In the News
Articles Archive - 2005

<< back to In the News

• Water deal will benefit nature, People
  Rocky Mountain News, May 28, 2005
• Water trust finalizes first sale
  Summit Daily News, June 3, 2005
• Preserves to be mapped
  Rocky Mountain News, July 4, 2005
• GOCO under fire
  Rocky Mountain News, July 4, 2005
• 1.6 Million arces safeguarded
  Rocky Mountain News, September 13, 2005
• Study: Conservation funding $1.2 billion short of goals
  The Denver Post, September 13, 2005
• Leaving a legacy of our land
  The Denver Post, September 30, 2005
• Colorado conservation update
  hosted by Dan Meyers, Colorado Public Radio
  Monday, October 3, 2005
• Glimpsing The Future
  Telluride Watch, December 2, 2005

Water deal will benefit nature, People
by Jerd Smith Rocky Mountain News, May 28, 2005

The Colorado Water Trust has finalized a deal that will help keep more water in Summit County 's scenic Blue River and, in a new twist, provide additional water for Western Slope communities.

The transaction - the first of its kind in Colorado - means that water will be kept in a stream for environmental purposes and then used later for people.
"It's a very important demonstration project," said John Carney, executive director of the trust. "We're going to use the water for (environmental) flows in Boulder Creek and the Blue River , and then it will be used by others (once it flows into the Colorado River ).

"This is an approach that satisfies what are normally competing water interests."

Formed in 2001, the nonprofit water trust's mission is to help maintain stream flows and advise others trying to do the same.

But keeping water in streams simply for the environment is often difficult in Colorado because if water isn't captured in a reservoir for use by farms or cities, it eventually flows out of the state. Under this deal, though, the water will be fully consumed before it reaches the state line.

The $130,000 sale was completed Friday. Under the terms of the deal, the water trust is buying about 800 acre feet of water from the Slate Creek Ranch in Summit County . The water, once used to irrigate hay meadows, will flow down Boulder Creek into the Blue River , helping raise river levels through the spring and summer, keeping fish and kayakers happy.

Once the water flows from the Blue into the Colorado River , it will be purchased again by the Colorado River Water Conservation District, which represents 15 Western Slope counties.

The second purchase means the water trust will be reimbursed for the original transaction costs, giving it more money to buy additional water rights.

Chris Treese, director of external affairs for the Glenwood Springs-based river district, said his agency decided to participate to help the fledgling nonprofit and because the additional water is badly needed on the Western Slope.

Water trust finalizes first sale
by Bob Berwyn, Summit Daily News, June 3, 2005

SUMMIT COUNTY — Tumbling down from the craggy heights of the Gore Range, Boulder Creek is a typical Colorado mountain stream, all mossy boulders and full of flashing brook trout darting under shady banks.

But the small creek, which pours into the Blue River a few miles north of Silverthorne, is also a model for a new type of water rights transaction aimed at bolstering the environment.

In a groundbreaking deal finalized last week, the nonprofit Colorado Water Trust spent $130,000 to buy 800 acre-feet of water from Howard (Scotty) and Jeanette Moser, owners of the Slate Creek Ranch. The water will be dedicated to meeting instream flow requirements in Boulder Creek and the Lower Blue, instead of being diverted for irrigation. Flows in Boulder Creek will now be significantly higher during the late summer and early fall.

The trust will then resell the water to the Colorado River Water Conservation District for use farther downstream. The deal still requires final approval from state water courts. It's the first transaction of this kind in Colorado, and the first deal coming to fruition for the trust, formed in 2002.

“We're happy it went so well in the end,” said Jeanette Moser.

“Hopefully they'll get it through court. Now that that's done, we hope to live here happily ever after,” the longtime local rancher said with a laugh.

The water rights were associated with a 160-acre chunk of the Slate Creek Ranch that was sold to the U.S. Forest Service several years ago, Moser said. The irrigation diversion from Boulder Creek had a long history of typical water shenanigans, including illegal diversions by neighbors.

“Now it's going to stay in Boulder Creek and that's going to make a lot of people happy,” Moser said.

“We marketed the water rights separately,” she continued, explaining that they fielded several other offers for the water from various interested parties until finalizing the conservation-oriented deal with the water trust.

‘Win-win'
Moser said the sale of the water rights doesn't affect existing ranching and hay growing at the Slate Creek Ranch, which still has irrigation water available from Slate Creek.

“From our standpoint, it's a win-win for the West Slope,” said Colorado Water Trust president Mile Browning. “We get water for instream flows and still get to put it to beneficial use. We're not taking water out of consumptive use. We're using it for instream flows in an area where flows are critical and redirecting the consumptive use to an area where flows are not so critical.”

