Home > Behind the Rocks
Roan what? Oil shale is the real environmental issue
It’s been far too long since I’ve blogged here, but here’s a crack at something I find perplexing:
The environmental community in Colorado was all atwitter about the Roan Plateau Thursday when Gov. Bill Ritter announced he’s resigned to some level of energy development there. The 73,602 acre Roan Plateau Planning Area north of Interstate 70 between Rifle and Parachute is but a thimble in comparison to the 359,000 acres the Bureau of Land Management wants to lease for oil shale not far away.
My email box was full of Roan press releases Thursday, but few people were keeping an eye out for the BLM’s Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, an anthropogenic global warming-doubting document outlining how small towns like Meeker could be urbanized, wildlife habitat could be completely destroyed and agriculture could be stamped out by industry.
The document proposes a complete and total change for the ecology, economy and aesthetics of northwest Colorado. Not only that, it discusses the development of remote and stunningly beautiful places in Utah, such as the Tar Sands Triangle near Canyonlands National Park, upon the boundaries of which drilling rigs are already punching holes.
The twitter over the tiny Roan Plateau upstaged the release of the oil shale PEIS, which proposes infinitely more profound environmental impacts to our region than even a strip mine atop the Roan ever could.
The Roan Planning Area is downright beautiful, don’t get me wrong, but the impact of oil and gas development there is quite objectively a mere kick in the dirt in comparison to the outright landscape and ecosystem-altering commercial oil shale development the BLM is considering.
Clearly, the fervor over the Roan is a line in the sand for environmental groups, who are essentially saying the energy companies have won the right to punch holes in the ground on so much land in northwest Colorado, penetrating the last unleased wild land in the Piceance Basin just isn’t acceptable.
But are opponents to Roan development going to be as vociferous about the impacts of oil shale development? We’ll wait and see.
Northwest Colorado will hardly seem any different than it does today if the Roan is developed incrementally according to the BLM’s plan for the area. If commercial oil shale happens, the Western Slope may never be quite the same.
Permalink | |
Utah leads on greenhouse gas emissions
Headline in the Salt Lake Tribune today: “Greenhouse Pollution: Utah warming faster than anywhere else on Earth.”
That’s a bold statement. Looks like big droughts and weather that makes water managers squirm is in store for Utah.
Permalink | |
For cryin’ out loud, gimme my three feet!
A gaggle of cyclists turned up at a Colorado National Monument cycling safety meeting with Superintendent Joan Anzelmo Tuesday at St. Mary’s Hospital. The goal: To find a way to promote peace, love and understanding between Rim Rock Drive motorists and the road’s plethora of pedalers, who sometimes tend to clash ascending and descending one of the Grand Valley’s most spectacular roadways.
Visiting Colorado National Monument whether astride a bike or in a pickup truck is quite a stirring experience. Indeed, said frequent visitor Peggy Shaw, “I’m very emotional when I think about the monument. It is my church.”
It’s a pretty darn nifty ride, that’s for sure.
Full disclosure: I’m a cyclist. I love my bike. I love riding Rim Rock Drive, and I do it frequently. Riding it is a real rush, especially descending the East Hill toward Grand Junction. I plan to do it this weekend, whatever the weather.
I’m new to the sport. I’ve been riding Rim Rock only since June, and I’m pleased to report that, as of this writing (knock on wood…), I’ve never had any significant close calls with irresponsible motorists or cyclists.
Further disclosure: I’m a motorist. I love my car. I love driving Rim Rock Drive, and I do it frequently, mainly to get to the Ute Canyon or Monument Canyon trailheads, or even Glade Park. Driving it is a real rush, especially in the evening when the Book Cliffs glow with the setting sun.
Since I started cycling, I’ve begun to pay closer attention to the cyclists on the highways while I’m in my car. When I’m behind the wheel, I’ve become keenly aware that I’m in charge of an iron and steel killing machine if I choose to be careless. Cyclists are hardly a match against the ferocity of my monster Corolla. So, I take care.
Anzelmo says there have been confrontations between motorists and cyclists on Rim Rock Drive. I haven’t yet seen any. Sure, the traffic is heavy on Rim Rock Drive sometimes. Whatever the outcome, whatever new rules, if any, shall govern Rim Rock Drive cyclists and drivers, I’ll abide by them, so I don’t care how things turn out. As a reporter, I’m neutral on that issue.
But when I’m riding my bike on Rim Rock Drive and following the rules of the road to the letter, I cease to be neutral about what happens on the highway. Astride my bike, I feel as I presume most law-abiding motorists out there feel: We licensed drivers and determined cyclists just want to get to where we’re going without taking lives, damaging property or injuring egos. For sure, that’s advocacy — on the side of harmony on the highways.
