Speak Out for National Monuments

By Corey Fisher Senior Policy Director for Trout Unlimited Caddis fly blizzards on the Arkansas River in Browns Canyon National Monument. Strongholds of native redband trout in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. Fishing with the ghost of Henry David Thoreau in the Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument.

These are just a few of the reasons Trout Unlimited supports the Antiquities Act and the ability for presidents to use the act to designate national monuments. As national monuments, each of the places will be kept just the way they are today and provide world-class coldwater habitat and fishing opportunities for future generations – or so we hope.

Take action to stand up for our National Monuments!

On Wednesday, President Trump issued an executive order, Review of Designations Under the Antiquities Act, calling for a review of national monument designations over 100,000 acres since 1996 (or at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior) and instructing the Secretary to provide “recommendations for such Presidential actions, legislative proposals, or other actions” if determined that a monument should be rescinded or resized.

This unprecedented action could have far-reaching implications for America’s public lands and hunters and anglers. Trout Unlimited cautions that the order could lead to the weakening of national monument protections and the Antiquities Act, a law championed by Theodore Roosevelt and used by sixteen Presidents – eight Republican and eight Democratic – to protect some of America’s most iconic landscapes.

This review starts us down a path that could jeopardize protected public lands that help to sustain our outdoor traditions, such as Rio Grande del Norte National Monument. In these places, locally driven conservation efforts need to be preserved and celebrated, not questioned.

The Antiquities Act has historically been a bipartisan tool for conserving public lands that are part of our natural heritage and important for America’s sportsmen and women. After signing the act into law, President Theodore Roosevelt designated over 1.5 million acres of public land as national monuments, both large and small.  Since then, the act has been used to enable long-term conservation of some of the best fish and wildlife habitat and hunting and angling opportunities in the country.

When Congress has been unwilling or unable to enact widely supported conservation initiatives, the Antiquities Act has provided a path forward to see these efforts through to fruition. The Antiquities Act is a powerful tool for conservation. Like any tool, it must be used appropriately, but it is important to keep this tool available for those times and places it is needed.

For this reason, hunting and fishing groups have been calling on elected officials to uphold the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt and set an example for how the Act can be used responsibly, rather than attacking national monuments and the Antiquities Act. These efforts have included a letter from the CEOs of five national sporting groups expressing opposition to any executive action to overturn a national monument.

An angler looks to hook up with a trout while fishing Rio Grande del Norte National Monument. Joshua Duplechian/Trout Unlimited

It remains to be seen what final actions will stem from the review mandated by President Trump’s executive order, but one thing is clear: we must remain vigilant to ensure that some of America’s most cherished landscapes remain protected as national monuments.

Read more about national monuments and the Antiquities Act.

Take action today – tell Congress don’t mess with the monuments!

Own a business? Sign the outdoor business letter to Congress.

Read a press release from Trout Unlimited and partners in response to the Executive Order.

Corey Fisher is the Senior Policy Director for Trout Unlimited. He can be reached at CFisher@tu.org

Support Sustainable Funding for Colorado's Fish and Wildlife

The Colorado General Assembly is taking up legislation – HB 17-1321 – to authorize the Parks and Wildlife Commission to have the power to set its own fee rates, up to a specified cap, instead of the Colorado Legislature setting all fees. This action would enable them to increase fishing and hunting license fees in order to provide needed funds to maintain fish and wildlife management and to meet growing demands for habitat conservation and for hunting and fishing access. While the bill provides a needed financial boost to Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), it does include limitations on using these funds for fee title land and water purchases – limiting an important tool in CPW’s tool box for protecting habitat, improving stream flows, and securing access. You can help by contacting your state Representative – today – and letting them know that you support increasing CPW funding, and that you believe CPW should retain authority to purchase land and water to benefit fish and wildlife.  The most effective way to make your voice heard it to call your Representative directly – using your address, you can look up your Representative and their contact information here.  Or you can quickly comment using our email template by clicking here. 

