The philosopher had it right centuries ago as he considered our continually changing world.  Change continues in the world, the Gunnison Valley and here at HCCA.  With the departure of former Executive Director Wendy McDermott this spring, our organization is experiencing significant change, most of it good, some less so, all of it inevitable.  I think I speak on behalf of the membership, the Board of Directors and staff from the past seven years when I thank Wendy for her tremendous contribution to the success of this organization and the conservation of the Gunnison Valley.  Her enthusiasm and commitment will be missed.
 
What's the same?
With change comes the responsibility to continue and enhance the conservation efforts that are central to HCCA and its mission.  We continue to be an organization focused on conserving the natural environment of the Gunnison Valley.  We advocate for environmental protection using scientifically backed facts and community involvement and collaboration.  We make concerted efforts to stay attuned to the organization's mission and the interests of the membership.  Our volunteer Board of Directors performs this selfless task on a daily basis.
 
What's new?
I have stepped into the role of Executive Director and will fill that position while continuing to spearhead our Save Red Lady campaign.
 
The economy has had a substantial impact on our budget and forced us to scrutinize every expenditure, be increasingly creative in identifying funding streams and make cuts where necessary.  These efforts have been ongoing and are achieving the desired effect of maximizing our finances in difficult times.  Expanded fundraising efforts, such as our High Country Heroes campaign, are making a critical difference for the organization's financial future.  At the same time we continue to make deliberate efforts to ensure that resources are available to the "on the ground" work that results in real conservation success and the advancement of our mission. 
 
Another new development at HCCA is the expansion of the Climate and Clean Energy Program under the guidance of Chris Menges.  The program will now address energy efficiency and the need for renewable sources of power across several local electrical cooperatives in southwestern Colorado.  This expansion is a clear indication of the success of the program's work thus far. 
 
What does the future hold?
The work that HCCA does to conserve the Gunnison Valley remains critically important and we will build on past successes in our future efforts.  HCCA remains committed to finding a permanent solution to the threat of a mine on Mt. Emmons.  We are encouraged by the efforts being made by the US Forest Service to re-start a Forest Planning process for the GMUG National Forest and will be active participants in that process.  We are eager to assist with the transition to cleaner and more sustainable energy options and we will continue our work to protect water supplies and water quality for our area.  We look forward to the work and, with your help, many successes for our local environment.  Thank you for your support and please feel free to contact me at any time.
 
Dan Morse

In March of 2009, the United States Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Gunnison Travel Plan with a 90-day comment period.  High Country Citizens' Alliance initiated a detailed analysis of the 240-page DEIS with an eye towards sensible access to public lands while protecting land, water and wildlife resources.  We coordinated with partner organizations that are under the Southern Rockies Conservation Alliance (SRCA) umbrella in order to fortify our analysis team.  Additionally, we met with local hiking groups, mountain bike groups and attended both town and county board meetings to gain a far-reaching understanding of the DEIS.  Our analysis determined that Alternative 3 was the most fiscally sustainable and offered the best outcomes for a variety of resources including wildlife such as Gunnison sage-grouse, riparian areas and roadless areas. Although Alternative 3 was not perfect and needed modifications with a number of specific route designations from Alternatives 2 and 4, the concepts and route designations of Alternative 3 allowed for the highest degree of resource and conservation protection.  In the end, we submitted a 53-page comment letter to the USFS & BLM that we hope will make the travel system in the Gunnison Basin and North Fork Valley more conservation oriented.
 
The next phase of travel planning for the 1.6 million acres of Gunnison Basin federal lands within the travel analysis area will be the release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (RoD) which is expected in the first half of 2010.  HCCA will let everyone know when the FEIS and RoD are released through an e-mail alert and our website.

Why Weigh In On Snodgrass?
by Lawton Grinter

Victories Mount with Roadless Areas - Protection for 58 Million Acres Looks All but Certain
by Lawton Grinter
 
On August 5, 2009, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a previous court ruling that the Bush administration had unlawfully repealed the 2001 National Roadless Rule. Now that the appeal has been favorably resolved, the reinstatement of the 2001 Rule is nationwide (including Colorado), but not including the Tongass in Alaska (excepted in separate rule) and Idaho (separate roadless rule). This is a big victory for the 2001 National Roadless Rule and the protection it offers to 58 million acres of federal Roadless Areas in America's national forests, including 4.4 million acres right here in Colorado.
 