On Rim Rock Drive, the law requires drivers to give cyclists three feet of space, while cyclists are required to ride as far to the right as possible and single file. Anything else is grounds for one of the monument’s three rangers to issue citations. Four have been written thus far in 2007.
Anzelmo asked that everyone respect each other on Rim Rock Drive. Sounds good to me. Just one request, though:
Just a little space, like the signs say.
Permalink | |
Roads to oblivion no more?
I’ve written about Revised Statute 2477 before, a contentious federal law long since repealed whose legacy lingers on public lands throughout the West. Roads claimed by counties to have been used prior to the statute’s repeal may find themselves under county control with the Bureau of Land Management’s blessing, perhaps even if they cross wildernesses or national monuments.
A precedent may soon be set in the long debate over RS 2477, as the High Country News reported on its Web site September 25. The BLM may decide to return Bald Knoll Road to Kane County, Utah, perhaps setting the stage for other counties in Utah, Colorado and elsewhere in the nation to reclaim federally-controlled roads.
Permalink | |
Even in Utah, few deny climate change
PALO ALTO, Calif. — John Daley, a reporter for KSL-TV in Salt Lake City, told a group of journos at the Society of Environmental Journalists conference Friday that even in red-state Utah, people are more than willing to warm up to the idea of climate change.
Daley, joining reporters from Colorado Springs, Omaha and the Florida Panhandle, was speaking during a panel discussion on environmental reporting in conservative markets, where, presumably, there is a great concentration of skeptics of human-caused, or anthropogenic, climate change.
First, and I’ll state this as fact, humans are playing a role — at least 25 percent, according to a panel of climate change experts speaking at SEJ this week — in the warming of our planet. There are many other factors involved, but humans are playing a very significant role.
Daley said there’s no dearth of folks who agree. According to the July KSL poll, 69 percent of Utahns believe global warming is real. 84 percent of the respondents said they believe humans are playing a part in global warming. 13 percent said there is no human connection to global warming.
Gears may soon move on GMUG forest plan
PALO ALTO, Calif. — The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest management plan could finally be taken back off the shelf in early 2008, U.S. Undersecretary of Agriculture Mark Rey said Thursday.
Speaking at the Society of Environmental Journalists conference near Palo Alto, Calif., Rey said if the newly re-written proposed national forest management planning rule is finally approved later this year, within a couple of months of that approval, the GMUG could begin work on a third version of its revised forest mangement plan and have a draft out for public comment early in the new year.
The plan isn’t just a thick document destined to make your eyes glaze over. It determines the GMUG’s vision for how energy development, forest fires, wildlife habitat and recreation will be managed on the Western Slope’s best known national forests. In other words, if you use any of the three GMUG forests, there might be something in the fine print that pertains to you.
The new draft GMUG plan has a bit of a tortured history: It was released in 2006, retracted to ensure compliance with the Forest Service’s new planning rule, re-written and re-released early this year, and withdrawn yet again when a federal court declared the forest planning rule illegal because the agency failed to gather public comment on it.
The court ordered the Forest Service to invite passionate letter writers have their say about the rule and required the agency to conduct an environmental impact statement.
“So we did one,” Rey said.
The forest planning rule saga doesn’t quite end there. Rey said the Bush administration decided not to appeal the court order because it was easier and cheaper do the environmental impact statement. But, he said, the feds may appeal the ruling on other grounds. What that means, Rey wouldn’t say, but the GMUG plan, he said, is sure to see the light of day next year.
The newly environmentally analyzed rule is online and available for a public taste test, but don’t tarry too long before offering feedback. The public comment deadline is Oct. 23.
Permalink | |
Blogging from the West Coast
How are people living around the San Francisco Bay working to combat climate change? How does that apply to western Colorado? What’s the latest research in sustainable forestry? What are the trends in environmental and natural resources reporting? I’m going to California next week to find out during the Society of Environmental Journalists annual conference at Stanford University. Check out my latest blogs about the conference here next week.
Permalink | |
Bush won’t let mountains stand in the way of coal mining; enviros threaten suit
The Bush administration is set to expand a rule allowing coal companies in West Virginia to blast off the top of mountains to reach coal seams and dump the debris in mountain valleys, the New York Times reported today.
Mountaintop removal is said to be safer than mining in places like Crandall Canyon in Utah, where six miners likely remain fatally trapped after part of the mine collapsed August 6.
Enviros call mountaintop removal about as environmentally destructive as you can get, and they’re considering filing a lawsuit to prevent the government from implementing the new rule.