Colorado TU’s Board of Directors has voted to support HB 1321.  Since 2009, CPW has cut or defunded fifty staff positions and sliced $40 million from the wildlife budget. Without new revenue, more painful cuts are inevitable.This bill gives the Parks and Wildlife Commission authority to set fees, within a cap set at a 50% increase from current levels.  Importantly, it allows future license fees to be adjusted gradually over time to keep up with inflation rather than needing the legislature to approve larger increases every few years. The bill would also allow out-of-state fishing license fees for Colorado to be increased to bring Colorado’s pricing in line with peer states like Montana, Wyoming, and Utah. A senior fishing license (not more than half the regular price) would also be re-instituted.  The bill also would add a new sticker and fee program for boats, to help finance inspections for aquatic nuisance species.  You can read more about the bill here.

While the bill provides much-needed financial support for CPW, it also includes language limiting the agency’s purchase of fee title land and water. While such permanent purchases of land and water are not frequent, they are important – for example for expanding or establishing new state parks, obtaining water rights to benefit fisheries, or protecting key wildlife habitat if a landowner wishes to sell their property rather than putting under conservation easement.

Please tell your Representative to support HB 1321’s enhanced funding for CPW, and also to support CPW’s ability to use purchase land and water to benefit fish, wildlife and recreation in Colorado.

Antiquities Act and why should outdoorsmen care?

By Corey Fisher, Pulib Lands Policy Director What are national monuments and why should hunters and anglers care?

National monuments and the Antiquities Act have been in the news lately, with members of Congress pushing the Trump Administration to repeal some national monuments, and a renewed call in the halls of Congress to dismantle the act.

These discussions are usually somewhat abstract and exactly what a national monument is leaves many of us scratching our heads. But for sportsmen and women, there are a few things to know about national monuments and the act used to establish them:

1. National monuments are created when a presidential issues a proclamation designating a national monument out of existing public lands. Signed into law by Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, sixteen U.S. presidents – eight Democrats and eight Republicans – have used the Antiquities Act to protect some of the nation’s best public land hunting and fishing opportunities. National monuments are not a “land grab” as some opponents erroneously claim; these lands are already owned American public.

2. The Antiquities Act helps keep our public land like it is, preventing changes that would negatively impact our hunting and fishing heritage. Importantly, each proclamation designating a national monument is different, and each one identifies the values that are to be protected for that specific area, including fish, wildlife, and hunting and angling. For instance, the 2015 proclamation designating Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument in California listed trout, salmon, steelhead, elk and mule deer as monument features and noted that the area is important for “recreation opportunities, including hunting, fishing”. In doing so, by law these values will be conserved.

3. National Monuments protect quality hunting and fishing opportunities on public lands. Many monuments allow traditional uses to continue, including hunting and fishing; here’s a list. In short, uses that were allowed before a monument is created are typically allowed after a monument is created, while future activities would degrade fish and wildlife habitat – such as mining or oil and gas development – are not allowed except where there are already valid existing rights.

4. The Antiquities Act is needed more today than ever. In today’s Congress, even widely supported, bi-partisan proposals can get wrapped up in unrelated political fights, but the Antiquities Act offers a path forward to see conservation initiatives through when Congress won’t act. For instance, Browns Canyon National Monuments in Colorado was designated in 2015 after over two decades of unsuccessful legislative proposals from both Republican and Democratic members of Colorado’s Congressional delegation. If the authority for a president to designate a monument were taken away, legislation to conserve Browns’ Canyon would still be languishing in Congress.

5. In the West, national monuments are usually managed by a multiple use public land management agency, commonly the Forest Service or BLM. A designation typically doesn’t change who manages public lands, only what features will be conserved, such as fish and wildlife habitat. Importantly, modern monument proclamations explicitly state that fish and wildlife management authority will be retained by fish and wildlife management agencies, just as it was prior to designation.

6. Monuments ensure the public has a voice in the management of their public lands. When developing a management plan, agencies are required to involve the public, including consultation with tribal, state, and local governments. The process for developing monument management plans is the same process used to create management plans for other public lands, with public input at the beginning of the process and a draft plan that is made available for review and comment before a final decision is made.

