Indian Peaks Group Conservation Committee

Minutes

August 2 2006

1. INTRODUCTIONS.

Those present were Billie Gutgsell, Todd Sanford, Bev Baker, Linda Batlin, Mary Skumanich, and Kirk Cunningham

2. NATIONAL FOREST ISSUES - Todd Sanford

A. Work Project at Yankee Doodle Lake area, Saturday, September 2nd.

This is a joint project with a 4WD club and is aimed at restoring a wetland area near Yankee Doodle Lake, near the Needle's Eye Tunnel and Rollins Pass. The 4WD club will be doing some fence building on the previous weekend, and it is our job to plant willows, spread mulch, and other similar tasks on the 2nd. We would like to get as many volunteers as possible, so Kirk said that he would put the event announcement out on the IPG-ANNOUNCE list, and also send it to the IPG Outings Committee for their announcements.

B. Colorado Roadless Rule Update.

Todd took a look at the roadless rule hearings comment summary and passed on the following statistics that might be of interest. For Boulder county there were 518 total comments about overall roadless protection (from what he could tell) with 513 in favor of roadless protection. The majority were from Boulder city with 3 against in the city. For the Arapaho-Roosevelt Forest in particular, there were 176 total comments with 172 for roadless protection citing concerns about soil erosion, animal displacement, damage to watersheds, air pollution, and uncontrolled/unsupervised recreation. Those numbers were representative of the rest of the state as well. The complete summaries can be found on www.roadless.net for those interested.

Todd is not sure what the next opportunity for public participation is, if one exists. The Roadless Area Task Force should produce a recommendation for the Governor soon, but he doesn't know if there is any opportunity for comment on that recommendation.

C. White River National Forest Transportation Management Plan.

Todd is going to look over the White River travel management plan to get a feel for the content in anticipation of the Arapaho-Roosevelt plan in the future. A mountain biker's comment, that if bikers don't get what they want, they will make their own trails, quoted in the news, was very disturbing and he will start trying to get a feel for where the local mountain biking community stands on the issue as he is sure it will come up for our forest. It could just be one person's minority opinion, but it would be good to know how others feel.

D. Forest Service Land Sales.

Although this idea seems to have been fairly thoroughly shot down in the months since it was proposed, Todd believes that it might appear again, perhaps as a rider on a spending bill.

E. Alert about salvage logging bills.

See the Appendix, #2.

3. OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT

The following message from Joe Mantione of the Open Space and Mountain Parks Dept. concerns a trails plan for the Doudy Draw area of the open space system. The IPG could use some help looking at this draft proposal.

"We are please to present the draft Eldorado Mountain / Doudy Draw Trail Study Area (TSA) Plan. The public review draft plan describes and discusses recommended trails, activity management, and resource protection for the TSA. This plan was developed in cooperation with local community groups and interested members of the public. It incorporates many ideas expressed during public meetings and discussions with these groups and individuals. An inventory report and alternatives analysis report were also used to generate management recommendations for the TSA. These documents are available on the OSMP website.

You are invited to review the draft plan and provide comments that will be considered in producing the final plan. The draft plan is also available on our website at www.osmp.org. Comments can be emailed to:

EM-DD-TSA@bouldercolorado.gov or mailed to City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks, P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306. Public comments will be accepted through August 25, 2006.

A public field trip to the TSA is scheduled to review and discuss recreation and resource protection management recommendations, including proposed new trails. This field trip will take place Wednesday, August 9 from 5 to 8 P.M. Transportation will be provided from the OSMP office at 66 South Cherryvale Road. Please dress appropriately and bring water. Please RSVP by Tuesday, August 8 by calling the OSMP administrative offices at 303-441-3440.

Additional opportunities for public comment will be made available at another public meeting on August 22. Details on the time and location of this meeting will be available soon.

4. WILDLIFE

Billie Gutgsell. Billie is filling in for our IPG Wildlife Committee Chair, Deirdre Butler, who is away on vacation.