Read the New York Times’ story here. (Registration may be required)
Permalink | |
Enviros alarmed at uranium mining near Colorado Plateau parks
Did you know Arches National Park is in uranium country? Did you know our local national parks aren’t surrounded by unspoiled virgin canyon country completely untouched by the unforgiving hands of industry?
Maybe that’s news to tourists, and, apparently, that’s news to the Environmental Working Group, which just completed a study sounding an alarm that, yes, indeed, there are literally hundreds of uranium mining claims surrounding Arches and Canyonlands national parks. That shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s driven into Moab and noticed the gigantic uranium mine tailings pile almost within a baseball throw of the Arches boundary on the shores of the Colorado River.
The eastern Colorado Plateau is uranium territory, there’s no doubt about it.
But here’s the group’s numbers:
869 — The number of total mining claims within five miles of Arches National Park, more than 200 of which are uranium claims.
864 — The number of total mining claims in that area staked since January 1, 2003.
815 — The number of total mining claims within five miles of Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona, 592 of which are uranium claims.
Overall, the group says, mining claims within five miles of many of the West’s national parks have increased by 80 percent in more than four years.
Read the executive summary of the group’s study here.
Permalink | |
As hope endures at Crandall Canyon, owner disappears
HUNTINGTON CANYON, Utah — As all of America awaits the next development in the Crandall Canyon Mine catastrophe near Huntington, Utah, the media vigil at the mine’s entrance also endures. When a dozen cameramen from national television networks and just as many reporters from newspapers and wire services camp out on the side of a narrow highway for nearly two weeks, the emotional rawness felt in Huntington only about 20 or so miles away seems unable to permeate the mass of wires, laptops, makeshift cell phone and wireless internet antennas and reporters’ deadlines.
The vigil continues, but this time reporters and the public will have to do without the charismatic face of the rescue effort.
Robert Murray, Murray Energy and UtahAmerican’s public face on the disaster since day one, disappeared from the media spectacle soon after three rescuers were killed Thursday. Speaking for the company instead are three public relations people.
For the first time since the August 6 mine collapse, officials of both the mine’s owner, UtahAmerican Energy, and the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration are absent, leaving the public hanging for the time being on when and what we’ll hear next about the suspended rescue efforts.
Meanwhile, the earth beneath the Utah mountains and deserts continues to rumble here and there, with tiny, imperceptible quakes near Crandall Canyon registering on USGS sensors, and a 3.9-magnitude quake rumbling the Great Basin Desert at 7 a.m. today southwest of Cedar City, Utah. That quake is far from Crandall Canyon, but it illustrates that the earth beneath Utah is hardly asleep.
Permalink | |
Utah mining board gives Crandall Canyon owner’s Book Cliffs mine permit another look
The Utah Board of Oil, Gas and Mining is scheduled to take a second look next week at Crandall Canyon Mine owner UtahAmerican Energy’s permit for a new longwall coal mine in the Book Cliffs in Emery County, Utah.
Murray Energy Corp. subsidiary UtahAmerican, of course, is scrambling to rescue six miners stuck in its Crandall Canyon mine near Huntington, Utah. That’s why it probably won’t be able to attend a hearing — likely to be continued until the fall — scheduled next week to review a permit the board issued in May giving the company a green light on its proposal to mine coal in the Book Cliffs. The coal-rich Book Cliffs extend from Palisade to near Helper, Utah, north of Price.
The new mine, called the Lila Canyon Extension of the Horse Canyon Mine, exists partly within a proposed wilderness area west of Desolation Canyon and has drawn the ire of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which successfully got the board to can a similar permit at the mine site in 2001.
SUWA attorney Steve Bloch said Wednesday he’s confident UtahAmerican’s permit can be revoked once again because of its potential impact on the environment and the proposed wilderness. But the hearing may have to wait until the fates of the six miners are determined.
The hearing, he said, is unrelated to the Crandall Canyon Mine situation.
Permalink | |
Fact Check: Expert says energy industry spokesman Jon Bargas’ letter incorrect
Jon Bargas, spokesman for the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States, wrote in a letter to the editor Sunday that there is “no scientific evidence” supporting seismologists’ claims in my August 7 story that earthquakes, particularly those near coalbed methane fields near Trinidad, are caused by water injection during the coalbed methane drilling process.
He cited an inconclusive U.S. Geological Survey report about a 2001 earthquake swarm near Trinidad, a report I read years ago while I was covering some related 2004 and 2005 quakes in the same region for the Taos News in Taos, N.M.
