Category: News (Older posts)

CWF learned of this BLM instruction memorandum on Saturday.  We will watch closely to see how BLM implements the instructions issued by its Director.

http://www.denverpost.com/charlie

http://www.denverpost.com/charlie

www.wildlife.state.co.us/NewsMedia/PressReleases/Press.asp

www.wildlife.state.co.us/NewsMedia/PressReleases/Press.asp

The Colorado Division of Wildlife is closer to calling for a legislative bill that would give wildlife officers power to enforce off-road vehicle laws on federal and state lands.

John Smeltzer, vice-chairman of the board of the Colorado Wildlife Federation, said enacting a law giving district wildlife managers enforcement powers is designed to reduce problems by egregious abusers, especially during prime hunting and fishing seasons.

œThis is something that has been discussed for many years by various state and federal agencies, and the wildlife commission finally said ˜enough is enough’ when it came to complaints by off-road vehicle violators, and directed wildlife division assistant director John Bredehoft to head a commission to look into the matter as it applies to hunting and fishing activities.

Smeltzer said the meetings started with a handful of groups being represented, but by last Tuesday, 25 to 30 people were on hand to discuss how the additional enforcement by the DOW would aid in cutting down on off-road vehicles that violate the trail laws.

œRules have been established under federal law, but this law would mean all peace officers would be able to enforce off-road activity in closure areas, wilderness areas, and other areas such as where eagles or peregrine falcons are nesting, or in elk calving areas, for example. Smeltzer said.

The bill would seek Title 33 status and a violation would have a penalty, probably a fine and possibly points assessed against a sporting license. That is still under discussion.
He said the DOW did sampling of field officers and found overwhelming support for the authority, the officers saying they needed it to do something when they see a violation involving closure areas and habitat destruction, for example.
Among the groups participating in the discussions are the Colorado Wildlife Federation, Colorado Off-Road Vehicle Coalition, Colorado Mountain Club, and Colorado Environmental Coalition.

œRight now, the discussion is if there is a bill, who would sponsor it in the Legislature and should they try for legislation this year or wait until next.

One major hurdle in off-road vehicle enforcement is mapping, something each individual forest in the state is in the process of preparing.

A Sept. 2 editorial in the Rocky Mountain News stated individual forest districts will be drawing up motor-vehicle travel maps over the next two years and the restrictions should be in place by 2010.

œWhatever the decision, this will be a very sensitive issue, Smeltzer said.

Does focusing so intently on preserving the Roan Plateau obscure the fact that the entire region around the area is being sacrificed to oil and gas production?

Bob Elderkin of the Colorado Mule Deer Association and a former BLM oil and gas administrator, said, While everybody is keying on the Roan, they are missing the state.

All around the base of that plateau is the winter range for elk and deer and they are drilling on that winter range.

Most people on the Western Slope are concerned about drilling in the unmatched beauty of the public lands atop of the plateau.

A recent survey of 400 potential voters in the Third Congressional District indicated an overwhelming majority favored protecting native wildlife and unspoiled public lands on the Roan Plateau.

The poll, conducted by Anzolone Liszt Research of Washington D.C. for a number of conservation groups, indicated: Some 58 percent of registered Republicans said there should be no drilling or limiting that drilling to the base, and 78 percent of independents and 82 percent of Democrats felt the same.

Among hunters, 69 percent supported drilling restrictions, as did three-fourths of anglers, hikers and campers polled.

Rifle mayor Keith Lambers said, A protected Roan Plateau is important to the ongoing economic viability we have enjoyed through traditional historic uses on the plateau, including hunting, fishing and grazing. It’s a small island in an overwhelming sea of energy extraction. Leave the island alone.

“The Roan Plateau is important to the region’s wildlife and wildlife economy, ” said Suzanne O’Neill, executive director of the Colorado Wildlife Federation. “Hunting alone brings 1,500 hunters to the Roan Plateau and contributes million to the local economy each year. We must gain protections for important wildlife areas. It is critical that the BLM strike a balance between drilling and wildlife. We’re not there yet – and industry has no shortage of places left to drill. What’s the rush?”

