5 key environmental concerns

Rocky Mountain News

Monday, December 10, 2007

Photo by Matt McClain

EnCana oil and Gas employee Rick Parson mixes chemicals at a drilling rig outside Parachute. Environmentalists and others complain that energy operations aren't being adequately monitored.

Graphic by Michael Hall

Gasping in the gas fields

Graphic by Michael Hall

The technology that fuels the boom

Graphic by Michael Hall

At the drill site - the cutting edge of the gas boom

Regulators, environmentalists, sportsmen and citizens have cited numerous worries about the oil and gas industry’s impacts to the environment, both realized and potential. Here’s an overview of five major categories of concern:

1. INDUSTRY OVERSIGHT

Inspector shortfalls

Activists and Western Slope residents have long complained that the state doesn’t employ enough people to inspect oil and gas operations. Congressional investigators have criticized the Bureau of Land Management for a lack of personnel to ensure environmental protection.

What’s known: A 2005 report by the Western Organization of Resource Councils, a group that studies environmental policies, faulted Colorado and other Western states for having too few inspectors and weak enforcement of rules. It said the problem would only get worse as the gas boom continues unless personnel were added.

Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission officials acknowledge they have been overstretched. In 2006, agency spokeswoman Tricia Beaver told Salon.com, “We’re doing the best with the people we have, but we have more volume than we have people to address it.”

Former commission director Brian Macke said the agency, responding to the boom, has upped its staffing by 20 people in the past three years and has put more inspectors in the field.

As of September, the agency employed 16 staffers who spent most of their time in the field. Four specialize in environmental protection. In addition, five environmental protection officers based in Denver spend some of their time in the field.

Still, overall that’s fewer than one environmental inspector per 3,000 active wells.

Gov. Bill Ritter has requested $779,000 in his proposed 2008-09 budget for nine more well inspectors for the commission.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment also has air, water and hazardous waste inspectors, and enlists county health departments for additional help. Even so, it is a struggle to oversee more than 33,600 active wells and related facilities, such as wastewater pits, officials say.

“We could use more,” said Steve Gunderson, director of the state’s Water Quality Control Division. His agency, too, has increased staffing, but still has an unmet goal of annually inspecting 10 percent of all construction sites — including oil and gas sites — for erosion controls.

A 2005 report by the General Accounting Office found that the Bush administration’s directives to increase drilling on public lands forced the BLM to shift resources from environmental protection to processing industry permits.

While Colorado was included as part of the report, it wasn’t singled out for criticism. In fact, the report said that the Glenwood Springs BLM field office was one of two among the eight studied around the Rockies that met its environmental inspection goals during the six years studied by the GAO.

BLM offices in Colorado have added 31 staffers in the past 18 months to deal with energy development, and their responsibilities include environmental protection, said BLM spokesman Jim Sample.

Cleanup money

Some critics question whether energy companies are required to set aside enough money to cover environmental messes in cases where a company skips out on cleanup work, does it poorly or goes out of business before it is completed. The concern is growing as the number of gas wells in Colorado skyrockets, possibly setting the stage for substantial cleanup work years and even decades from now.

What’s known: The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission requires companies to post financial assurances depending on how many wells they drill.

The costs: $5,000 for an individual well, $30,000 for 100 or fewer wells and $100,000 for more than 100 wells. The money is set aside to cover the cost of properly plugging wells and restoring well sites to their natural condition.

The fees increase when a company has a higher number of “temporarily abandoned” wells because that is seen as a signal of potential problems.

Brian Macke, former COGCC director, said only in a “very small” percentage of cases does the commission have to foreclose on a bond — perhaps twice a year on average.

Also rare, Macke said, are occasions when the cleanup bond isn’t enough to cover costs. That also occurs only two to three times a year, he said.

When it does occur, money is pulled from the agency’s $4 million Conservation and Environmental Response Fund, which is funded by a tax on the industry.

Macke did say, however, that the bonding rates, last set in 1997, may need to be increased to keep pace with costs. “It’s not unreasonable to say that rule should be reviewed,” he said.

The Bureau of Land Management has a structure similar to Colorado’s, with bonding rates set at $10,000, $25,000 and $150,000. Duane Spencer of the Colorado BLM said the agency has “a good history of not having to go out and (foreclose on) the bonds.”