Bargas claims: “The USGS report also noted that earthquake activity subsided even as injection has continued. Today, six years later, there are even more injection wells in the area, and yet we’ve seen nothing like the ‘swarm’ of earthquakes experienced in 2001. Furthermore, the implication that coal bed methane development caused a magnitude 5.3 earthquake near the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in 1967 is ludicrous, since there is no coal bed methane development in that area now nor was there in 1967.
“Coal bed methane development in Colorado is done in an environmentally responsible manner. … Stretching the truth to implicate natural gas producers in a natural disaster does a disservice not only to the thousands of hard-working Coloradans who are employed in this industry, but also to the millions of customers who rely every day on the energy produced through coal bed methane development to cook their food, heat their homes, and light their offices.”
I did not report that the Rocky Mounain Arsenal quake was caused by coalbed methane development. I reported that it was caused by liquid injection similar to that involved in coalbed methane development.
Here’s what Mesa State College seismologist Dave Wolny had to say Sunday about Bargas’ comments:
“My problem with Mr. Bargas’ comments were they were misleading, giving the appearance that there was absolutely no connection between deep well injection and seismic events. ” …
“Mr. Bargas referenced the USGS study ‘Investigation of an Earthquake Swarm near Trinidad, Colorado, August-October 2001.’ He states that it says ‘no evidence that the reported earthquakes were induced.”’ What it actually says is ‘However, although our hypocenter locations are accurate, their locations by themselves do not argue strongly for or against the induced seismicity hypothesis.’ In other words, the report was inconclusive. As of 2001, there were 10 wells that were returning water related to coal bed methane extraction to underlying rock formations as deep as 7000 feet. Eight wells were of natural flow, hydrostatic pressure alone was injecting water into the rocks. Two wells were high pressure injection types. Six years later and earthquakes continue in the area. Are they induced or natural? I don’t have the answer.
“It is a fact, proven many times, that deep well injection causes seismic events. The first evidence for that comes from the deep well injection of toxic materials at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in the early sixties, culminating in the magnitude 5.3 event in August 1967. Deep well injection is currently being used in the Paradox Valley by the Bureau of Reclamation to remove near surface salt water and inject it in to underlying rocks. Deep well injection continues to produce events in the Paradox Valley in Western Colorado. If you are doing deep well injection, you are altering the stress on the underlying rocks and at some point, the stress will be relieved by generating an earthquake. The events are generally small, but there is no way to predict how the injection process has altered stresses on the fault system in the area, and thus, no way to predict how large the events may get. The 5.3 event at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in 1967 proved that. As for the Paradox Valley, the Bureau of Reclamation had suggested that earthquakes related to the deep well injection process in the Paradox Valley would not exceed magnitude 3.5 (personal communication with Bureau employees), yet the area has experienced 2 earthquakes over 4.0. The majority of events remain in the range below magnitude 3.5.
“It is a fact that coal mining (as well as other types of mining) produces seismic events. If you remove the coal that has been holding up the mountain, the mountain will attempt to fill that void. Coal mining operators know that this will happen and work to mitigate the problem as best they can through engineering designs. The advent of longwall mining techniques helped in the control of roof collapses and made the miners job more safe, or at least as safe as can be reasonably expected. The collapse of the overlying rocks is expected to occur in the area behind the mining operation, thus keeping the miners safe. That is not to say that collapses can’t occur elsewhere in the mine, including older workings that have long been abandoned. The collapse of the overlying rocks, wall bursts, or floor heaves can happen. It is a part of mining, though hopefully rare in occurrence. Each of these events produces a seismic signature that can be recorded on seismometers. Usually, they are extremely small. In the case of the event at the Crandall Canyon Mine in Utah, it wasn’t small. The coal ‘bump’ associated with that collapse may turn out to be either roof collapse, wall burst, or floor heave, or a combination of any of those. I don’t have first hand knowledge of the mining technique being used at the Crandall Canyon Mine, but it is my understanding they were not long wall mining, but rather using a retreat method that involved removing supporting pillars with a remote mining machine. If that is true, as stated by numerous experts, that is a more dangerous way to mine coal (see Salt Lake Tribune, Aug. 12).
“The largest mine collapse ever recorded was at the Solvay Mine in SW Wyoming, which produced a magnitude 5.4 seismic event in February 1995. It was recorded as far away as Japan. Historically, the very largest mining related seismic events in Colorado are in the range of magnitude 3.5.”
Permalink | |
Crime at McInnis, Bangs Canyon areas no match for Monument
Don’t get the impression that Colorado National Monument is a dangerous place to be, because it’s not…unless you twist an ankle, refuse to drink water, get attacked by some rare and majestic example of the park’s charismatic megafauna, slip off a cliff and fall to your death, or do something else a little care in canyon country should prevent. I go to the Monument all the time both for hiking and cycling, often solo, and I’ve never felt unsafe. Few major crimes are committed there.