A. Wind Farm Impacts Protested.

A proposal to site a large wind farm on an escarpment in the Pawnee Buttes area. Colorado Audubon has sent out Alert #1 in the Appendix - what position should the IPG or Chapter take? There was discussion about this along these lines:
* Wind farms are necessary for our collective energy future, but sensitive wildlife habitats for birds and bats especially should be avoided
* Before we build more wind farms or coal/natural gas power plants, we should try to save a lot more energy than we do.
* Large facilities should take a back seat to smaller projects, including rooftop PV arrays, or even small windmills
* Kirk said that he would ask the Chapter and IPG energy committees what opinions they have about the Audubon Society position. There was no consensus within the IPG Conservation Committee about whether the Sierra Club should sign on to or distribute the Audubon alert.

B. Boulder Urban Wildlife Management Plan update.

As of today, the city of Boulder has not yet issued a permit for killing the prairie dogs at Tom Watson Park.

C. CDOW's Environmental Roundtable.

The next meeting of the ERT is Monday, August 7th at the CDOW Headquarters on north Broadway in Denver. The head of the CDOW, Bruce McCloskey, will be there and the topic of discussion will be the future of the ERT. Apparently the agency is considering the possibility of terminating the ERT, so the discussion should be important.

D. Trapping Petition.

A trappers' group submitted a petition to the Wildlife Commission to allow the trapping of several furbearer species using box traps, contrary to the spirit of the citizens' initiative passed several years ago. The Commission decided that most of the species in the trappers' petition could not be trapped, but they made an exception for mink and pine marten, neither of which are very plentiful. A legal challenge to this decision may be forthcoming.

E. Proposed change in Forest Service regulations to allow motorized killing of predators species that cause damage to livestock.in wilderness areas.

Several wildlife and environmental groups are fighting this rule change because it would change the character of wilderness, and be a thin edge of the wedge for motorized access. The comment deadline for this rule-making has been extended beyond the original August 7th deadline.

F. Bears and Lions

CDOW reports no particular problems with bear and mountain lion at the moment.

5. PESTICIDES/TOXICS UPDATE - Kirk Cunningham

A. A loose coalition of groups and individuals under the aegis of the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, will be working on amendments to the City of Boulder's pesticide application notification ordinance, with the goal of giving people, especially pesticide-sensitive people, better notice of spraying by the city, by individual neighbors, and by commercial pesticide applicators

B. West Nile virus is lurking around again and mosquito populations which carry that virus appear to be more prevalent. We have a flyer urging people to rely on avoidance and prevention measures before using toxic chemical pesticides.

C. The "Clean Water" initiative received enough signatures to get on the November city ballot. You will see more letters to the editor and debates in other forums about this. The IPG has endorsed the initiative.

6. CEMEX UPDATE.

A. Trucks hauling stone and cement in and out of the facility are supposed to be water-washed on the way out to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Recent reports from nearby residents indicate that the washing has not been effective. The County Health Dept. has been asked to step into this situation and require Cemex to be more diligent

B. The Sierra Club's appeal, of an adverse decision by a local judge to allow Cemex's County land use permit to burn tires, is ongoing, but the Club is running low on funds to pay our lawyer. Anyone wishing to contribute a few dollars, should send a check made out to "Sierra Club Foundation" to Mark Collier, 4439 Dallas Place, Boulder CO 80303, with "Cemex litigation" on the memo line. Such gifts are fully tax-deductible.

C. A new advocacy organization has been formed to deal with air quality problems in Colorado of the likes of Cemex - Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action (RMCAA). They are looking at Cemex's "Title V" clean air permit (issued by the state and coming up for renewal) to make sure their current operations come into compliance. The head of RMCAA is Jeremy Nichols, and their address is 1536 Wynkoop, B501, Denver 80202. I don't have their web address at the moment.

