendations to the COGCC on conditions of approval necessary to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife. Where the operator, the surface owner, the COGCC, and the Division of Wildlife agree to such conditions of approval, they will be incorporated into the COGCC’s permit approvals. The COGCC staff believes that many consultations will require less than 40 days.
    Where the parties to the consultation do not reach agreement on conditions of approval, the COGCC Director will decide whether to attach conditions on the permit approval. In making this decision, the Director will consider several factors, including a list of potential best management practices for the geologic basin, the anticipated effects of the proposed action on wildlife, the extent to which acceptable alternative sites exist for the proposed operation, the extent to which the operator proposes to use technology or practices that are protective of the environment, and any lease terms or surface use agreements predating these rule amendments. In no case, however, will the Director attach permit-specific conditions for wildlife habitat protection without the consent of the surface owner, as described below.
    Finally, consultation under the amended rules will not be required in certain circumstances, such as where the proposed oil and gas site is covered by an approved Comprehensive Drilling Plan, where the Division of Wildlife has previously approved a wildlife mitigation plan covering the proposed site, or where the operator voluntarily agrees to limits its surface disturbance in the sensitive wildlife area.
    Surface Owner Consent for Permit-Specific Conditions
    As directed by the General Assembly, the amendments prohibit the COGCC from attaching permit-specific conditions for wildlife habitat protection without the consent of the surface owner. C.R.S. § 34-60-128(3)(b).
    Where such permit-specific conditions are suggested by the Division of Wildlife or the COGCC and the surface owner withholds consent, the COGCC will work with the surface owner, the Division of Wildlife, and the operator to identify acceptable alternate conditions.
    In the rare instance where conditions acceptable to the surface owner cannot be identified, the COGCC will decide whether to issue the permit without permit-specific wildlife conditions or to deny the permit. Ultimately, the COGCC has the responsibility to balance development of oil and gas resources with minimizing adverse impacts to wildlife resources. C.R.S. § 34-60-128(2).
    Best Management Practices for Wildlife Protection
    HB 1298 also directs the adoption of standards for minimizing adverse impacts to wildlife resources and the implementation, wherever reasonably practicable, of best management practices to conserve wildlife. C.R.S. §§ 24-60-128(3)(c) & (d).
    The COGCC’s amended rules contain several operating standards — many of which are already being implemented by operators in Colorado — such as utilizing bear-proof containers for food-related trash, disinfecting certain equipment before using it in designated Cutthroat Trout habitat, planning transportation networks to minimize the number and length of oil and gas roads, and establishing refueling and chemical storage areas outside of riparian zones and floodplains. Other operating standards will only apply in areas of particularly sensitive wildlife habitat, such as constructing escape ramps for certain pipeline trenches during installation, consolidating new facilities, minimizing rig mobilization where practicable, using boring instead of trenching across critical fish streams, and treating certain wastewater pits to prevent the spread of West Nile Virus. Finally, other operating requirements will only apply in sensitive wildlife areas and only with the consent of the surface owner, such as using wildlife-appropriate fencing or seed mixes during reclamation, limiting access to oil and gas roads, and using topographic features and vegetative screening to create seclusion areas.

     

    For more information, please contact: David Neslin, Acting COGCC Director, at 303-894-2100, ext. 122 or

    Heidi Van Huysen, DNR Legislative Program Manager, at 303-866-3311, ext. 8664.

    The amended rules do not include mandatory timing limitations, as had been previously proposed.