Another view: The 2005 study by the Western Organization of Resource Councils said that “in almost every case, the amount of financial assurance provided by companies to clean up oil and gas wells is grossly inadequate.”

It cited a study by a consulting firm that has done work for the industry, government agencies and public-interest groups that said the BLM needs to increase its nationwide bond from $150,000 to $1 million.

2. THREATS TO WILDLIFE

Habitat fragmentation

Gas drilling has expanded into remote parts of the state, bringing with it roads, wells and other facilities that are fragmenting what have been wide- open regions where animals could migrate freely and gain access to winter nourishment.

What’s known: Northwest Colorado is home to some of the largest deer and elk herds in the United States, and is a magnet for hunters nationally.

Research on how the fast-expanding oil and gas industry might affect those herds is still in the early stages, with no conclusions drawn yet, say officials at the Colorado Division of Wildlife.

But they cautiously point to research in Wyoming, much further along, that has shown elk, mule deer and sage grouse tend to avoid energy development areas.

Mule deer in Wyoming have stayed away from winter range that once provided critical nourishment during the colder months and sage grouse have avoided traditional mating sites.

Both animals saw major population declines in the regions under study, which researchers believe is tied in part to habitat loss from gas development.

Other factors, including drought, fires and disease, also affect wildlife, said DOW spokesman Randy Hampton, so the agency needs more data before declaring a direct relationship between gas development and any wildlife disruption.

“We want to have sound science, but we’re concerned,” he said.

Hampton and other wildlife experts fear animals are suffering from a thousand cuts because oil and gas regulators focus too much on the small picture associated with individual energy proposals.

“People look at us and they’re like, ‘This is only three wells. There won’t be that much impact,’” Hampton said. “But it’s three wells, and the three next to them, and the three next to them, and three more and suddenly there’s 10,000 wells. And that’s a different impact.”

Colorado has yet to see sage grouse declines, according to DOW specialist Tony Apa, but the species is in enough trouble regionally that it could become listed as endangered, meaning federal protection and barriers to further development.

Apa notes that gas development is only beginning to enter the sage grouse’s Colorado territory.

“Unfortunately, this bird is extremely sensitive to development (and) to disturbances,” Apa said. “It’s going to be a struggle to preserve this species.”

Poaching/Roadkill

Oil and gas workers in remote locales have been caught poaching wildlife, and the building of new roads in once hard-to-reach areas has improved access for would-be poachers and joy-riders. Fast-growing and fast-moving truck traffic is leading to increases in roadkill.

What’s known: Wildlife authorities in Colorado and Wyoming have linked gas workers to several poaching incidents, including a case this year where a worker was fined $10,000 and received a lifetime suspension of hunting privileges in Colorado for killing a trophy buck, cutting off its head and leaving the body to rot.

But authorities said it’s not necessarily energy workers that are the problem, but increased access.

“There’s 30-foot-wide dirt highways in some of these places,” said DOW spokesman Hampton. “That kind of access puts a lot of people into areas where we didn’t have people before.”

Wildlife officers covering 800-square- mile areas now must patrol twice as many roads for poachers, Hampton said.

Wildlife officials say they saw significant increases in poaching during the Western Slope energy boom of the 1980s as well and feel more prepared this time to combat the problem. Even so, the number of headless carcasses found has risen in the last few years.

Vehicles also are killing more animals.

One major artery for oil- and gas-related traffic is Colorado 13 between Rifle and Craig. Ron Velarde, DOW’s northwest regional manager, said traffic on the highway has risen “tenfold.”

“It’s increased the roadkill tremendously, especially when (animals) are in migratory patterns,” he said.

Loosening rules

The Bureau of Land Management often grants exceptions to rules known as “stipulations,” which are designed to protect wildlife from oil and gas development on public lands. The agency says it grants exemptions only when it won’t harm wildlife, but wildlife advocates say the stipulations are routinely waived.

What’s known: A review of BLM records by advocacy groups found that rules to protect animals, birds and fish were waived in most cases in southwestern Wyoming.

Between 2001 and 2004, 86 percent of raptor protections, 90 percent of sage grouse protections and 88 percent of protections for winter wildlife range were waived, according to federal data analyzed by The Wilderness Society.