The deal is significant in part because it helps provide water in an area where the Colorado Water Conservation Board determined that required instream flows are not being met, Browning said.

“The impact on Boulder Creek will be the greatest,” said Jay Skinner, instream flow coordinator for the Colorado Division of Wildlife.

Boulder Creek flows peak at about 50 to 75 cubic feet per second (cfs) during spring runoff, but flows drop down as low as 3 to 5 cfs during the late irrigation season, in August and early September, Skinner said, explaining that the stream suffered from those low flows in late summer.

The Slate Creek Ranch diversion gulped up to 8 cfs for irrigation, and the water was transferred out of the Boulder Creek drainage with no return flows.

“That was 100 percent depletive, and the effect was profound,” Skinner said, explaining that the increased flows will benefit brook trout populations in the stream.

The fledgling water trust was formed in 2002 with specific purpose of acquiring water rights for conservation purposes — an endeavor made more challenging by Colorado water law, which stipulates that only the conservation board can own environmental instream flow rights.

It's also the first use of a recently passed state law that enables the conservation board to buy water rights not just to meet minimum flow requirements, but to improve stream flows for the benefit of the environment, and specifically fish, said Melinda Kassen, attorney with the Trout Unlimited's Western Water Project.

It's significant because it's the first time the CWCB has signed on to a deal authorizing this kind of transaction, involving the water trust, perhaps opening the door for similar arrangements in the future, Kassen said.

We think there's a need and we have a good model,” said Browning.
The Boulder Creek deal serves as an illustration that the water trust's voluntary conservation approach can work. The trust is actively exploring several other projects across the state, hoping to establish models in each of the major river basins, according to trust director John Carney.

Water trusts are more common and more active in the Pacific Northwest, where they have been involved in leasing agricultural water from year to year for conservation purposes, Carney said.
The Boulder Creek deal was funded in part by the Gates Family Foundation and Colorado Conservation Trust.

Bob Berwyn can be reached at bberwyn@summitdaily.com

Preserves to be mapped
by Stuart Steers, Rocky Mountain News, July 4th, 2005

Coloradans have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the past decade to buy up open-space land, and they may soon know exactly what they have received for all of that money.

GOCO, or Great Outdoors Colorado , the state agency that spends lottery-fund proceeds on open space, has contracted with a Colorado State University laboratory to map all of the protected open space in Colorado .
The project is more complicated than it might sound, since there are dozens of city and county open- space programs and nonprofit land trusts operating in the state. Some of the open space is bought outright, while other properties are protected through conservation easements that forbid the development of private ranchland.

"It's a fair question to say, 'How much has been spent and what do we have for that?' " GOCO spokeswoman Chris Leding said.

GOCO will soon be able to take credit for protecting 500,000 acres in the state, both through outright purchases and conservation easements.

The agency has spent more than $236 million on open space since 1994. GOCO also funds ballparks and other recreation facilities, spending that's counted separately.

Additionally, counties from Larimer to Douglas have been spending tens of millions to acquire open space and park land.

Having a comprehensive map of all of the protected lands will help the multiple agencies and land trusts work more closely together to protect wildlife corridors and other natural assets, Leding said.

"We hope it will be a catalyst for a variety of groups to work together," she said. "We have limited resources. How do you say, 'What's next in line?' This can be a way to get a more cohesive opinion of what the next steps are. It's a way for our dollars to go further."

In all, 27 cities and nine counties in Colorado have some kind of open space acquisition program. There are also dozens of land trusts working around the state. They arrange for ranchers and farmers to sell off the development rights to their land, known as "conservation easements." They can keep working the land, and the public can enjoy the wide-open vistas that for many people define Colorado .

"In recent years, the majority of our dollars have gone for conservation easements," Leding said. "It's bigger bang for the buck, and it keeps agricultural land in use."

Leding said that Gov. Bill Owens asked GOCO to undertake the mapping project and that the GOCO board agreed to fund it. CSU's Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory will coordinate the project, which will likely take two years and cost more than $200,000.

The Nature Conservancy is the largest private nonprofit group working on land preservation in the state, and takes credit for helping to preserve more than 600,000 acres. Charles Bedford, the Nature Conservancy's Colorado director, said a map will be vital so that federal, state and local agencies and the nonprofit conservation groups can pool their resources.

"We'll see where the holes are with respect to funding and what the needs are in respect to nature," Bedford said. "We work on ecology, and it crosses political boundaries. Wildlife corridors go over county lines. It's key that everybody working on these issues understands what's in place and what needs to be preserved."

All of the metro counties except Denver now have open-space acquisition programs funded with sales tax. Douglas County has had an open-space program since 1994, and in the past decade has spent almost $45 million to preserve more than 46,000 acres. The county is currently focusing on land purchases along West Plum Creek.