  • Oil and Gas Rules Information Sheet

    DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
    Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor
    Wildlife Protection in COGCC’s Amended Rules
    As unanimously adopted, House Bill 1298 directs that oil and gas operations in Colorado were to be managed in a way that balances development with wildlife conservation and declared it to be the policy of the State that wildlife and their environment are to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit and enjoyment of the State’s residents and visitors. It directs the COGCC to provide for consultation with the Wildlife Commission and the Division of Wildlife on decisions that impact wildlife resources. It also directs the COGCC to adopt rules to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife resources, which is defined to mean avoiding adverse impacts where possible, minimizing the extent of impacts that cannot be avoided, and mitigating the effects of unavoidable remaining impacts. Finally, it provides that permit-specific conditions for wildlife habitat protection were to be attached only with the consent of the surface owner.
    The COGCC’s amended rules:
    ¢ Identify sensitive wildlife areas, largely located in western Colorado
    ¢ Provide for limited consultation with the Division of Wildlife on permit applications
    ¢ Require surface-owner consent on permit-specific conditions for wildlife habitat protection
    ¢ Require the use of certain best management practices to protect wildlife
    The COGCC’s amended rules respond to this legislative direction by providing for consultation with the Division of Wildlife regarding development in sensitive wildlife habitat and avoidance of the most critical habitat where feasible. They also impose certain operating requirements to protect wildlife and ensure that surface owner consent is obtained before permit-specific wildlife conditions are imposed.
    Identification of Sensitive Wildlife Areas
    In order to ensure that potential impacts to wildlife habitat are taken into account, the amended rules identify two categories of valuable habitat which are designated on maps incorporated into COGCC’s rules. The first category is œsensitive wildlife habitat, which is largely found in western Colorado and includes areas such as mule deer critical winter range, bighorn sheep winter range, and greater sage grouse production areas. An operator locating a new facility within sensitive wildlife habitat will consult with the COGCC, the Division of Wildlife, and the surface owner, as discussed below. The second category is œrestricted surface occupancy areas, which are likewise mostly found in western Colorado and include the highest-value habitat such as lands within 1/4 mile of an active Bald Eagle nest sites, areas within 0.6 mile of any greater sage-grouse lek, and areas within 300′ of designated Cutthroat Trout stream segments or œGold Medal fisheries. Operators must avoid new development in these relatively small areas to the extent technically and economically feasible. If avoidance is infeasible, then the operator may develop in these areas after consultation with the COGCC, the Division of Wildlife, and the surface owner, as discussed below.  The number of species covered by these sensitive wildlife areas was reduced during the rulemaking to ensure that only the most valuable species and habitats were included.
    Consultation with the Division of Wildlife
    The amended rules provide for consultation with the Division of Wildlife on decisions that impact wildlife resources, as directed in HB 1298. C.R.S. §§ 24-60-128(3)(a). An operator will be required to consult with the COGCC, the Division of Wildlife, and the surface owner in limited circumstances, such as where an oil and gas facility is proposed in sensitive wildlife habitat, where the operator seeks a variance from one of the wildlife rules, or where the Division of Wildlife requests consultation because a proposed development site is in habitat of a threatened or endangered species. The consultation approach taken by the COGCC with regard to wildlife protection was proposed by industry during the rulemaking process.
    Consultation with the Division of Wildlife will take place within a 40-day period that runs concurrently with the public comment period on and the COGCC’s consideration of the application. This will ensure that the COGCC permitting process remains timely and efficient, as directed by the General Assembly in HB 1298.
    During consultation, the operator will work with the Division of Wildlife to identify measures to minimize impacts to sensitive wildlife habitat. As a result of this consultation, the Division of Wildlife may make written recommendations to the COGCC on conditions of approval necessary to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife. Where the operator, the surface owner, the COGCC, and the Division of Wildlife agree to such conditions of approval, they will be incorporated into the COGCC’s permit approvals. The COGCC staff believes that many consultations will require less than 40 days.
    Where the parties to the consultation do not reach agreement on conditions of approval, the COGCC Director will decide whether to attach conditions on the permit approval. In making this decision, the Director will consider several factors, including a list of potential best management practices for the geologic basin, the anticipated effects of the proposed action on wildlife, the extent to which acceptable alternative sites exist for the proposed operation, the extent to which the operator proposes to use technology or practices that are protective of the environment, and any lease terms or surface use agreements predating these rule amendments. In no case, however, will the Director attach permit-specific conditions for wildlife habitat protection without the consent of the surface owner, as described below.
    Finally, consultation under the amended rules will not be required in certain circumstances, such as where the proposed oil and gas site is covered by an approved Comprehensive Drilling Plan, where the Division of Wildlife has previously approved a wildlife mitigation plan covering the proposed site, or where the operator voluntarily agrees to limits its surface disturbance in the sensitive wildlife area.
    Surface Owner Consent for Permit-Specific Conditions
    As directed by the General Assembly, the amendments prohibit the COGCC from attaching permit-specific conditions for wildlife habitat protection without the consent of the surface owner. C.R.S. § 34-60-128(3)(b).
    Where such permit-specific conditions are suggested by the Division of Wildlife or the COGCC and the surface owner withholds consent, the COGCC will work with the surface owner, the Division of Wildlife, and the operator to identify acceptable alternate conditions.
    In the rare instance where conditions acceptable to the surface owner cannot be identified, the COGCC will decide whether to issue the permit without permit-specific wildlife conditions or to deny the permit. Ultimately, the COGCC has the responsibility to balance development of oil and gas resources with minimizing adverse impacts to wildlife resources. C.R.S. § 34-60-128(2).
    Best Management Practices for Wildlife Protection
    HB 1298 also directs the adoption of standards for minimizing adverse impacts to wildlife resources and the implementation, wherever reasonably practicable, of best management practices to conserve wildlife. C.R.S. §§ 24-60-128(3)(c) & (d).
    The COGCC’s amended rules contain several operating standards — many of which are already being implemented by operators in Colorado — such as utilizing bear-proof containers for food-related trash, disinfecting certain equipment before using it in designated Cutthroat Trout habitat, planning transportation networks to minimize the number and length of oil and gas roads, and establishing refueling and chemical storage areas outside of riparian zones and floodplains. Other operating standards will only apply in areas of particularly sensitive wildlife habitat, such as constructing escape ramps for certain pipeline trenches during installation, consolidating new facilities, minimizing rig mobilization where practicable, using boring instead of trenching across critical fish streams, and treating certain wastewater pits to prevent the spread of West Nile Virus. Finally, other operating requirements will only apply in sensitive wildlife areas and only with the consent of the surface owner, such as using wildlife-appropriate fencing or seed mixes during reclamation, limiting access to oil and gas roads, and using topographic features and vegetative screening to create seclusion areas.