Data for federal lands in Colorado isn’t as complete, but in fiscal year 2006, the BLM granted changes to protections 50 times out of 77 requests, but issued no outright waivers.

In the BLM’s controversial proposal to permit drilling atop Colorado’s Roan Plateau, the agency acknowledged it “cannot reasonably preclude granting of exceptions ... if the proponent can demonstrate that the exception would not cause injury to the resource.”

Green groups complain that granting such waivers is a way of quietly watering down protections for wildlife. But BLM spokesman Jim Sample said broadly applied stipulations might not make sense in some specific cases.

He cited the example of a warm spring that melts snow early, which leads elk herds to move off winter range early. The BLM could verify the elk have moved and allow a company to begin work earlier than a stipulation had allowed, he said.

3. AIR POLLUTION

Ozone formation

Oil and gas production increases emissions of so-called volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. Those compounds, when exposed to sunshine and hot temperatures, form ground-level ozone, a pollutant that harms the lungs and makes breathing more difficult, particularly for those with existing respiratory conditions.

What’s known: No one disputes that several facets of gas production generates ozone-forming compounds. In the seven-county metro area, combined with oil- and gas-heavy Weld County, the industry produces nearly as many tons of VOCs (95) as does vehicle traffic (108) per day, according to state health regulators.

In Garfield County, VOC emissions from natural gas development in 2005 were 10 times higher than those produced by vehicle traffic.

According to a report from the Western Governors’ Association, 86 tons of VOCs are emitted for every well drilled. Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action says that could add up to 2.5 million pounds of VOCs over the first eight months of 2007 in Garfield County alone — more than three times the VOCs emitted annually by the massive Suncor oil refinery in Commerce City.

State health regulators believe VOC emissions from the oil and gas industry have played a significant role in pushing up ozone levels along the Front Range. The metro area violated Environmental Protection Agency health limits for the pollutant in 2007 and now must forge a plan to make further cuts in emissions generating ozone.

Last year, Colorado’s Air Quality Control Commission ordered additional pollution controls to cut ozone-forming emissions from the oil and gas industry northeast of Denver. Condensate tanks storing oil residues were required to cut such emissions by 75 percent, for example.

Still, industry officials argue that, overall, they play a small role in the ozone problem, noting that more than half of VOCs are tied to natural sources, including trees and plants.

Health regulators note, however, that the biggest sources of VOCs — vehicles — are becoming cleaner as newer models hit the road. Oil and gas development, in contrast, is a fast-growing source of new emissions that until recently had few emission-control requirements.

How it happens: Condensate storage tanks, which hold heavier hydrocarbons; natural gas engines; compressors; wastewater storage pits; and dehydrators that separate water from oil and gas all give off ozone-forming compounds. Even the many diesel trucks that ply the gas fields emit VOCs.

Along the Front Range, the VOCs emitted by industry in Weld, Larimer, Morgan and Adams counties can wash back up the South Platte River valley and stack up against the foothills. Repeated hot, cloudless days where the air is stagnant are most conducive to baking the compounds and driving ozone into unhealthy levels beyond 70 to 80 parts per billion allowed.

Hazy air

Heavy engines that run drill rigs and compress natural gas into pipelines, as well as engines associated with the heavy trucks that work the gas fields, generate nitrogen oxides and tiny particles, both of which can create hazy skies that affect views in wilderness areas, forests and national parks around drilling areas.

What’s known: Emissions from coal- fired power plants and other industrial activities contribute to hazier skies affecting visibility in Colorado’s mountains. In national parks and other so-called Class I areas, including wilderness areas, federal law requires that majestic views be preserved.

Regulators at the EPA and the Colorado health department fear that the expanding oil and gas industry will contribute more haze to the skies, even as major improvements have been made by big polluters, including power plants in northwest Colorado and elsewhere.

The EPA has pushed drillers in parts of southwestern Wyoming into using cleaner-burning diesel engines to reduce pollution in the Bridger Wilderness. And this summer the agency intervened in a BLM proposal to allow drilling in northwestern Colorado’s Vermillion Basin and nearby areas because it said the agency hadn’t sufficiently studied how degraded air quality would affect surrounding wilderness areas.