The coalition of conservation groups released the polling numbers in response to a statewide survey conducted by the Denver Chamber of Commerce in which respondents were asked if they agreed that energy companies should be allowed to drill the Roan Plateau to reduce dependence on oil imports?

What they didn’t take into account is there are no deposits of oil under the 3,000-foot high plateau.

It’s inconceivable that a chamber of commerce located in an oil and gas city like Denver would mistake natural gas for oil it’s apples and oranges, said Steve Smith of The Wilderness Society.

But the entire matter still may be a matter of the Emperor has no clothes Elderkin argues.

The real danger is to the Piceance Basin, Sand Wash and Vermillion Basin. That’s the winter range for the elk and deer that wander up on the Roan in the summer.

Elderkin places the blame squarely on the shoulders of the BLM, saying it’s running an interesting scam by leasing the lands, then shrugging it off as not being their problem.

They should be designating where drill pods go, he said. They just let drilling companies put in pipelines where ever they want.

We have a NEPA process to manage surface drilling but they are just blowing it off.

He said the people have a tendency to beat up the companies doing the drilling, but they can’t be blamed because they are simply doing what they are being allowed to do.

The feds pass it off as a state Oil and Gas Commission responsibility, but it’s not, it is theirs, he said from years of experience in the field.

What effect that gas production will have on wintering deer and elk is unknown, although common sense says the animals will have to move on as the density of wells increases.

The state Division of Wildlife is just starting to study the effect it will have on wildlife, Elderkin said. It’s an million to million study that will take seven to eight years.

Where the money to fund it will come from, I don’t know although we are making a contribution to it.

I can tell you, this. Hunting as we’ve known it simply won exist.

POLICY STATEMENT

It is the intent of the Commission to uphold the legislative declaration under Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 33 Wildlife and Parks and Outdoor Recreation Article 1 œWildlife – General Provisions that wildlife and their environment are to be protected, preserved, enhanced and managed for the use, benefit and enjoyment of the people of this state and its visitors. Therefore, in the planning and management of energy development operations the Commission encourages
an approach that balances development with wildlife conservation and the hunting, fishing, and recreation traditions and economies they support.

Hunting, angling and wildlife viewing contribute significantly to the economy of the State of Colorado, benefiting local economies and providing jobs in such fields as manufacturing, retail sales, and wildlife related service industries such as, outfitting and guiding, etc. In addition to these extrinsic economic benefits, the wildlife of the State of Colorado also provide intrinsic, positive enhancement to all types of wildlife-related recreational experiences for both residents of and visitors to the State of Colorado.

The Commission recognizes that significant energy development of all types, including mineral, solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and others, has occurred and will continue in habitats where important wildlife species exist in Colorado. Disturbance to the landscape resulting from energy exploration and development as well as the related increased level of human activities and transmission infrastructure, will result in greater impacts to wildlife and its habitat, and may create habitat fragmentation. The Commission is concerned that these impacts could affect some of our most important big game herds and ultimately the quality of hunting, the ability of the Division of Wildlife to effectively manage these herds, local economies, and the revenue that the Division depends on from hunting licenses. The Commission is also concerned about the potential loss of species and impacts that could result in federal listing under the Endangered Species Act.

However, the Commission does recognize the important role energy companies play in providing clean, safe and efficient energy for America’s homes and businesses as well as the substantial economic contribution resulting from jobs, taxes, mineral royalties, etc.

Therefore, the Commission encourages responsible development of the State’s energy resources through the use of the best technology available to first avoid and minimize impacts and then to mitigate remaining unavoidable environmental impacts to Colorado’s wildlife and wildlife habitat. The Commission pledges to assist the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in their efforts to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife resources affected by oil and gas development as outlined in Title 34 Mineral Resources, Article 60 Oil and Gas Conservation. The Commission will strongly advocate that energy development occur in as ecologically responsible a manner as possible. In so doing, the Commission feels that the most effective ways to reduce the effects on wildlife include but are not limited to:

1. Identifying key habitats for important species and critical seasonal uses of those habitats
2. Assisting in planning orderly field development that takes such information into account
3. Promoting a working list of best management practices to provide to industry
4. Providing training for staff and industry employees
5. Developing onsite and offsite mitigation strategies
6. Working with energy companies to secure funding for habitat improvements

The Commission also encourages industry to collaborate with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and assist with funding on research and monitoring projects that will assist with measuring and minimizing impacts now and in the future.