But, as you’ll read in today’s Daily Sentinel, the Monument does have a crime problem. It’s a problem that records show may not extend to BLM trailheads and parking lots nearby. One caveat, however: The BLM has only one ranger to patrol its land in Mesa County, and both it and the National Park Service rely on the Mesa County Sheriff’s Department for backup. Even then, there aren’t likely enough eyeballs on trailheads to catch all that happens there.
So, here’s how many times the Mesa County Sheriff’s department recorded that it responded to incidents — excluding searches, rescues and wildland fire — at select BLM trailheads surrounding Colorado National Monument between Jan. 1, 2003 and Dec. 31, 2006:
Tabeguache Trailhead on Monument Road: 1
Rough Canyon Trailhead on Little Park Road: 1
Devil’s Canyon Trailhead in McInnis Canyons NCA: 0
Kodel’s Canyon Trailhead on Colorado 340: 0
Rabbit Valley at McInnis Canyons NCA: 7
A little bit more on area national parks to put their crime stats into perspective, based on National Park Service data for Jan. 1, 2003 through Dec. 31, 2006:
Colorado National Monument’s total visitation in that time period was 1.36 million. Its 2007 annual budget is $1.1 million. It currently has two full-time rangers. The park has one criminal offense per 1,984 visitors and one drug offense per 22,442 visitors.
Arches National Park’s total visitation in that time period was 3.1 million. Its 2007 budget is $1.25 million with the equivalent of four full-time law enforcement rangers. The park has one criminal offense per 70,582 visitors and one drug offense per 1.55 million visitors. Arches is the only park in this analysis that recorded an alleged homicide in the last five years. A 2004 domestic dispute ended in death at the Moab Fault near the park’s entrance.
Rocky Mountain National Park — a park as busy as Yellowstone and the busiest in Colorado — saw 11.39 million visitors in the same time period. Rocky’s 2007 budget is $11 million, which pays for 32 law enforcement rangers. The park has one criminal offense per 2,363 visitors and one drug offense per 132,455 visitors.
Mesa Verde National Park, which saw 1.9 million visitors in that time period, has a 2007 budget of $5.3 million, which pays for seven law enforcement rangers. The park has one criminal offense per 1,132 visitors and one drug violation per 129,398 visitors.
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park near Montrose saw a mere 684,092 visitors in those four years and operates this year with a budget of $1.08 million. Its law enforcement staff — partially shared with Curecanti National Recreation Area, which has a much higher crime rate but was not included in this analysis because it is a recreation area and not a national park or monument — includes the equivalent of 3.5 full time law enforcement rangers. The park has one criminal offense per 57,007 visitors and one drug offense per 114,015 visitors.
Finally, Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve near Alamosa, the nation’s second-newest national park, had 1.05 million visitors play in the sand in those four years. The park has a 2007 budget of $2.05 million, which pays for the equivalent of 4.2 full time law enforcement rangers. The park, which included traffic violations in its offense total, has one criminal offense per 803 visitors and one drug offense per 66,052 visitors.
Nearby Dinosaur National Monument, Canyonlands National Park and Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument would have fit well into this analysis, but I excluded them either because of the unavailability of information or the long process it would have taken park staff to compile it. I did not check on Capitol Reef, Zion or Bryce Canyon national parks in Utah.
Another caveat: Some parks seem to have had different standards at different times for when and how they record responses to alleged crimes within park boundaries.
Permalink | |
Speed the oil shale exploitation, reduce dependency on foreign oil, report says
So maybe that’s not an original idea, but that’s the thrust of the Strategic Unconventional Fuels Task Force report, issued at long last this week.
Stuck a year in the approval process, the report was written in 2006.
The 11-member task force, created by the 2005 Energy Policy Act, is required to make recommendations to lawmakers about how to accelerate the exploitation of oil shale, tar sands, heavy oil and liquified coal. Local representatives and the governors Colorado, Utah, Missippi, Kentucky and Wyoming sit on the task force, including Mesa County Commissioner Craig Meis.
Read the report here.
Permalink | |
BLM delays San Luis Valley leasing for “educational” purposes
As you’ll read in today’s Sentinel, Costilla and Conejos counties and Rep. John Salazar and Sen. Ken Salazar, both San Luis Valley Democrats, were able to convince the Bureau of Land Management to back off on leasing nine parcels literally in their backyards for “educational” purposes.
Today’s lease sale will be in Denver early this morning.