A state health department study in 2005 found that industrial emissions — of which oil and gas are increasingly a part — degraded visibility at Rocky Mountain National Park for more than 100 days over three years. Inside the park, visibility is expected to be 155 miles, but average visibility is 94 miles, according to data released by National Park Service scientists in 2005.

On its haziest days, park visibility is closer to 57 miles.

Toxic exposures

Chemical emissions from tank clusters, wells, leaks and other gas and oil facilities can become temporarily trapped in the rugged landscape of northwest Colorado, settling into troughs where rural homesites sit. Those chemicals could be responsible for a variety of ailments afflicting some residents of affected areas, from headaches to skin rashes to more serious issues.

What’s known: Little scientific data exist to support — or debunk — residents’ claims. Public health experts — from the county level up to the state and federal level — are scrambling to learn more about the toxicological effects of chronic exposure to what are likely to be low levels of oil- and gas-related chemicals.

“The biggest thing we know is that there are more questions than answers right now,” said Susan Griffin, an EPA toxicologist. “I don’t think we’ve seen the quality of data to prove or disprove” harm to residents.

This year, green activists on the Western Slope compiled stories from 22 landowners who said their health was affected by oil and gas development. Some people say they have moved away from drilling-heavy areas, fearful of the health impacts.

Activist Theo Colborn, of Paonia, who has a Ph.D. in zoology and is the author of Our Stolen Future about how common contaminants can interfere with fetal development, has tallied 245 chemicals used in the production and delivery of natural gas in western Colorado, many of which, she says, have short- and long-term health effects.

Lance Astrella, a Denver attorney who often represents landowners against oil and gas companies, says complaints across the country involve similar symptoms: pain in the joints, skin lesions, nosebleeds, sore throats, lung problems, headaches, dizziness and depression.

“They’re all the same when they’re around VOCs,” Astrella said. “This is something that needs to be studied.”

EPA specialists still can’t quantify what, exactly, is contained in emissions at oil and gas sites and are attempting to assemble the technology to do so, according to the agency.

4. IMPACTS ON WATER

Faulty wells

When wells are drilled to access gas deposits, poor construction, well blowouts and uncertain geological conditions can lead to contamination of aquifers, streams and water wells. Old, poorly plugged wells, or those with aging concrete, also can lead to contamination of water supplies.

What’s known: Regulators at the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission know of 38 cases since 1997 where drilling activity has contaminated water wells.

In a recent sampling of 163 water wells in the gas fields of southwestern Wyoming, regulators found three that were contaminated with benzene, a known cancer-causing chemical, at levels beyond health standards. Another 82 wells also showed contamination, but didn’t exceed allowable limits.

In Colorado, environmental groups tallied 279 complaints for suspected groundwater contamination and 75 for surface water contamination between 2001 and 2006. At a legislative hearing in March, six people testified oil and gas chemicals affected their health, either through air or water contamination. Two doctors also spoke at the hearing about their concern about the harmful effects of oil and gas chemicals.

The citizens group Western Colorado Congress recently tallied 16 cases in which people’s water supplies were allegedly damaged by oil and gas drilling in Garfield County alone. In at least five cases cited by the same group, gas companies have settled with landowners who have sued, claiming their water supplies were affected by gas drilling. The terms of the settlements are secret.

In several cases since the 1990s, gas companies have resolved cases by buying people’s homes and wells. Such settlements are often secret, and landowners are legally bound not to discuss the details. No one formally tracks such settlements, so it’s impossible to know how often this occurs.

How it happens: Concrete is injected deep into the ground through a pressurized pipe, out the bottom of the pipe, and then flows back toward the surface to form the casing of the well. If a well is built poorly, with faulty concrete work, gas can escape through faults and fractures into streams and aquifers.

In addition, uncontrolled upward pressures from natural gas can exert more force than the downward drilling can handle, leading the well and nearby water wells to “blow out,” contaminating them with various drilling liquids and components of natural gas.

In coal-bed methane formations, drillers pump out groundwater to release pressure on the gas. But that also can free up gas to escape through natural pathways or older, aging wells, leading to methane gas in aquifers, water wells and even inside homes.