The Colorado Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife Federation and the Colorado Mule Deer Association protested a Bureau of Land Management decision that allows extensive natural gas development in key big-game habitat south of Parachute without requiring adequate steps to protect Colorado’s wildlife.

BLM rejected the CWF-NWF-CMDA Request for Review.

The Protest (Request for Review)
The protest, filed by the Colorado Wildlife Federation, Colorado Mule Deer Association and National Wildlife Federation, states the BLM failed to require a plan detailing the full extent of development in the South Parachute Geographic Area Plan (GAP). The groups also said the plan approved by the BLM failed to accurately disclose the intensity of impacts to mule deer winter range. The three groups ask BLM to reconsider and withdraw the development plans.

The area, just south of Parachute and Interstate 70, is classic winter range”vital for survival during the bitterest winter months”for Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer, two of the West’s premier native wildlife species. Mule deer from Battlement Mesa move into the area each fall, a pattern they have followed for centuries.
In particular, the groups emphasize that the EnCana Energy plan BLM approved doesn’t consider the readily predictable impacts from long-term development of the South Parachute area. Instead, the plan covers only the first phase of gas development over a three-year period, while ignoring impacts from the additional drilling necessary to complete development at the 10-acre down-hole spacing needed to fully recover the gas within the GAP.

œThe proposed development BLM is allowing for the South Parachute GAP is just under the threshold that would trigger additional habitat mitigation measures under the existing Resource Management Plan, said Bob Elderkin, a former BLM employee. œThis decision is an example of what BLM is allowing the energy industry to get away with in the planning process by not fully stating all the development that will occur, Elderkin explained.

œThe BLM’s analysis artificially minimizes what the habitat impacts will actually be and relieves industry of any mitigation requirements, Elderkin added. “It will take an estimated additional 240 wells and three new drill pads at projected spacing to reach full development.

œThe way it’s working now, anything industry puts into a development plan, they’re going to get.
BLM’s 1999 Glenwood Springs Resource Area Plan, which Elderkin helped write, requires full consideration of efforts to avoid or mitigate impacts to wildlife habitat during energy development”particularly once the intensity of development reaches certain levels within crucial winter range. BLM regulations also require BLM to consult with state wildlife agency officials and to consider the ultimate impacts of full development of an area rather than just the initial development phase.

The protest said neither action occurred.

“We object to the BLM’s decision of “no significant impact,’” said Suzanne O’Neill, the Colorado Wildlife Federation’s executive director. œThe BLM has utterly failed to propose a balanced plan that would conserve this very important mule deer winter range, given the reasonably foreseeable extent of development that likely will occur. If the BLM had taken into account the contemplated amount of development that’s going to take place here and in surrounding areas”beyond just these immediate plans for the next two to three years”it would have to acknowledge that there are going to be serious effects on big game herds.”

Steve Torbit, the National Wildlife Federation’s regional executive director and a veteran wildlife biologist, was just as direct.
œThis is a perfect example of the bait and switch approach that the BLM and the energy companies try to perpetrate on the public, Torbit said. œThese decisions can have lasting impacts on the future of the state’s wildlife in Western Colorado for decades to come.

As a veteran BLM employee and long-time hunter and angler who lives near Silt, Elderkin views the BLM approval of the South Parachute development plan as part of a much larger mandate to make natural gas drilling the top priority.

œThis is yet another example of how federal officials have made our wildlife and other natural resources expendable in their push to drill, Elderkin said. œDevelopment doesn’t have to occur this way, especially when you consider the resulting impacts to hunting, fishing and other recreation that’s so important to our economy.

œEnergy development can occur while still protecting other resources, if the BLM requires full use of state-of-the-art practices to minimize surface disturbance, he explained.
œWhen this natural gas play is finished, we have to ask what we’re going to have left to sustain our economy and what we’ll have left of the hunting and fishing heritage we love. It will be difficult to promote tourism or any other natural resource-based economy in an industrial zone, he said.