     

    For more information, please contact: David Neslin, Acting COGCC Director, at 303-894-2100, ext. 122 or

    Heidi Van Huysen, DNR Legislative Program Manager, at 303-866-3311, ext. 8664.

    The amended rules do not include mandatory timing limitations, as had been previously proposed.

  • Land along Big T may go up for sale

    Publish Date: 1/2/2009
    Larimer County works on compromise plan for land along Big Thompson River
    By Kathryn Dailey
    Loveland Reporter-Herald
    Drake resident Dallas Maurer considers himself an avid fisherman of the Big Thompson River, which flows just across the street from his house.
    Along the Big Thompson Canyon, from Loveland to Estes Park, Maurer says there are miles and miles of access for fishermen, which is one of the reasons he supports the sale of a piece of county-owned land in his neighborhood to a private owner to stop the loitering and other œabuses by members of the public.
    The 2.6-acre piece of property in question is one that has created some tension between neighbors and fishermen and is one of more than 100 pieces of land that Larimer County bought after the 1976 Big Thompson flood.
    The county has sold five pieces of the property and is deciding whether to keep the others for public access.
    To help appease both Drake residents and fishermen who want to retain access to the river, Larimer County hired a surveyor to identify 10-foot buffers on both banks of the river to be retained for fishing access, said Natural Resources Director Gary Buffington.
    The remainder of the land would be put up for sale.
    œWe’re trying to use that model other places in the canyon, he said.
    The proposed plan likely will go before the Larimer County Parks Advisory Board for consideration this month, said board chairwoman Linda Knowlton.
    It would then go to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners for final approval.
    Maurer, who has only read about the potential plan in Parks Advisory Board minutes, said it should help satisfy all parties involved. œThat should take care of all the trespassing and all the other issues that come in with the public, he said.
    Walt Graul, organizer of Friends of the Big Thompson, a coalition of people, organizations and businesses in support of retention of the county properties along the Big Thompson, said the plan may not work for all debated properties because group members want it kept not just for fishing access, but also to preserve riparian habitats.
    œThis can’t be a one solution for all properties, he said.
    Friends of the Big Thompson was formed in October to create a more consolidated voice and improve communication between proponents of retaining the properties, Graul said.
    County staffers will continue to work with the Parks Advisory Board to evaluate the properties, Buffington said, adding that it takes time to make sure that the properties are dealt with in the right way the first time.
    œWe think this process is a good one, he said.