Fracing fluids

Companies use secret chemical brews to fracture deep underground rock formations and liberate trapped natural gas, a process known as fracing (pronounced “frakking”). Critics, including some Environmental Protection Agency regulators, worry that the chemicals could escape the wells and underground formations and contaminate drinking water supplies. But industry officials and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission maintain there is no evidence of a problem. A COGCC official said none of the 38 instances of known water well contamination associated with drilling involved fracing.

What’s known: A 2004 EPA report concluded that there was “little or no threat” of fracing contaminating underground drinking water supplies. But that report came under heavy criticism by some EPA insiders, including a Denver-based regulator for the agency, Weston Wilson, who went public with an 18-page critique.

Other professional hydrologists and geologists not associated with environmental groups, including an associate professor at the Colorado School of Mines, have questioned the validity of the EPA study as well, noting the agency didn’t conduct its own field studies and samplings, among other shortcomings.

The industry successfully lobbied Congress to exclude fracing from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Industry officials have repeatedly said the chemicals used pose no risk to water supplies, but won’t reveal their recipes, arguing they are proprietary. That, in turn, has drawn fierce criticism from activists who say the public has a right to know what’s being pumped into the ground.

Although the EPA doesn’t formally collect the data, Benjamin Grumbles, the agency’s assistant administrator for water, said in congressional testimony in October that the agency has some information about fracing fluids, but doesn’t know every component being used.

He also noted that the nation’s three biggest oil field services companies have voluntarily agreed to quit using diesel fuel, perhaps the most hazardous fracing chemical in their fluids.

The EPA report that found little evidence of risk also acknowledged that “there is very little documented research on the environmental impacts that result from the injection and migration of these fluids into subsurface formations, soils and underground sources of drinking water.”

Another view: Geoffrey Thyne of the Colorado School of Mines noted in his critique that the EPA reached its conclusions without supporting data: “That is, there are no analyses of drinking water wells for the chemicals found in hydraulic fracturing fluid,” he wrote.

Industry officials have countered that in many cases the chemicals are injected thousands of feet below drinking water supplies, making the chances of the chemicals ever mixing with that water extremely remote.

How it happens: In theory, fracing fluids could contaminate drinking water by escaping through a fault or fracture and reaching an aquifer. The chances of this occurring appear more likely during coal-bed methane drilling, since coal beds aren’t as far under the surface and thus closer to drinking water aquifers.

Nationally, several families, including Larry and Laura Amos in Silt, say they believe their water has been contaminated by fracing fluids. The Amoses say a blowout in a nearby natural gas well occured while fracing chemicals were being used and say the chemicals could have ended up in their water well.

The debate unfolded over years, however, and the state didn’t sample for the fracing chemical in question for more than three years after the reported event. At that point, the family’s well showed no sign of such contamination.

In a few other cases, regulators haven’t found evidence of the chemicals, but have been criticized for waiting months to take samples.

Environmentalists complain that regulators responding to water complaints don’t sample for the chemicals in fracing fluids because they don’t know what chemicals to sample for. Former COGCC director Brian Macke responds that the agency obtains the ingredients in the fracing fluids in such events and tests for “major constituents,” which would indicate whether the fluids were contaminating drinking water.

The industry contests the possibility of such contamination, saying fracing fluids haven’t turned up when contaminated wells are tested.

Stormwater runoff

Gas companies scrape off several acres of land to create sites for wells, roads and other facilities. The work exposes bare soil to wind and rainfall. Storms create flows that send dirt into waterways, degrading water supplies and threatening habitat and spawning areas for fish.

What’s known: State health regulators have cited five oil and gas companies since 2006 for lapses in erosion control, though only one fine has been issued in those cases so far: $62,623 against the Houston Exploration Co. for alleged violations in Yuma County.

The state’s first-ever citation came in 2006 against one of the state’s largest producers, EnCana Oil and Gas, for what Steve Gunderson, head of the state’s water quality division, called “pretty systemic” violations covering drilling sites and access roads at two major Western Slope gas fields.

A company spokesman said at the time that workers didn’t understand the state’s requirements and that the company has since taken action to correct problems. Regulators are still weighing what kind of penalty to levy in the case.

A watchdog for the Western Colorado Congress testified last year that the activist group had collected photographic evidence of erosion problems at 85 well pads in eight counties. Erosion controls either hadn’t been installed or hadn’t been maintained, the group said.