7. Today, Congress is trying to dismantle this important tool. Congress has shown a renewed interest in repealing the act outright, or creating hurdles to monument designation that would render the act useless. One such bill in the Senate, S. 437, places a higher bar for the approval of monuments than Wilderness, even though national monuments are a far less restrictive designation.

8. You can help. Theodore Roosevelt was the father of the Antiquities Act and it is critical that hunters and anglers speak up in support of this important tool for conservation – take action today and tell Congress don’t mess with Teddy’s law.

Speak Out for Sound Management of BLM Lands

  The US Senate will soon be voting on whether to block the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) "Planning 2.0 Rule" - and our Senators need to hear your voice as an angler who values our public lands!  BLM properties in Colorado include some of our most outstanding fisheries like the Colorado River and the Gunnison Gorge, as well as important native trout habitats - and sound planning and management of these lands if essential.

Speak out for sound management of BLM lands!

This new rule updates the BLM’s outdated rule and gives the public a stronger voice in public land management decisions. The revised rule will increase agency transparency and opportunities for public involvement in federal land planning, and ensure that important fish and wildlife habitats and looked at up front and at a landscape level, not left as an afterthought.

Trout Unlimited and our partners in the hunting and fishing community have supported Planning 2.0, but this common-sense proposal is under threat of being repealed by Congress using the Congressional Review Act which would not only block the rule but prevent anything substantially like it being adopted in the future.

Please take a few minutes to contact Colorado's Senators and urge them to oppose efforts to do away with Planning 2.0, to ensure that the public has a voice in public land management!

An Increase in Fishing License Fees? .... If so, Why?

By Jon P. Weimer, Colorado TU Director-At-Large, Communications Committee This article was originally published in the 2017 Winter Edition of High Country Angler

Let us know your thoughts about the potential fishing increase with this short survey!

In the summer of 2016, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) conducted a series of 18 public meetings across the State, entitled Funding the Future.  CPW anticipates budget shortfalls, and the meetings were conducted to get feedback from hunters and anglers on how best to stop the financial hemorrhaging and perhaps even enhance its coffers.  Increasing hunting and fishing license fees for State residents has been proffered by the Agency as one possible option.

For more information from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, visit:

History of License Revenue

CPW Financial Sustainability

Funding the Future

Background

In 2011, the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation merged with the Division of Wildlife.  Ostensibly, the merger would allow the new Agency—CPW—to capture some efficiencies through sharing resources, such as accounting and marketing, and position it to connect with the general public as a single organization.  A prevalent rumor at the time was that the merger was enacted to bail out the Parks Division using Wildlife funds.  This view, apparently, was a misconception.  There are very specific Federal and State laws that require that Wildlife funds---which include hunting and fishing license fees-- be spent only for Wildlife purposes, while Park funds were to be spent only for Park purposes.  It is important to note that although these two Divisions merged, each retains its own budget.  It is also important to note the irony that Parks currently is in relatively good shape financially.  It is Wildlife that is hurting financially, and providing the impetus for CPW to plead for more revenue.

Current Status

CPW has a user-pay, user-benefit funding mode; it does not receive General Fund revenue (i.e., taxpayer money).  So, fish and wildlife conservation programs, as well as management of recreational lands, are primarily funded by hunters, anglers and park visitors, through sales of hunting and fishing licenses, habitat stamps, and park passes.  More specifically, about 62 percent of the revenue generated by CPW comes from hunting and fishing license fees.  Federal excise taxes levied on hunting and fishing equipment comprise 16 percent of the budget, and grants from Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) make up 12 percent of the revenue.  Those Federal excise taxes are collected from makers of outdoor equipment which are returned to the State based on license numbers and geographic size.  Any proposed increase in license fees must be approved through the Colorado legislature before they are finalized by the governor’s signature.