***********************************
APPENDIX
1. BIRD CONSERVATION ALERT (From Audubon Society) - New Windfarm to be Built on Pawnee Escarpment

I want to alert everyone to some possible damaging impacts on birds and
habitats from a new wind energy development that's about to be constructed on the northern edge of the Pawnee National Grassland.
Audubon is certainly not opposed to wind energy, and no one is proposing to stop this development, but we and the wildlife agencies are trying to head off serious impacts from the placement of various turbines (windmills) in the large array that's being designed. If you share our concerns, please consider submitting comments to the developer.

THE SITUATION
The proposed windfarm, known as Cedar Creek, will consist of up to 300 turbines that will be erected in the area north and west of the Pawnee Buttes, extending over a large area, with the southernmost row of turbines stretching along part of the rim of the escarpment that includes the chalk bluffs and stretches from east of Grover to the area of the Buttes. Because it is being
constructed on private land, there are few regulations that can keep them from building the turbines wherever they want. However, the Colorado Division of Wildlife has been making recommendations to the developer to place the turbines and conduct their construction and operations in a way that will avoid serious disturbance and damage to nesting birds, etc.

This week we've learned that the developer (Greenlight Energy, of
Virginia) has been unwilling to commit to voluntarily following all of the DOW recommendations, which have actually been negotiated down from some more stringent requests (which Audubon and others believe were the more appropriate ones for protecting the values of the habitats).

Although there's been some movement on their part this week, we still have not heard a public commitment or seen a commitment in writing from Greenlight Energy that they will voluntarily follow the DOW recommendations to protect birds and wildlife habitats. The problem is that they are going before the Weld County Commissioners Wednesday, Aug. 2, to ask for their construction permit, which they might very well receive that day without any commitment on their part to protect birds and bird habitats. They expect to have many of the turbines erected by next summer.

We believe it would be very helpful for the developer to hear from Colorado citizens that the escarpment and the surrounding shortgrass prairie are important to birders, conservationists and others, and that these are an important part of Colorado's heritage that need to be protected. If they realize that the public is watching them, we hope that Greenlight Energy will do the right thing. Some of the key ecommendations from DOW are that the turbines be kept out of a buffer of 1/2-mile from eagle and prairie falcon nests and 1/4-mile from other raptor nests, while the siting of other turbines is being negotiated at distances closer to the rim of the escarpment (100 to 200 meters in some cases). These buffers are to protect the nesting birds from human disturbances associated with operating and maintaining the turbines.
(FYI, some biologists believe that none of the turbines should be within 1/2-mile of the rim -- where roughly 75 active and inactive raptor nests have been identified this year.) Another recommendation calls for avoiding ground-nesting birds during the construction of each of the turbines.

PLEASE HELP WITH AN EMAIL

If you want to help put pressure on the developer to be a good corporate citizen, please send an email to Greenlight Energy expressing your concerns, along with anything you may want to say about the importance of the prairie in and near the Pawnee NG and the escarpment itself. Your email can be very short. If you want, you could request that they voluntarily follow the DOW
recommendations, at a minimum. (Send to: Matt Hantzmon, Managing Director, matt@glnrg.com ; and to Kevin Davis, Director of Project Development, kevin@glnrg.com ) (If possible, please blind copy me, as well, kstrom@audubon.org, or at least let me know off-list that you've
commented.) Some of you may also be concerned about the impact of the turbines on the viewshed. They will stretch for miles along the top of the escarpment, and they aren't small. These turbines reach roughly 400 feet into the air and each turbine's blades sweep an area about the size of a football field. It's important to recognize that no matter what happens, these turbines are going to become a permanent part of the landscape along the escarpment. The only question is how far back they will be set from the top rim.

No matter what the outcome of the Weld County hearing is, we intend to keep pressure on the developers to do any siting and construction properly. You can continue to help in the coming months with additional communications with the developer to encourage them to minimize environmental damage, so you could make more detailed comments in the future.