In 2006, Colorado’s Water Quality Control Commission, a nine-member board appointed by then-Gov. Bill Owens, reinforced the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s authority to enforce rules designed to protect streams from dirt and debris that can run off oil and gas sites.

Congress had exempted the industry from such rules as part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, but state regulators — over the objections of industry trade groups — overrode the federal policy.

At the time, a spokesman for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association said the organization wasn’t opposed to regulation, but wanted the state’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to enforce the rules, not the state health department.

How it happens: Companies scraping off sagebrush and other ground cover expose soil to the elements. Rules require that they take mitigating steps, including erecting small fences to capture soil, setting hay bales to block flowing dirt, digging culverts to divert water, building berms to hold in soil and taking extra precautions when working on slopes with fast runoff.

At times, the rules aren’t followed or the work isn’t kept up. Erosion fencing gets buried, for example. In some cases, soil contaminated by oil or chemical spills can escape the site.

Water losses

When drillers pump out groundwater to free up methane gas, some farmers and ranchers say they are lowering the water table, threatening to dry up natural springs and drain aquifers. The water pumped out is sometimes reinjected into deep wells, cut off from drinking water supplies.

What’s known: Gas companies extract billions of gallons of groundwater in the Raton and San Juan basins of southern Colorado every year. In many cases, that water could be linked to the subterranean network that feeds streams, springs and water wells. Citizens in southern Colorado and elsewhere have complained of springs and wells running dry near drilling areas.

Two families near Bayfield filed a lawsuit in 2005, arguing that pumping out vast amounts of water should be regulated because it might endanger the seeps and springs they need for their gardens, hay pastures and livestock. The families wanted drillers to be required to get a state permit to prove they aren’t harming water supplies.

This summer, a Durango-based water court judge agreed. His ruling in favor of the farmers came over objections from the State Engineer’s Office, which classifies such “produced” water as a waste product and has since appealed the decision.

Industry officials warn that if the ruling is upheld it could throw gas drilling into turmoil. They argue that it would add great time and expense to extracting gas, as they seek to document for each well the effect on groundwater and to find substitute supplies if necessary. The State Engineer’s Office has said that trying to handle thousands of new water permits for drilling would prove overwhelming.

‘Produced’ water

Water pumped from underground during natural gas production can contain hazardous chemicals, including fracing fluids. If not properly disposed of or treated, the water can pollute streams, aquifers, soil and air. Water pumped to free coal-bed methane can be high in salts, which can harm soil and crops if used for irrigation.

What’s known: Gas companies in Colorado extract billions of gallons of water a year from the ground as part of capturing oil and gas. This “produced” water has created environmental problems in several cases, including seeping into the soil through unlined storage pits and reappearing in streams.

It also has overflowed holding ponds to create hazardous waste spills, generating strong odors and toxic emissions, including benzene, toluene, ethylene and xylene, which become airborne. It has harmed crops in southern Colorado after entering irrigation water.

Regulators in the state’s air, water and hazardous waste divisions — as well as the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission — have taken numerous actions against gas companies and water disposal companies in such cases.

Regulators have opened at least eight cases in the last two years in which disposal pits have leached tainted water into rivers and streams, according to Steve Gunderson of the state Water Quality Control Division.

Regulators in May cited a major water disposal company in Mesa County for groundwater contamination, having too much oil scum in a pit and accepting too much waste, a violation of its air quality permit. The COGCC is considering toughening rules for liners in disposal pits and tightening standards for soil contamination.

In southern Colorado, coal-bed methane drillers legally dispose of an estimated 2.3 billion gallons — about 4,800 Olympic-sized swimming pools — of produced water a year by putting it into rivers. But that water, high in salts, is under new scrutiny as some farmers have complained that it mixes with irrigation water, harming their crops and soil, cutting productivity and hardening the ground.

State water quality officials are at the early stages of crafting new rules that may limit the salinity of water that can be put in rivers if it harms downstream users.

How it happens: Disposal pits leak because some have no liners or the liners spring a leak. In some cases, they’re overfilled. At one pit in Rio Blanco County, a storm created waves in the pit that were strong enough to destroy a dike, allowing polluted water to flow out.