Presently, resident fishing licenses for adults (age 16 to 64) cost $26.  A $10 habitat stamp is also required from adults (18 to 64 years).  Licenses for seniors (age 65 and over) are provided free, although they must pay a $1 charge, $.25 of which goes for a search and rescue fee, and $.75 of which reflects a  Public Education Advisory Council (CPEAC) fee.

Reasons for Budget Deficits

CPW’s Wildlife Management Division claims that, in recent years, it has faced substantial budget shortfalls which have resulted in the elimination of over 50 positions and $40 million from Wildlife budgets.  Without increasing revenues, CPW states that Wildlife Management will have to cut additional staff and core services, which could include reductions to wildlife and property management, biological research, access for hunting and fishing, as well as the closure of some reservoirs and fish hatcheries.  CPW avers that, basically, for the past decade, its incoming revenue has been relatively stagnant while faced with increased costs, a larger mission, and more complex issues to manage.

CPW is the largest owner of dams in Colorado and oversees 19 hatcheries in the State, where it raises 90 million fish annually for stocking rivers and lakes, and with limited funds it says it is falling behind on dam and hatchery maintenance.  As examples of rising costs since 2005 – the last time resident fishing license fees were increased – CPW points to some specific examples:  leasing water for hatcheries has increased 344 percent; fish food has risen 92 percent; and the cost of a fisheries work boat has increased 24 percent.  CPW personnel indicate that there have been some major investments out of their control such as information technology and new Statewide accounting systems.  They also point to new wildlife challenges with which they’ve had to contend such as whirling disease and invasion of aquatic nuisance species that have imposed unexpected costs. Then, of course, costs such as those associated with personnel, health care, and utilities have consistently increased during this time span as well.

Possible Solutions for Reducing Budget Deficit

Resident  License Fee Increase:  During the course of CPW’s Funding for Wildlife series of public meetings, the Agency discussed, and received from participants, a number of proposed solutions to remedy the budget deficit but invariably, possible license fee increases loomed large.  At these meetings, CPW personnel attempted to explain the Agency’s budget situation, detailing what it had done recently to address shortfalls in revenue, and providing a forecast of how CPW might address its programs.  CPW indicated that in order to maintain the current wildlife programs and restore or add a slate of new programs requested by stakeholders would, essentially, require doubling the price of most State hunting and fishing licenses.  This calculation, as might be expected, received emphasis from the media and stakeholders, although CPW insisted that the Agency had NOT proposed such an increase. However, even CPW Director, Bob Broscheid, admitted that a license increase must be considered.

Regarding fishing licenses, the price increment in resident fishing licenses that has been bandied about most often at these meetings was a hike for adults from $26 to $50, almost a 100 percent increase.  If such an increase was approved, CPW discussed whether or not it should be implemented in one year or, perhaps, in stages over a 4 to 5 year time span.  Whatever price increase instituted, if any, should have a sound rationale if it’s going to receive legislative approval.  CPW might look at the price increases that other states have adopted, or possibly the price increase could be based on some econometric modeling derived from results obtained in a “willingness to pay” survey.  In addition to holding 18 public meetings this past summer, CPW send post cards to 3,000 randomly chosen resident license holders (half hunters, half anglers) to ask if they supported increasing license prices.  CPW also gathered input from an online public comment form on its website regarding people’s willingness to pay more for a fishing/hunting license.

In economics, there’s a concept called price elasticity.  Price elasticity has many facets to it but, basically, it refers to determining what percent-increase in the price of a product or service will lead to optimal revenue, recognizing that as prices increase the numbers of customers willing to buy a product decreases.  Very simply, one is looking for that price “sweet spot” that will lead to the most revenue.  If your price falls below that sweet spot, you won’t obtain as much revenue as possible; however, if you overshoot that sweet spot, you could actually lose revenue because a large number of your previous customers decline to buy your product.  Retail outlets have the luxury and flexibility to continually change prices, looking for that sweet spot.  Government agencies don’t have that luxury---they make a decision that they have to live with for a while.