  • Land along Big T may go up for sale

    Publish Date: 1/2/2009
    Larimer County works on compromise plan for land along Big Thompson River
    By Kathryn Dailey
    Loveland Reporter-Herald
    Drake resident Dallas Maurer considers himself an avid fisherman of the Big Thompson River, which flows just across the street from his house.
    Along the Big Thompson Canyon, from Loveland to Estes Park, Maurer says there are miles and miles of access for fishermen, which is one of the reasons he supports the sale of a piece of county-owned land in his neighborhood to a private owner to stop the loitering and other œabuses by members of the public.
    The 2.6-acre piece of property in question is one that has created some tension between neighbors and fishermen and is one of more than 100 pieces of land that Larimer County bought after the 1976 Big Thompson flood.
    The county has sold five pieces of the property and is deciding whether to keep the others for public access.
    To help appease both Drake residents and fishermen who want to retain access to the river, Larimer County hired a surveyor to identify 10-foot buffers on both banks of the river to be retained for fishing access, said Natural Resources Director Gary Buffington.
    The remainder of the land would be put up for sale.
    œWe’re trying to use that model other places in the canyon, he said.
    The proposed plan likely will go before the Larimer County Parks Advisory Board for consideration this month, said board chairwoman Linda Knowlton.
    It would then go to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners for final approval.
    Maurer, who has only read about the potential plan in Parks Advisory Board minutes, said it should help satisfy all parties involved. œThat should take care of all the trespassing and all the other issues that come in with the public, he said.
    Walt Graul, organizer of Friends of the Big Thompson, a coalition of people, organizations and businesses in support of retention of the county properties along the Big Thompson, said the plan may not work for all debated properties because group members want it kept not just for fishing access, but also to preserve riparian habitats.
    œThis can’t be a one solution for all properties, he said.
    Friends of the Big Thompson was formed in October to create a more consolidated voice and improve communication between proponents of retaining the properties, Graul said.
    County staffers will continue to work with the Parks Advisory Board to evaluate the properties, Buffington said, adding that it takes time to make sure that the properties are dealt with in the right way the first time.
    œWe think this process is a good one, he said.

  • Colorado Conservation Summit Executive Summary

    2008 Colorado Conservation Summit:
    Colorado Wildlife at a Crossroads
    Executive Summary
     
     
     
    COLORADO‘S WILDLIFE IN 2058:
    Our Shared Commitment to the Future
    A Consensus Statement of the 2008 Colorado Conservation Summit
     