In southern Colorado, companies have disposed of briny waters just upstream of where farmers divert water for crops, sending water that is too salty onto their lands.

5. LAND DISTURBANCE

Leasing public lands far ahead of production

The Bureau of Land Management is leasing public land in Colorado and the West for oil and gas development, even as millions of acres of already leased land sits idle, waiting for industry to drill. Advocacy groups say the BLM should slow down leasing, especially on more popular landscapes.

What’s known: In Colorado, energy development covers about 1.9 million acres of public land, although the industry has leased 5.2 million acres for exploration, with additional lease auctions scheduled regularly. BLM officials say they are required by law to hold quarterly lease sales of public land nominated by industry for energy development.

“We’re required to deal with expressions of interest; regulations don’t allow us to stick them in a drawer,” said Lynn Rust, a deputy state director for the BLM in Colorado.

Not all land nominated by the industry is put up for lease; after agency review, some sensitive lands are set aside. “There are cases where we sacrifice the (underground) resource for surface values,” Rust said.

For example, the BLM recently tabled some controversial leases in Grand and Jackson counties to further study environmental concerns.

Industry officials note that despite the energy boom, only about 1 percent of public lands are leased for energy development, and the push to lease lands far ahead of production is part of the economics of the industry. Market conditions, along with a lack of drilling rigs, labor and pipeline space, means industry can move only so fast.

“From a business standpoint, you need to have an inventory of land in the background you can evaluate and put forward for (drilling) permits,” said Greg Schnacke of the Golden-based lobbying group Americans for American Energy.

“A lease is just permission to enter land to spend money and figure out whether or not there’s any oil or natural gas in commercial quantities that you could capture,” he noted.

Industry officials also point out that it can take three to five years to get through the federal approval process and begin drilling.

Environmental groups counter that the BLM, under direction from the Bush administration, is liberally interpreting the law regarding leasing in order to set aside as much land as possible during a favorable political climate.

Sensitive lands

The BLM and U.S. Forest Service have proposed oil and gas leasing in scenic landscapes, including several that are in areas citizens have proposed be set aside as protected wilderness areas or are within roadless forest areas — areas home to rare plants and animals and sites popular with hunters and hikers, such as the Roan Plateau, the Vermillion Basin and the HD Mountains.

What’s known: In Colorado, nearly 90,000 acres of citizen-proposed wilderness lands and more than 16,000 acres of Forest Service roadless areas have been leased for oil and gas exploration, according to recent figures compiled by The Wilderness Society.

This summer, the BLM put up for lease more than 1,600 acres within the Yampa River corridor — even though they included segments that were proposed for federal wild and scenic designation, which generally protects riverside areas from development. But the agency tabled the sale after protests from environmentalists.

Generally, BLM officials say that areas up for lease have been designated suitable for oil and gas exploration as part of the agency’s resource management plans, which are 10- to 15-year land-use plans.

“Whatever is designated under that plan remains open for leasing until a new plan goes into effect,” said BLM spokeswoman Jaime Gardner.

Restoring the land

When lands are carved up for roads, well sites and other facilities, they aren’t always properly restored. Sometimes companies don’t properly recontour the site and native vegetation isn’t restored. As a result, the site erodes and noxious weeds invade.

What’s known: Reclamation can be difficult, especially in Colorado’s semi-arid climate. Sagebrush and other native species don’t grow back quickly and restoring sloped land is especially difficult.

State authorities say they take the matter seriously, citing companies for failing to restore land contours and for not reseeding with native grasses.

But some studies suggest otherwise. In 1997, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission surveyed reclamation at 21 sites and found that only four of them were at an “acceptable” level of restoration.

Even so, according to a 2005 study by the Western Organization of Resource Councils, Colorado had stronger reclamation rules than four other states in the region: New Mexico, Wyoming, North Dakota and Montana.

Former commission director Brian Macke said in only a “very small percentage of cases” does the agency have to foreclose on a financial assurance bond because reclamation work wasn’t conducted correctly.

BLM spokesman Jim Sample said the agency isn’t aware of any cases of improperly restored sites on federal lands in Colorado, and current staffers can’t remember when the agency last had to foreclose on a bond set aside to deal with the problem.