In another positive development, on August 13th, the Obama administration directed the Department of Justice to appeal a 10th Circuit Court decision that struck down the 2001 National Roadless Rule.  This 10th Circuit decision had already been appealed by conservation organizations.  A favorable ruling in the 10th Circuit would seal the deal and end the legal uncertainty on our nation's Roadless Areas.
 
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, head of the agency that oversees our National Forests, stated in an August 14th speech that he views the 9th Circuit decision reinstating the 2001 Roadless Rule nationwide as "a very very positive development."  He also stated that "if the courts remain conflicted, or it's not possible to protect Roadless Areas through the courts, we will initiate a new rulemaking process to do so."
 
The Colorado Department of Natural Resources released a new version of their proposed state Roadless Rule on August 3rd with a 60-day comment period.  The Colorado plan protects fewer acres than the 2001 National Roadless Rule and allows the building of roads for mining, power utilities, water supply, ski areas and oil and gas extraction.  Colorado is the only state in the US that is currently pursuing a state Roadless Rule . . . a leftover process from the Bush Administration.  Bush gave individual states the right to craft their own Roadless Rules in 2005.  Colorado has chosen to keep the 60-day comment period intact even though the 9th Circuit ruling has reinstated the 2001 National Roadless Rule in Colorado.  A favorable ruling in the 10th Circuit would negate the need for any state Roadless Rule process, and it can be argued that the 9th Circuit ruling already has. 
 
A National Roadless Rule is critical because these lands belong to all Americans and they deserve a national rule that preserves them for future generations.  Any state, based on pressures from special interests, could argue that they have special circumstances requiring a state roadless rule, which is what Colorado has done - exactly the reason a national policy was developed for these national Roadless Areas. 

The Gunnison Sage-Grouse - getting another chance
by Sue Navy
 


On August 18, 2009, the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) settled a lawsuit that challenged its 2006 decision to not allow the Gunnison sage-grouse the protection of the Endangered Species Act. Nine plaintiffs (Audubon Society, Black Canyon Audubon, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Native Ecosystems, The Larch Company, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), San Miguel County, Sheep Mountain Alliance and WildEarth Guardians) are seeking to gain protection for the species, which the Audubon Society labels as one of the 10 most endangered birds in the US.
 
The lawsuit began in 2006 after interference from Interior Department officials kept important biological information from being considered in the determination. The settlement gives the FWS until June 30, 2010 to reach a new decision. The survival of the bird should be the foremost consideration in that decision.
 
Locally, the Gunnison sage-grouse population showed a few more birds over 2008, but this does not signify stability. The entire population is still between 3,000 and 4,000 birds. Efforts (in which we participate) are continuing, hoping to improve the situation for the birds, but it seems to be one step forward...
 
Gunnison County's Gunnison Sage-Grouse Strategic Committee produced a Strategic Plan earlier this year, and is now completing an Action section for that plan. The Plan puts forth some good ideas, but many require significant funding, which is a limiting factor. Regulations for building in sensitive grouse habitat are also well-intended, but again, the best protection is leaving habitat be, and that requires large amounts of capital as well.
 
The controversial issue of Antler Shed collecting had been somewhat resolved in 2007, with the season opening each May 15. In 2008, however, the Strategic Committee, complying with requests from antler hunters and not heeding the advice of local biologists, recommended allowing antler collecting to occur between March 15 and May 15. During these months, the birds mate in early mornings and are extremely depleted, needing the rest of the day to regain their energy. The Wildlife Commission approved the change, allowing antler collecting from 10 AM till sunset.
 
On a positive note, forwarding conservation efforts, Curtis Allen, of Allen Ranches, has become the first to sign on to the Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances. This agreement between the landowner, FWS and the Colorado Division of Wildlife outlines habitat management for private property should the Endangered Species Act be employed, giving landowners surety in the event of listing.
 