The $26 to $50 price hike in resident fishing license fees that has been discussed may be tolerable to a certain segment of the angling population, but not to another that may feel that such an increment is too steep a hike, and a number of anglers may simply stop purchasing a license. Obviously, it’s a complex and important decision that CPW has to make, requiring a great deal of deliberation.  CPW has also discussed at these public meetings the idea that, in order to avoid further price hikes that are perceived as too steep, the Agency may attempt to secure legislative approval to tie resident angling license fees to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), a price structure that would basically mirror that for out-of-State angling/hunting licenses which are indexed to the CPI, usually resulting in small annual increases to keep up with inflation.

In addition to possibly raising the resident fishing license fees for adults, CPW is also considering levying a license fee for seniors who, as mentioned earlier in this article, are currently charged $1.  Seniors account for approximately 20 percent of the State’s annual license purchases.  In 2015, CPW issued 85,510 senior fishing licenses.  None of these senior licenses count toward the license numbers that determine Colorado’s share of Federal excise taxes; reinstating a senior fishing license fee would thus increase Colorado’s Federal funds as well as generating dollars directly from sales.  Further, it costs about $1.5 million annually just to print the licenses – making the status quo a net financial loss.  Thus, the Agency sees an opportunity to further enhance revenue by requiring seniors to buy fishing licenses, although no specific price structure has been discussed in any detail for this demographic group.

CPW considers an increase in both hunting and fishing licenses to be a feasible means of offsetting, at least in part, its financial difficulties.  CPW claims that if the current fee structure remains, and no other fund-raising and/or cost cutting measures are instituted, the Agency will need approximately $15-20 million additional each year to maintain current operations, and up to $36 million to implement additional programs that hunters and anglers have indicated are important to wildlife management and conservation in the State – such as expanded access or restoring “Fishing is Fun” grants to historic levels.  As mentioned earlier, after public comments are received and analyzed, the Agency must approach the legislature to ask for a bill approving any resident license fee increase.  Undoubtedly, CPW hopes to get a vote of confidence from the hunting and angling public that would help persuade legislators.

Other Possible Solutions:  In addition to, or in lieu of, raising resident license fees, the Agency has sought to broaden its sources of funding, looking for opportunities to bring in new revenue.  For example, in the series of public meetings sponsored by CPW, participants suggested that there is a much larger pool of public land users that exist beyond hunters and anglers that might be able to help fund CPW.  Why, they ask, are hunters and anglers being asked to pay more while others who use public land, such as hikers, birdwatchers, and photographers are exempt?

It was also suggested at these public meetings that the general public can purchase a Habitat Stamp and/or contribute money via the Non-Game and Endangered Wildlife Fund income box checkoff on their Colorado tax form to raise money for wildlife conservation—but that these venues may not be generally known and could use a massive publicity push.

Further questions were raised at these meetings about whether CPW in general, or Wildlife Management in particular, could initiate additional cost-cutting measures.  CPW, as you might expect, indicates that it has already initiated a number of efficiencies to offset declines in revenue, along with implementing significant reductions in program and operation expenses.  More cuts in funding, according to CPW, would lead to further reduction to popular and important “Fishing is Fun”, Wetland, Boating and Habitat Protection grants, the Aquatic Nuisance Species Program and, as mentioned earlier, a reduction in capital improvement projects such as repairing hatchery runways and maintenance of CPW-owned dams.

A possible ray of hope for additional funding is the proposed “Recovering America’s Wildlife Act” (H.R. 5650), which would direct approximately $1.3 billion in federal revenue from energy and mineral development toward wildlife conservation efforts across the nation.  If this legislation were to pass at the Federal level, it should bring significant additional revenue for meeting Colorado’s fish and wildlife needs.  At the time this writing, no Congressional action had been taken on this proposed legislation.

In short: CPW states that the basic problem is that revenue is essentially fixed at 2005 levels, while operating costs have continued to rise, so that budget cuts and program elimination are the only tools available to balance the budget.  Colorado’s natural resources, according to CPW, are experiencing the pressure of population growth and increasingly fragmented habitat.  A key factor in maintaining financial sustainability in the long run, they argue, will be the ability to increase license fees and continue to adjust them on a regular basis to offset inflation – a step they believe will be needed if Colorado is to remain a premiere destination for outdoor activities.