But the real story here isn’t that the Salazars are defending their own backyards, it’s that the BLM listened and responded literally within 24 hours of them writing letters to the agency. Rep. Salazar wrote his letter Monday. The BLM deferred the leases Tuesday. The lease sale is Thursday.
Had the leases been auctioned, they would be the only oil and gas leases anywhere in the southern San Luis Valley. See for yourself here.
The deferred leases are immediately north and south of the San Luis Hills Wilderness Study Area very near the shores of the Rio Grande between San Luis and Conejos in Conejos County, and near the San Luis Hills Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Anyone who knows Colorado history knows that the area harbors both Colorado’s oldest town, San Luis, and its oldest church, in Conejos.
I’m particularly familiar with this area because I spent two years covering natural resources issues in Taos, N.M., for the Taos News, only about 50 miles or so to the south. Taos and the surrounding environs, incidentally, are a place where energy development (and offensive things like “chemtrails” and bland green chile) isn’t always greeted with open arms, as evidenced by Costilla and Conejos counties’ outrage over the San Luis Hills leases and northern New Mexicans’ anger over potential coalbed methane development in the nearby Valle Vidal unit of the Carson National Forest, which is a few miles south of the Colorado line. Because locals turned their anger toward Capitol Hill, drilling was permanently barred from the Valle Vidal by an act of Congress sponsored by Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., cousin of Roan Plateau drilling opponent Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo.
Aside from the inextricable cultural, historical and linguistic ties between the San Luis Valley and northern New Mexico, to illustrate how closely the two are linked, a friend of mine who lives near the edge of the Rio Grande Gorge a few miles west of Taos can, on a clear day, view from his front porch the snowy summit of Blanca Peak, Colorado’s fourth highest mountain.
People on both sides of the border, of course, breathe the same air and drink water from the same watershed. And despite the potential for exploratory drilling in the newly-formed Baca National Wildlife Refuge immediately adjacent to Great Sand Dunes National Park, you’ll be hard pressed to find any Flexrigs in the San Luis Valley today.
But lease the area the BLM may.
After the agency conducts its educational outreach, presumably schooling the locals on such foreign notions as APDs, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, fracking fluid and air pollution, the leases are scheduled to appear in the next auction later this year.
It’ll be interesting to see if the Salazars continue to approach energy development literally in their backyard with the same zeal they and Rep. Mark Udall have exhibited in addressing energy development on the Roan Plateau. It’ll be more interesting to see how the BLM responds to their zeal.
Permalink | |
Stay tuned for the Dominguez Report
The results of six public meetings regarding the proposed Dominguez Canyon National Conservation Area will be spelled out in a report written by Mesa State College political science prof John Redifer due in late August.
Those public meetings elicited a variety of sentiments regarding the appropriateness of further protections for an area that the Bureau of Land Management claims is being loved to death. We heard passionate pleas for the nixing of the entire proposal in favor of a gigantic dam built across the Gunnison River. We heard ranchers and ATV riders advocating for the Dominguez area to be managed as-is. And, among other things, we heard passionate pleas from enviros and others bent on not only having the area protected as a McInnis Canyons-style NCA, but the Big and Little Dominguez canyons and some other nearby land being protected by the BLM and Congress as a wilderness area.
Redifer said Monday he was pretty happy with the six meetings.
“I was really impressed with how you can bring a large number of folks together with diverse ideas about land use and have a civil conversation about where we both agreed and disagreed about how land should be utilized,” he said.
Nobody argued about the boundaries of the proposed NCA, he said.
Once the report is written, it will be given to the Mesa County Commission, who will then distribute it to lawmakers as they see fit.
So, with the possibility of a third national conservation area in the offing, let’s look at some of the other NCAs in the West, besides McInnis Canyons and Gunnison Gorge right here in our backyards.
National conservation areas are part of the BLM’s National Lanscape Conservation System, of which the agency’s national monuments, historic trails and wildernesses are a part.
Nationwide, NCAs protect a total of 14.1 million acres. The largest NCA is the 9.5 million acre California Desert NCA, which protects darn near the entirety of southeastern California. The smallest are in Arizona, whose three NCAs total 112,542 acres.
One of the more interesting NCAs is the 339,100 acre El Malpais NCA in western New Mexico, which protects the spectacular La Ventana Natural Arch. The NCA includes two wilderness areas, the West Malpais and the Cebolla, both of which border the absolutely alien lava field, part of the El Malpais National Monument, managed by the National Park Service. Both the NCA and the national monument were created simultaneously.
Arizona and Nevada tie for the states with the highest number of NCAs. They each have three.
Permalink | |
Pallet party, anyone?
It’s probably no surprise that Bureau of Land Management property around the Grand Valley is a place in which some local scofflaws love to party. One of the most popular forms of lawbreaking is the pallet party, a common scene on BLM lands. But it’s also becoming more popular on other public lands in the region.