2. STOP SENATE BILL 2079 AND HR 4200!
SENATE SET TO BEGIN DEBATE AUGUST 2nd
DEMAND THAT YOUR SENATORS OPPOSE BOTH BILLS

(Note: the Senate is actually looking at two versions of the same bill. S. 2079 and HR 4200. Please make sure to address both bills in your comments, as they are virtually identical, but on different tracks through the Senate.)

THE "SMITH" LOGGING BILL and HR 4200 WOULD DAMAGE
FORESTS, CUT OUT THE PUBLIC
The U. S. Senate will begin debate on Senate Bill 2079 and HR 4200 - two versions of the misleadingly titled "Forests for Future Generations Act" - on August 2nd. We need your voice to convince Colorado's Senators to vote against these irresponsible bills.

The Smith Logging Bill and HR 4200 undermine protections for forests, fish, water, and wildlife in order to rush logging after natural disturbance events, such as wildfires and rainstorms on National Forests.

The House of Representatives has already passed a companion bill, H.R. 4200, which would cause serious harm to our country's National Forests according to scientists, firefighters, hunting and fishing groups, and conservationists. Like its companion, S. 2079 and HR4200 not only completely waives the National Environmental Policy Act and leaves roadless areas, old growth forests, and other special areas unprotected, it also ignores important scientific research, threatens endangered species habitat, and could actually increase the risk of wildfire.

Opposition to the bill is wide-ranging, yet the legislation is still moving ahead. Scientists say S.2079 & HR 4200 would harm our National Forests - 169 of the nation's leading forest scientists oppose HR 4200

MORE DETAILS:

Under S. 2079 & HR 4200, The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management would be more-or-less required to log in areas of 1000 acres or more where fire or windstorms have recently occurred, even though science shows that such logging is often harmful to recovery of trees and ground vegetation.

Adding insult to injury, the bills would encourage agencies to use "pre-approved management practices," undercutting public involvement and leaving the public little say in how and where these logging would occur.

The bills would force only a hasty analysis of possible impacts of projects to threatened and endangered species. If this analysis was not completed in time due to budget shortfalls, staff illnesses, or any other reason, it would be considered complete anyway.
The bills would allow agencies to ignore the Clean Water Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, as projects under S. 2079 could proceed while they were being evaluated under these acts.

Community protection priorities will be misplaced. The bills create incentives to divert scarce agency resources away from projects intended to protect communities before wildfires may occur, and toward destructive logging projects that can delay recovery and increase fire danger.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

We must act now to prevent S. 2079 or HR 4200 from becoming law. Senator Salazar is being lobbied by supporters of the bills, and it is likely that Senator Allard is also being pushed to support this legislation. We must counter this pressure and persuade our elected officials to protect our public lands and downstream communities from damaging logging that could go forward without public involvement or scientific analysis.

Send an e-mail to Senator Salazar at:
http://salazar.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm. Or call his Denver office at 303 455-7600.

Send an e-mail to Senator Allard at:
http://allard.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home. Or call his Denver office at (303) 220-7414.

Find contact info for Senators outside Colorado at: http://www.senate.gov

WRITING/TALKING POINTS:

Ask your Senators to oppose S. 2079 and HR 4200. State that the proposed law is not needed, as the Forest Service and BLM already have considerable authority to quickly respond to disturbances.

* The bills would focus attention on recently disturbed areas that science shows best recover on their own. Logging would likely cause resource damage and delay recovery.
* The bills would divert attention from fuels reduction projects in areas adjacent to or near homes and towns, meaning more areas would remain vulnerable to wildfire.
* The most basic protections are missing: There are no protections in the bills for old growth forests, roadless areas, streams or riparian areas, critical wildlife habitat, fragile soils, or other essential natural resources.
* The public should be allowed to have input into all projects occurring on public lands.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION - Call Rocky Smith of Colorado Wild
at (303) 839-5900 or e-mail rocky@coloradowild.org.

Back to Top of Page

   get Involved

   get Connected

   get Informed

   get Outside