Good News for Colorado Headwaters & Native Trout

Denver Water recently filed its application for an amended license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for its Gross Reservoir/Moffat Firming project. The filing included valuable new commitments to benefit native trout in headwater watersheds within the Fraser and WIlliams Fork basins - and that's good news for cutthroats and the anglers who value them. More than two years ago, Denver Water came to an agreement with Grand County and TU that incorporated a variety of river protections and enhancements in conjunction with their Moffat Firming Project - measures that we agreed would result in a healthier Fraser and Upper Colorado River system than without the Moffat project. The agreement was a great model of collaborative conservation to achieve better outcomes than we could achieve alone.

On top of reiterating their past commitments to enhancing the Colorado headwaters, Denver Water's new FERC application includes additional commitments to benefit native trout on pubilc lands in the Williams Fork of the Colorado and the Fraser River watersheds. Specifically:

• Denver will install fish barriers on Bobtail and Steelman creeks in the Williams Fork headwaters to secure existing populations of native cutthroat trout in approximately 6.3 miles of habitat
• Denver will install a fish barrier in nearby McQueary Creek that will secure another 2.6 miles of habitat that can then be restored for native cutthroat trout by the US Forest Service and Colorado Parks and Wildlife
• Denver will maintain and operate its diversions on Hamilton and Little Vasquez creeks in the Fraser watershed to permanently secure existing native cutthroat trout populations in approximately 10 miles of habitat
• Denver will help coordinate and participate in a joint interagency restoration project to protect up to 15 miles of new cutthroat trout habitat in St Louis Creek, also in the Fraser watershed

These commitments were incorporated in a settlement agreement between Denver and the US Forest Service for the FERC licensing process, and represent another important step in ensuring that the impacts of Denver Water's Moffat project are mitigated. Denver Water has said that they intend to leave the watersheds impacted by their project in better health than they are today - and these new commitments to native trout restoration in the Williams Fork and Fraser basins are another positive move in converting those words into on-the-ground action.

Kudos to Denver Water and the US Forest Service for launching a strong partnership to benefit native trout!

Proposed Dam in Maroon Bells Wilderness

By Ken Neubecker, Regional Vice President, Colorado Trout Unlimited The City of Aspen is planning to build a pair of dams in some of Colorado’s most iconic mountain landscapes and streams. One is slated for Maroon Creek, just below the Maroon Bells, and the other on Castle Creek not far below the old town of Ashcroft. These dams would inundate significant portions of these free-flowing streams along with portions of the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness. Why is this coming up now? Because the City must go to Water Court every six years and demonstrate that they are working to build these dams.

This is not a good thing. Aspen has no need for these dams and reservoirs, no need to wreck these streams or the landscapes they inhabit. Colorado TU, along with partners at American Rivers, Western Resource Advocates and Wilderness Workshop are planning to object to these dams in Water Court.

Back in the 1960’s planners thought that Aspen’s population (1,101 in 1960) would reach 30,000 by the end of the century and that additional water supplies would be necessary. Aspen’s population didn’t grow much. In 2000 it was up to 5,914 and by 2010 had added less than a thousand more. Looking forward, the City’s population isn’t expected to grow much more over the next 60 years either, yet Aspen continues to hang on to the notion that they might, someday, need these destructive dams and reservoirs.

But they don’t, and the City itself claims they’ll probably never build them. Aspen currently holds a substantial portfolio of senior water rights on both streams. According to a study the City itself commissioned these existing rights can accommodate all projected water needs for the rest of this century even in the face of extreme climate change (City of Aspen Water Supply Availability Study, 2016 Update, June 2016).

So why is the City pursuing their conditional rights for dams they admit they will never probably build? Prudence is the excuse, but not a good reason. What the City is saying in court contradicts what they are saying in public. In court, they must say that they “can and will” build the dams. In public they say they probably won’t, but want to preserve the option. Preserving an option, to maybe, or then again maybe not, build the dams may sound prudent but it is not acceptable in Water Court. They either will, or they won’t. There is no “maybe”. Aspen can’t have it both ways.