The BLM, like many other federal agencies, however, is strapped for cash and personnel. Since the beginning of 2007, the Grand Junction Field Office has had one law enforcement officer to patrol 1.2 million acres, BLM spokeswoman Mel Lloyd said. That one officer is assigned to McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area.
The agency is about to hire a second officer next month, but that’s still just one ranger per 600,000 acres.
Local Colorado River boat launches, Lloyd said, are popular places to commit vandalism, which is on the rise down there.
Permalink | |
Fact Check: ‘Paid’ environmentalists
Sorry for the long absence from my blog — my exploding environment and natural resources beat has kept me from updating this page for a couple of weeks.
Part of that explosion of stories was Mesa County’s energy master plan, for which the county threw three public meetings this week in Collbran, Palisade and Grand Junction.
As I was walking out of Tuesday’s meeting in Palisade, Sandy Beem of DeBeque caught me in the parking lot and told me she resented the vehemence, bombast and the “hostility” of all the “paid environmentalists” at the meeting who were “threatening” Mesa County Commissioner Steve Acquafresca.
I told her there was only one “paid” environmentalist at the meeting — Matt Sura of the Western Colorado Congress. And he didn’t do most of the talking. Beem said she didn’t know who was paid and who wasn’t. I included her comments in the story because they legitimately represent much of what I hear from members of the energy industry.
For the record, I counted (keep in mind I didn’t survey each person in attendence) exactly zero paid environmentalists at Monday’s meeting in Collbran, one at Tuesday’s meeting in Palisade and at least three at Wednesday’s meeting in Grand Junction.
Beem was very polite, and you’ll find no commentary or criticism here about what she had to say. Except this, however:
Members of the energy industry like to say, particularly regarding the Roan Plateau issue, that it’s paid environmentalists from out of state who have taken over the public process regarding energy development on public (or in Mesa County’s case, private) land.
But let’s take a look at some of the most prominent players in the supposedly “out of state” environmental community:
The Western Colorado Congress speaks out on split-estate issues, the Roan Plateau, the fate of Dominguez Canyon and land use policies of Mesa County. WCC is based in downtown Grand Junction, and rarely does it allow one of its paid staffers speak for the organization. Its members are local and come from all over the Western Slope. One of WCC’s partner groups, the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance, seems to focus on the impact of energy development in Garfield County. Duke Cox, the former president of that group, has been its long-time public face until he moved to Mesa County just recently. At last night’s meeting, he said he hadn’t been paid a dime for his efforts since he became involved five years ago.
The Colorado Environmental Coalition is one of the groups taking the lead on protecting the Vermillion Basin and the Roan Plateau. It is based in Denver with offices in Grand Junction, Durango and Craig, with members from all over the state. The group has been composed of mostly Colorado residents since it was formed in 1965 as the Colorado Open Space Coordinating Council. CEC has some staffers who are not Colorado natives, but I’d say it’s pretty accurate that a good many of the folks in the energy industry also came here from out of state, and I came here from Southern-drawling South Carolina via New Mexico, so that makes at least some in the local media just as egregiously non-native as the next guy. CEC sent one staffer to Wednesday’s meeting, but he did not speak while I was there.
There are a slew of other environmental and conservation groups that speak out on energy and water development in Colorado. There’s the San Juan Citizens Alliance, based in Durango, Cortez and Farmington, N.M. There’s the Gunnison-based High Country Citizens Alliance, which has more than a little bit to say about what happens at Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park.
There are a plethora of other environmental advocacy groups based in Colorado and composed of Colorado residents, but I’ll spare you.
There are however two major players that might qualify as “out of state” groups with offices teeming with paid environmentalists (and/or conservationists…I don’t want to get into a debate over semantics here), however: The Wilderness Society and Trout Unlimited.
The Wilderness Society, based in Washington, D.C., has its regional headquarters in Denver and takes on issues ranging from wilderness desigation and oil and gas to the Roan Plateau and water issues statewide. One of its most prominent public faces is Assistant Regional Director Steve Smith, a former member of the Colorado Roadless Area Review Task Force who lives in Glenwood Springs.
Finally, there’s Trout Unlimited, one of the nation’s most prominent coldwater stream conservation organizations. It’s based in Washington, D.C., with offices in Boulder and in Montana, California, Michigan and Wyoming. It also has a plethora of local members who appreciate fishing for trout. On TU’s Colorado staff is longtime Durango-area author David Petersen; Melinda Kassen, who sits on the Colorado’s Interbasin Compact Committee; and David Stillwell, former Director of Academic Affairs at Naropa University in Boulder. Colorado TU’s vice president, Ken Neubecker, lives in the Roaring Fork Valley.