    We, the participants of the 2008 Colorado Conservation Summit, have come together because we share these fundamental beliefs about our state and natural resources:
    • We have been entrusted with the stewardship of one of the best places on Earth.
    • We must redouble our efforts to maintain and enhance the habitat that Colorado’s fish, wildlife and native plant populations need to survive, if we are to fulfill our responsibilities to future generations.
    Colorado’s wildlife is a public trust – a defining resource that is key to our Western heritage, traditions and place within the Western landscape. Wildlife-based recreation is a multi-billion dollar industry with the potential to grow in importance as resources in other portions of the world are depleted. Equally important are the intangible aesthetic and spiritual connections to our wildlife that tie us to the land and define us as a people and region.
    The broad cross-section of Coloradans who have come together for this Summit understand that increasing development pressures both within our state and the surrounding region are creating an intense competition for our resources. Threats include:
    • Rapid population growth in Colorado and the Rocky Mountain West.
    • Increasing demand for water within Colorado and in states that rely on rivers originating in Colorado.
    • A dramatic increase in energy development on public and private lands.
    • Increased demand for outdoor recreation among some groups, which creates industries that both depend on healthy, intact natural systems and have the potential to damage these values.
    • Declining participation by children and families in outdoor activities, which threatens to erode the constituency for wildlife and habitat protections.
    • Rapid and unpredictable climate shifts.
    With these and other factors in mind, we recognize that we must act today if our wildlife heritage is to be sustained for future generations. If we fail to act now, we will certainly leave our children a Colorado diminished by our lack of determination.
    To accomplish our ambitious goals, we recognize the need for an improved public dialogue to build a constituency that supports policies and practices in the public and private sectors that are specifically designed to maintain and enhance healthy wildlife populations and habitat through 2058.
    This dialogue must lead to specific actions by our elected officials and government agencies at all levels that leads to the rethinking of existing mechanisms that guide our stewardship of natural resources. These steps must be sufficient to secure both the protection and enhancement of the habitat that fish and wildlife need to survive – and the responsible management required for the long-term sustainability of our wildlife resource.
    If we are to accomplish our goals, elected leaders, state and federal agency heads, private industry, agriculture, landowners, universities, wildlife conservation and environmental organizations must be equally involved”and equally committed”to a shared vision for the future of Colorado’s wildlife.
    We hereby embrace our obligations as trustees of Colorado’s wildlife heritage. We resolve to continue our work beyond the Colorado Conservation Summit – to inform and engage the public and government leaders, to support promising new approaches and to advocate for decisions needed to address the complex problems threatening our most treasured natural resources.
    Finally, to the citizens of Colorado and the nation: We recommit ourselves to the resolute stewardship of this priceless and irreplaceable resource, Colorado’s wildlife. We invite you to join us in this unprecedented endeavor.
    Signed,
    [ALL PARTICIPATING INDIVIDUALS & ORGANIZATIONS]
    Oct. 8, 2008
    [This consensus statement is signed by individuals or organizations who attended the 2008 Colorado Wildlife Conservation Summit and support the vision for wildlife conservation embodied in this consensus statement.
    Signature to this document should not be interpreted as implicit agreement to any specific recommendations identified within ongoing working documents or follow-up reports.]
    Name
    Organization
    Gary Graham
    Audubon Colorado
    Doris Cruze
    Audubon Society of Greater Denver
    Josh Pollock
    Center for Native Ecosystems
    Ivan James
    Colorado Bowhunters Association
    Dr. Walt Hecox
    Colorado College
    Ron Cattany
    Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety
    Steve S. Shuey
    Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety
    James Anthony
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Jay Cooper
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Jay Skinner
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Jennifer Strotman
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Jon Holst
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Kathi Green
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Lori Morgan
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Tabbi Kinion
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Thomas Nesler
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Tom Remington
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Wendy Hanophy
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Elise Jones
    Colorado Environmental Coalition
    Roger Tucker
    Colorado Hawking Club
    Wolf Brueggemann
    Colorado Hawking Club
    Clare Bastable
    Colorado Mountain Club
    Nancy Stocker
    Colorado Prairie Wildlife Photo Trail
    Chris Sturm
    Colorado Water Conservation Board *
    Robert Viehl
    Colorado Water Conservation Board *
    John Smeltzer
    Colorado Wildlife Federation
    Bill Daley
    Colorado Wildlife Heritage Foundation
    Bob Hewson
    Colorado Youth Outdoors
    Greg Kernahan
    Ducks Unlimited *
    Bill Dvorak
    Dvorak Expeditions
    Courtney Copeland
    E.L.K.
    Dwane Matthews
    Environmental Learning for Kids
    Hugo Valdez
    Environmental Learning for Kids
    Robert Hernandez
    GreenWay LLC
    Kate Zimmerman
    National Wildlife Federation
    Paul Drey
    Outdoor Heritage Consulting
    Laura Thomas
    Prairie Preservation Alliance
    Alan Heald
    Quiet Use Coalition
    Bob Towry
    Retired Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Eddie Kochman
    Retired Colorado Division of Wildlife
    John Mumma
    Retired Director, Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Gary Miller
    Retired Division of Wildlife
    Tom Easley
    Rocky Mountain Climate Organization
    Cheri Eby
    Safari Club International *
    John Nelson
    Safari Club International *
    Russ Eby
    Safari Club International *
    Hillary White
    Sheep Mountain Alliance
    Charles Bedford
    The Nature Conservancy
    Janice Thomson
    The Wilderness Society
    Suzanne Jones
    The Wilderness Society
    Holly Tarry
    US Humane Society *
    Shirley J. Casey
    WildAgain Wildlife Rehabilitation, Inc.
    Charles Richmond
    US Forest Service – Forest Supervisor, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests
    Chuck Warren
    Colleen Gadd
    Dan Dallas
    US Forest Service – Forest Supervisor, Rio Grande National Forest
    David Armstrong
    David Dittloff
    Gene Reetz
    Glen Casamassa
    US Forest Service – Forest Supervisor,  Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland

  • Colorado Conservation Summit Executive Summary

    2008 Colorado Conservation Summit:
    Colorado Wildlife at a Crossroads
    Executive Summary
     
     
     
    COLORADO‘S WILDLIFE IN 2058:
    Our Shared Commitment to the Future
    A Consensus Statement of the 2008 Colorado Conservation Summit
     
    We, the participants of the 2008 Colorado Conservation Summit, have come together because we share these fundamental beliefs about our state and natural resources:
    • We have been entrusted with the stewardship of one of the best places on Earth.
    • We must redouble our efforts to maintain and enhance the habitat that Colorado’s fish, wildlife and native plant populations need to survive, if we are to fulfill our responsibilities to future generations.
    Colorado’s wildlife is a public trust – a defining resource that is key to our Western heritage, traditions and place within the Western landscape. Wildlife-based recreation is a multi-billion dollar industry with the potential to grow in importance as resources in other portions of the world are depleted. Equally important are the intangible aesthetic and spiritual connections to our wildlife that tie us to the land and define us as a people and region.
    The broad cross-section of Coloradans who have come together for this Summit understand that increasing development pressures both within our state and the surrounding region are creating an intense competition for our resources. Threats include:
    • Rapid population growth in Colorado and the Rocky Mountain West.
    • Increasing demand for water within Colorado and in states that rely on rivers originating in Colorado.
    • A dramatic increase in energy development on public and private lands.
    • Increased demand for outdoor recreation among some groups, which creates industries that both depend on healthy, intact natural systems and have the potential to damage these values.
    • Declining participation by children and families in outdoor activities, which threatens to erode the constituency for wildlife and habitat protections.
    • Rapid and unpredictable climate shifts.
    With these and other factors in mind, we recognize that we must act today if our wildlife heritage is to be sustained for future generations. If we fail to act now, we will certainly leave our children a Colorado diminished by our lack of determination.
    To accomplish our ambitious goals, we recognize the need for an improved public dialogue to build a constituency that supports policies and practices in the public and private sectors that are specifically designed to maintain and enhance healthy wildlife populations and habitat through 2058.
    This dialogue must lead to specific actions by our elected officials and government agencies at all levels that leads to the rethinking of existing mechanisms that guide our stewardship of natural resources. These steps must be sufficient to secure both the protection and enhancement of the habitat that fish and wildlife need to survive – and the responsible management required for the long-term sustainability of our wildlife resource.
    If we are to accomplish our goals, elected leaders, state and federal agency heads, private industry, agriculture, landowners, universities, wildlife conservation and environmental organizations must be equally involved”and equally committed”to a shared vision for the future of Colorado’s wildlife.
    We hereby embrace our obligations as trustees of Colorado’s wildlife heritage. We resolve to continue our work beyond the Colorado Conservation Summit – to inform and engage the public and government leaders, to support promising new approaches and to advocate for decisions needed to address the complex problems threatening our most treasured natural resources.
    Finally, to the citizens of Colorado and the nation: We recommit ourselves to the resolute stewardship of this priceless and irreplaceable resource, Colorado’s wildlife. We invite you to join us in this unprecedented endeavor.
    Signed,
    [ALL PARTICIPATING INDIVIDUALS & ORGANIZATIONS]
    Oct. 8, 2008
    [This consensus statement is signed by individuals or organizations who attended the 2008 Colorado Wildlife Conservation Summit and support the vision for wildlife conservation embodied in this consensus statement.
    Signature to this document should not be interpreted as implicit agreement to any specific recommendations identified within ongoing working documents or follow-up reports.]
    Name
    Organization
    Gary Graham
    Audubon Colorado
    Doris Cruze
    Audubon Society of Greater Denver
    Josh Pollock
    Center for Native Ecosystems
    Ivan James
    Colorado Bowhunters Association