Aspen’s primary argument is that they may need these additional water sources due to potential impacts from climate change. Climate change is a legitimate concern for water supply, but these dams will not help. Most models show that runoff and river flows will diminish throughout the Colorado River Basin, from Aspen downstream to the delta.

Aspen doesn’t exist in isolation from the rest of Colorado or the larger Colorado River basin. A 2012 study by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) suggests that “the mean natural flow (of the Colorado River) … is projected to decrease by approximately 9%” by 2060. That means an additional 3.2 million acre-foot deficit in what is already a seriously depleted system (an acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons, or about what two normal families will use in a year). The BOR report also anticipates an “increase in drought frequency and duration”. Lake Powell is currently only half full, and Lake Mead even less (38%). Water shortage in the Colorado Basin is likely to be with us for a long time.

Colorado signed a compact with all the other Colorado River basin states in 1922. This compact requires that a certain amount of water be left in the river for the lower basin. If we do find ourselves amid a major water shortage the demands from the lower basin states will drain any reservoir with such junior rights as Aspen’s (1971). And there are numerous pre-1922 rights downstream that will also demand any water that might be stored behind these dams.

The dams would become empty monuments to the past, straddling diminished streams in what used to be vital and dynamic ecosystems.

Aspen does not need these dams and reservoirs. If they are truly prudent, and progressive, they never will. The people of Aspen would be much better served if the City dropped these outdated dams and develops real solutions that ensure both a reliable water supply and the important ecosystems of Castle and Maroon Creeks. Intact and fully functioning stream ecosystems are a much better hedge against climate change than a pair of outdated and useless dams.

CTU and its partners are willing and able to work with Aspen to develop realistic and modern 21st century solutions for future water needs. Aspen, of all places, can and should take a leadership role and not just keep kicking the can of outdated ideas down the road. We need to work with these streams, not against them.

Lessons from the Roan

By David Nickum For more than a decade, the battle over Colorado’s Roan Plateau—a beautiful green oasis surrounded by oil and gas development—raged in meetings and in courtrooms. At issue: Would the “drill, baby, drill” approach to public lands carry the day and the path of unrestrained energy development run over one of Colorado’s most valuable wildlife areas? Or would “lock it up” advocates preclude all development of the Roan’s major natural gas reserves?

Luckily, this story has a happy ending—and a lesson for Colorado and other states in the West struggling with how to balance the need for energy development with conservation of public lands and irreplaceable natural resources.

The Bureau of Land Management recently issued its final plan for the Roan Plateau, closing the most valuable habitat on top of the plateau to oil and gas leases. The plan, which will guide management of the area for the next 20 years, also acknowledges the importance of wildlife habitat corridors connecting to winter range at the base of the Plateau.

At the same time, the BLM management plan allows responsible development to proceed in less-sensitive areas of the plateau that harbor promising natural gas reserves and can help meet our domestic energy needs.

What happened? After years of acrimony and lawsuits, stakeholders on all side of the issue sat down and hammered out a balanced solution. Everyone won.

It’s too bad it took lawsuits and years of impasse to get all sides to do what they could have done early on: Listen to each other. We all could have saved a lot of time, money and tears.

The Roan example is a lesson to remember, as the incoming administration looks at how to tackle the issue of energy development on public lands.

There’s a better way, and it’s working in Colorado.

The BLM also this month, incorporating stakeholder input, closed oil and gas leasing in several critical habitat areas in the Thompson Divide—another Colorado last best place—while permitting leasing to go ahead in adjacent areas.

That plan also represents an acknowledgment that some places are too special to drill, while others can be an important part of meeting our energy needs.

And in the South Park area—a vast recreational playground for the Front Range and an important source of drinking water for Denver and the Front Range—the BLM is moving ahead with a Master Leasing Plan (MLP) for the area that would identify, from the outset, both those places and natural resources that need to be protected and the best places for energy leasing to proceed.