The Colorado Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife Federation and the Colorado Mule Deer Association protested a Bureau of Land Management decision that allows extensive natural gas development in key big-game habitat south of Parachute without requiring adequate steps to protect Colorado’s wildlife.

BLM rejected the CWF-NWF-CMDA Request for Review.

The Protest (Request for Review)
The protest, filed by the Colorado Wildlife Federation, Colorado Mule Deer Association and National Wildlife Federation, states the BLM failed to require a plan detailing the full extent of development in the South Parachute Geographic Area Plan (GAP). The groups also said the plan approved by the BLM failed to accurately disclose the intensity of impacts to mule deer winter range. The three groups ask BLM to reconsider and withdraw the development plans.

The area, just south of Parachute and Interstate 70, is classic winter range”vital for survival during the bitterest winter months”for Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer, two of the West’s premier native wildlife species. Mule deer from Battlement Mesa move into the area each fall, a pattern they have followed for centuries.
In particular, the groups emphasize that the EnCana Energy plan BLM approved doesn’t consider the readily predictable impacts from long-term development of the South Parachute area. Instead, the plan covers only the first phase of gas development over a three-year period, while ignoring impacts from the additional drilling necessary to complete development at the 10-acre down-hole spacing needed to fully recover the gas within the GAP.

œThe proposed development BLM is allowing for the South Parachute GAP is just under the threshold that would trigger additional habitat mitigation measures under the existing Resource Management Plan, said Bob Elderkin, a former BLM employee. œThis decision is an example of what BLM is allowing the energy industry to get away with in the planning process by not fully stating all the development that will occur, Elderkin explained.

œThe BLM’s analysis artificially minimizes what the habitat impacts will actually be and relieves industry of any mitigation requirements, Elderkin added. “It will take an estimated additional 240 wells and three new drill pads at projected spacing to reach full development.

œThe way it’s working now, anything industry puts into a development plan, they’re going to get.
BLM’s 1999 Glenwood Springs Resource Area Plan, which Elderkin helped write, requires full consideration of efforts to avoid or mitigate impacts to wildlife habitat during energy development”particularly once the intensity of development reaches certain levels within crucial winter range. BLM regulations also require BLM to consult with state wildlife agency officials and to consider the ultimate impacts of full development of an area rather than just the initial development phase.

The protest said neither action occurred.

“We object to the BLM’s decision of “no significant impact,’” said Suzanne O’Neill, the Colorado Wildlife Federation’s executive director. œThe BLM has utterly failed to propose a balanced plan that would conserve this very important mule deer winter range, given the reasonably foreseeable extent of development that likely will occur. If the BLM had taken into account the contemplated amount of development that’s going to take place here and in surrounding areas”beyond just these immediate plans for the next two to three years”it would have to acknowledge that there are going to be serious effects on big game herds.”

Steve Torbit, the National Wildlife Federation’s regional executive director and a veteran wildlife biologist, was just as direct.
œThis is a perfect example of the bait and switch approach that the BLM and the energy companies try to perpetrate on the public, Torbit said. œThese decisions can have lasting impacts on the future of the state’s wildlife in Western Colorado for decades to come.

As a veteran BLM employee and long-time hunter and angler who lives near Silt, Elderkin views the BLM approval of the South Parachute development plan as part of a much larger mandate to make natural gas drilling the top priority.

œThis is yet another example of how federal officials have made our wildlife and other natural resources expendable in their push to drill, Elderkin said. œDevelopment doesn’t have to occur this way, especially when you consider the resulting impacts to hunting, fishing and other recreation that’s so important to our economy.

œEnergy development can occur while still protecting other resources, if the BLM requires full use of state-of-the-art practices to minimize surface disturbance, he explained.
œWhen this natural gas play is finished, we have to ask what we’re going to have left to sustain our economy and what we’ll have left of the hunting and fishing heritage we love. It will be difficult to promote tourism or any other natural resource-based economy in an industrial zone, he said.