Eureka! Shell makes oil drilling as sexy as Indiana Jones
Watch out, all you National Geographic subscribers. Royal Dutch Shell has a surprise for you in the Yellow Border’s latest edition, according to Lisa Stiffler of the Seattle Post Intelligencer.
Allegedly inspired by a true story, it’s a film called “Eureka,” the latest piece of entertainment from Shell’s PR people. The message: Oil ain’t easy to find anymore (read: cooking the hydrocarbons out of oil shale isn’t exactly as simple as installing a pumpjack, either), so you’d better be glad Shell’s innovative Indiana Jones types are poking holes in the Indian Ocean so you can drive your SUVs through the jungle and get stopped by a herd of yaks.
Of course, if you don’t subscribe to National Geographic, you can kick back with a bucket of popcorn and check out “Eureka” right here.
Permalink | |
Utahns say global warming is top environmental concern
The Natural Resources Defense Council released the findings from a poll on Monday showing that “seven out of ten voters (in six moderate and conservative congressional districts in Pennsylvania, Utah and various places throughout the South) agree that global warming is serious, and given a choice, 73 percent would start reducing global warming pollution now. By contrast, only 19 percent of voters said they would wait until cleaner technologies are available. In keeping with the call to action on global warming, a significant 63 percent of voters support placing mandatory limits on emissions from power plants through a cap and trade proposal.”
Read the Salt Lake Tribune’s story about it here.
Permalink | |
Roan Plateau awareness high on Main Street
Kathy Hall, a Grand Junction consultant for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association and energy industry booster, wrote this in a newspaper column today, criticizing as “sophomoric” the efforts by members of Colorado’s congressional delegation to put the breaks on drilling the Roan Plateau: “If you walk down Main Street and stop 10 people, I would guess only three or four of them have ever heard of the controversy surrounding the Roan Plateau.”
So, I decided to stop 10 random people around 1 p.m. today on Main Street in Grand Junction to find out how much people know about the Roan Plateau. Some wouldn’t give me their names, others would. It’s no statistically valid sample, I admit, but the good people of Main Street seem to tilt in the direction of awareness when it comes to the Roan. That doesn’t mean they’re particularly friendly to the idea of keeping drilling rigs from poking holes in it, however.
Of the 10 random people I talked to, four had never heard of the Roan Plateau. The other six not only had heard of the Roan Plateau, but each one knew enough to know that energy companies want to drill it for natural gas. All six were aware of the controversy surrounding the the Roan.
Judith Musafia, of Grand Junction, said people ought to find a more sustainable way to develop the Roan. They should “not wreck everything,” she said.
“We need gas, but I’m not sure they ought to go slow like they’re trying to do,” said Grand Junction resident Walter Strong. “You can’t save everything.”
Smoking a cigarette outside Quincy’s, Bob Raitt of Grand Junction blamed “all the millionaires” for wanting to suck the energy out of the Roan.
Another man, who said he’d been atop the Roan but wouldn’t give his name, said all the enviros wanting to keep the rigs off the plateau aren’t very aware of the Roan’s history. He said there’s not much up there on the Roan, anyway.
“I don’t know why they’re making such a big deal about it,” he said.
Permalink | |
Latest comments
Even Bjorn Lomborg (of “Skeptical Environmentalist” notoriety) does not deny climate change.
Here’s a link to his interview at salon.com: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/29/bjorn_lomborg/index.html
... read the full comment by Ed | Comment on Even in Utah, few deny climate change Read Even in Utah, few deny climate change
I am from the Plateau Valley area and I attended the energy meeting held in Collbran. Many of the people in attendance were locals that I have seen around the community. I felt that the meeting was held in a extremely civil manner. I did feel that when
... read the full comment by Kim Weber | Comment on Fact Check: 'Paid' environmentalists Read Fact Check: 'Paid' environmentalists
Ed, they do feel very threatened. They failed their CEOs and shareholders and allowed a major change in Colorado law vis a vis oil and gas development. They were beaten by a grassroots movement that just wouldn’t stop telling the truth. Once the voters
... read the full comment by dc | Comment on Fact Check: 'Paid' environmentalists Read Fact Check: 'Paid' environmentalists
Charlie Kerr is a volunteer. As far as I know he pays dues to be a member of WCC (just as he and I pay dues to be members of Club 20).
Please check YOUR facts. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are being paid to disagree
... read the full comment by Ed | Comment on Fact Check: 'Paid' environmentalists Read Fact Check: 'Paid' environmentalists