We have said that we want federal agencies in charge of public lands to involve local and state stakeholders more closely in land management planning—that perceived disconnect has been the source of criticism and conflict in the West regarding federal oversight of public lands.

The MLP process is a new tool that promises to address some of that top-down, fragmented approach to public land management. To their credit, the BLM is listening and incorporating suggestions from local ranchers, conservation groups and elected officials into their leasing plan for South Park.

This landscape level, “smart from the start” approach is one way for stakeholders to find consensus on commonsense, balanced solutions that allow careful, responsible energy development to occur while protecting our most valuable natural resources.

The lesson I take from the Roan? We can find solutions through respectful dialogue—and we shouldn’t wait for litigation to do so. Coloradoans can meet our needs for energy development and for preserving healthy rivers and lands by talking earlier to each other and looking for common ground.

Sportsmen Win Victories on Roan and Thompson Divide

Colorado Trout Unlimited praised the decisions announced by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) today on the Thompson Divide and the Roan Plateau. The BLM decisions protect prime backcountry fish and wildlife habitats in both areas from oil and gas development, while allowing development to proceed on other leases that are closer to existing oil and gas infrastructure. On the Thompson Divide, the BLM will cancel leases and remove the immediate threat of oil and gas drilling in Colorado’s Thompson Divide, a spectacular backcountry area prized for its fish and wildlife resources. The BLM's Roan Plateau plan, which will guide management for the next 20 years, closes the majority of the top of the Plateau to oil and gas leasing, including the Trapper and Northwater Creek watersheds, areas that encompass the best native cutthroat trout habitat on the Roan. The plan provides additional protections for approved leasing areas and recognizes the value of wildlife corridors connecting to winter range at the base of the Roan.

The Roan Plateau is one of Colorado's last best places. It harbors a remarkable diveristy of plant and animal life, including outstanding big game habitat and multiple small streams that harbor genetically pure Colorado River cutthroat trout—a species found in less than 10 percent of its historic range. Colorado TU and the Grand Valley Anglers chapter have spent more than 20 years conducting on-the-ground projects to protect and improve habitat for the Roan's unique native fish.

“The BLM’s Roan plan recognizes that some natural areas of the Roan are too special and valuable to drill, while other areas can be responsibly developed to help meet our energy needs,” said David Nickum, executive director of Colorado Trout Unlimited. “It is the result of good faith dialogue among industry, agencies and conservationists about finding balance and should serve as a model for how BLM can look at resource values on a landscape scale to determine where development should—and should not—take place.”

On the Thompson Divide, the BLM decision will cancel 25 leases while allowing 40 other oil and gas leases outside of the Thompson Divide to remain. These retained leases tend to be closer to existing oil and gas infrastructure.

The pristine 221,500 acres of federal land in Pitkin, Garfield and Mesa counties known as the Thompson Divide contain some of the most productive habitat for big game, cutthroat trout and numerous other native species. The area is used by more than 10,000 resident and nonresident big game hunters every year and serves as the headwaters to some of Colorado’s most popular and prolific fisheries including the Roaring Fork, North Fork of the Gunnison and Crystal rivers.

“This decision demonstrates how influential a united sportsmen’s community can be in ensuring future access to healthy habitat and strong fishing and hunting opportunities,” said Steve Kandell, director of Trout Unlimited’s Sportsmen’s Conservation Project. “Sportsmen joined with ranchers, local businesses, environmentalists, mountain bikers, and off-highway vehicle users to develop a local solution that balances energy development with habitat protection. Sportsmen, local economies and residents will benefit from this decision.”

For more information, check out TU's press releases on both the Roan Plateau and Thompson Divide.

State of TU

Watch Chris Wood, President and CEO of Trout Unlimited, deliver the 2016 State of TU speech at the TU Annual Meeting in Bozeman, MT.

---

Mick McCorcle, Chair of the National Leadership Council, gives the 2016 State of the Grassroots in Bozeman, Mt.