Efforts to help the Gunnison sage-grouse are motivated by varied interests. Some argue against federal intervention in the recovery process. High Country Citizens' Alliance believes that the proliferation of the Gunnison sage-grouse should be the ultimate goal of all efforts on its behalf. Sound science and documented habitat circumstances must be the determinants of the status of the species. We hope that within the next year, the Gunnison sage-grouse will be granted the protection it needs.

 
In June 2009, the CWCB published a report updating population and municipal and industrial water use projections. The state demographers estimate that by 2030 Colorado's population could grow from 4.5 million to 7 million and by 2050 it could exceed 10 million. These are startling numbers if accurate.
 
There are other strategies being evaluated as an alternative to transmountain diversions. More effort could be put into increasing conservation and water use efficiency. Farmland on the Front Range, along with water rights, is already being bought by cities. The CWCB is funding alternatives to outright sale of farmland so the loss of these fertile lands is not permanent. A more efficient use of water collection and distribution systems is another way Front Range cities are helping to make existing supplies go further.
 
One of the biggest unknown water demands during the next few decades is whether oil shale will be developed in northwest Colorado and what technology would be used to extract it. If developed, oil shale alone could consume more water than might be available.
 
To get a better handle on understanding all of these uncertainties, the CWCB has embarked on a Colorado River Water Availability Study to determine how much water is left to be developed from Colorado's allocation under the 1922 Colorado River Compact. The Compact requires the Upper Basin states (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico) to deliver over half of the annual yield of the river to Lower Basin states (California, Arizona and Nevada). Of what's left, Colorado is entitled to 51%. This varies from year to year and Lake Powell is used to absorb the variations. If Lake Powell were emptied due to prolonged drought and reduced flows caused by climate change, the Lower Basin states could require water use in the Upper Basin to be reduced.  So the question is: can Colorado continue to develop more Colorado River supplies? How much and at what risk?
 
The current availability study is divided into two parts; one analyzing how much we have used in the past and the second how much we can expect to be available, taking into account variables such as climate change. This study includes water use in the Yampa, White, Colorado mainstem, Gunnison and San Juan Rivers. The study requires many complex calculations. Colorado has a very useful tool, developed over the past decade, to assist in this task. The Colorado Decision Support System calculates stream and river flows and all water right uses. We also expect the availability study to tell us where in the basin water will be available after considering non-consumptive uses such as instream flow rights, recreational and hydropower water rights. This computer model can be run using numerous assumptions.
 
I mentioned earlier that continued development of Colorado's allocation under the Compact has risks associated with it. These risks are based on the fact that Colorado uses the prior appropriation doctrine to administer water rights. Senior water rights (earlier appropriation dates) have a higher priority. Most of the senior rights are for agricultural uses. The more junior rights, including transmountain diversions, are used for municipal and industrial purposes. If there is not enough water to meet all uses, the junior rights lose their water first. A problem arises if we develop every last drop water we are allocated and shortages start to occur. How would we respond in these worst-case scenarios?
 
The Colorado River Water Conservation Board and the Southwest Water Conservation Board have been developing and promoting a concept of a water bank to reduce the level of disruption if water shortages begin to occur. The concept would be to have the holders of senior water rights agree, for a negotiated price, to forgo the use of their rights and allow junior users to continue to use water even if they are not in priority. This would allow cities to continue to serve their customers in times of severe and/or prolonged drought.
 
Which rights would end up in the bank? It is likely to be only those of farmers who grow annual crops. There would be the least amount of hardship for a farmer who has to plant crops every year. If an orchard or vineyard loses its water, it might take 5+ years to re-establish a fruit-bearing crop. The same is true for grass and alfalfa growers. Will a water bank catch on? We had better find out before any new transmountain diversion project is proposed because any such project would have very junior rights.
 
The consequences of a Compact call could be very disruptive. A new junior transmountain diversion could trigger a call sooner. Without a water bank in place, a call could force a major reallocation of water from agricultural to municipal uses to prevent cutting off water to our major cities. To avoid or delay this scenario, The Front Range should seek other solutions to their water supply quandary.