    Dr. Walt Hecox
    Colorado College
    Ron Cattany
    Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety
    Steve S. Shuey
    Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety
    James Anthony
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Jay Cooper
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Jay Skinner
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Jennifer Strotman
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Jon Holst
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Kathi Green
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Lori Morgan
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Tabbi Kinion
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Thomas Nesler
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Tom Remington
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Wendy Hanophy
    Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Elise Jones
    Colorado Environmental Coalition
    Roger Tucker
    Colorado Hawking Club
    Wolf Brueggemann
    Colorado Hawking Club
    Clare Bastable
    Colorado Mountain Club
    Nancy Stocker
    Colorado Prairie Wildlife Photo Trail
    Chris Sturm
    Colorado Water Conservation Board *
    Robert Viehl
    Colorado Water Conservation Board *
    John Smeltzer
    Colorado Wildlife Federation
    Bill Daley
    Colorado Wildlife Heritage Foundation
    Bob Hewson
    Colorado Youth Outdoors
    Greg Kernahan
    Ducks Unlimited *
    Bill Dvorak
    Dvorak Expeditions
    Courtney Copeland
    E.L.K.
    Dwane Matthews
    Environmental Learning for Kids
    Hugo Valdez
    Environmental Learning for Kids
    Robert Hernandez
    GreenWay LLC
    Kate Zimmerman
    National Wildlife Federation
    Paul Drey
    Outdoor Heritage Consulting
    Laura Thomas
    Prairie Preservation Alliance
    Alan Heald
    Quiet Use Coalition
    Bob Towry
    Retired Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Eddie Kochman
    Retired Colorado Division of Wildlife
    John Mumma
    Retired Director, Colorado Division of Wildlife
    Gary Miller
    Retired Division of Wildlife
    Tom Easley
    Rocky Mountain Climate Organization
    Cheri Eby
    Safari Club International *
    John Nelson
    Safari Club International *
    Russ Eby
    Safari Club International *
    Hillary White
    Sheep Mountain Alliance
    Charles Bedford
    The Nature Conservancy
    Janice Thomson
    The Wilderness Society
    Suzanne Jones
    The Wilderness Society
    Holly Tarry
    US Humane Society *
    Shirley J. Casey
    WildAgain Wildlife Rehabilitation, Inc.
    Charles Richmond
    US Forest Service – Forest Supervisor, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests
    Chuck Warren
    Colleen Gadd
    Dan Dallas
    US Forest Service – Forest Supervisor, Rio Grande National Forest
    David Armstrong
    David Dittloff
    Gene Reetz
    Glen Casamassa
    US Forest Service – Forest Supervisor,  Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland

  • CO Oil and Gas Conservation Comn adopted final rules on December 10.

    Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has adopted final oil and gas rules at its December 10 meeting. CWF believes that the rules represent a balanced compromise to provide minimum protections to wildlife — to help Colorado’s very important wildlife resource to withstand intense gas development.  The next task is to protect these rules during the next session of the general assembly that begins in January.  We expect attempts to weaken these minimum protections for wildlife.

  • CO Oil and Gas Conservation Comn adopted final rules on December 10.

    Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has adopted final oil and gas rules at its December 10 meeting. CWF believes that the rules represent a balanced compromise to provide minimum protections to wildlife — to help Colorado’s very important wildlife resource to withstand intense gas development.  The next task is to protect these rules during the next session of the general assembly that begins in January.  We expect attempts to weaken these minimum protections for wildlife.

  • Roadless: USDA grants CO request for more time to make recommendations for CO Rule

    Roadless: State of Colorado requested more time from the US Department of Agriculture to submit its recommendations for the Colorado Rule. This request has been granted.  CWF applauds this new development as the State needs more time to work on language modifications to the proposed rule to strengthen it.  CWF and NWF had submitted extensive comments on the proposed Colorado Rule on October 23 and the letter is posted on this website.