Cheryl Matthews, director of open space for Douglas County, said her office has been working with Jefferson County to preserve the area around Chatfield Basin, and that having a comprehensive map of what's already been protected will be a major help.

GOCO under fire
by RockyMountainNews.com, Rocky Mountain News, July 4, 2005

Four years ago, Colorado voters overwhelmingly approved the use of $115 million in bonds to preserve open-space land around the state.

To date, none of that money has been spent, and critics say that is because the Great Outdoors Colorado board that oversees the spending is resisting the will of the voters. They say the board has shifted its emphasis from buying open space to paying ranchers and farmers not to sell out to developers.

"They have broken faith with the voters by de-emphasizing acquisition of land," said state Sen. Dan Grossman, D-Denver. "They don't like the idea of the state holding title to land. If you're not acquiring land, there's no reason to use bonding."

GOCO officials dispute Grossman's characterization. They say they have preserved thousands of acres in the past year and GOCO still will have the capacity to issue bonds in the future. In December, GOCO announced it would spend $60 million to protect 80,000 acres stretching from Larimer County to the San Juan Skyway in southwestern Colorado.

"We went through a tremendous amount of work to take care of the most urgent needs in the state," GOCO executive director John Swartout said. "In the Laramie foothills, we were able to buy 50,000 acres (with) cash. We preserved our ability to use that bond funding if we need it."

GOCO - funded with revenue from the state lottery - has spent hundreds of millions of dollars during the past decade preserving wild terrain around the state. In 2001, voters were told that by allowing GOCO to issue bonds, the agency could move quickly to acquire disappearing open space.

Issuing bonds would allow GOCO to buy land immediately and pay for it over several years, just as a homeowner buys a house and pays off a mortgage.

Part of the criticism of GOCO stems from a difference of opinion about the best way to preserve open space. In recent years, the agency has spent more money on "conservation easements," where ranchers or other property owners agree to give up the right to develop their land in exchange for payment. The easements allow the land to continue to be ranched or farmed, but owners can't sell the land for home sites or other development.

Conservation easements have become widely used as a tool to preserve ranches and farms in scenic areas that could be subdivided. While the land covered by an easement won't be developed, it's usually not open to the public.

In recent years, GOCO has spent more money on conservation easements than buying land. During the last fiscal year, GOCO spent $28.7 million for conservation easements on 66,796 acres. In the same period, the agency spent $24.3 million to help purchase 24,295 acres.

Grossman and other critics say that isn't what the public intended when voters created GOCO in 1992 with the mission of preserving open space.

"When the voters passed GOCO, they thought it was for the acquisition of land," said state Rep. Tom Plant, D-Nederland. "That's the way it was presented. The people felt they were acquiring land for public use and preservation. Conservations easements can take a number of forms, many of which completely exclude the public."

Grossman said that a preference for conservation easements reflects a hostility toward the public ownership of land on the part of many -GOCO board members, who are appointed by the governor.

"They'd rather see conservation easements," Grossman said. "It reflects the philosophy of the administration."

But Dan Hopkins, spokesman for Gov. Bill Owens, said that Owens has never opposed the purchase of land.

"GOCO has acquired a fair amount of open space during the governor's tenure," Hopkins said. "The governor leaves those decisions to the GOCO board."

Swartout said that GOCO is simply trying to preserve as much land as it can and that using conservation easements makes sense. Paying for a conservation easement is much cheaper than buying property, and Swartout says that much more land can be protected from development that way. He doesn't disguise his annoyance at the criticism of GOCO.

"These politicians are sitting in Denver, making speeches, and we're using the tools that work to preserve land in this state," he said. "Sometimes it's fee title (land purchase), and sometimes it's conservation easements."

Swartout added that much of the new interest in conservation easements was because of a state tax credit for the easements that was approved in 1999. Plant was one of the bill's sponsors.

"He's part of the reason there's been a shift to conservation easements," Swartout said. "Tom Plant played a role in this."

Plant said he believes conservation easements are a good thing and that tax breaks are an effective way to encourage them. He says his objection is to GOCO's spending cash to fund them, because he believes that voters wanted the state money to go toward buying land.

"GOCO isn't just dealing with tax incentives - GOCO has cash," Plant said. "That's a fundamental difference."

Longtime Moffat County rancher T. Wright Dickinson, who serves on the GOCO board, said that more land can be preserved by using conservation easements.

"It's much less expensive, and the management costs are not all borne by the agency seeking preservation," he said. "I think conservation easements have a greater benefit than fee title (land) purchase."

As for GOCO's decision not to issue bonds, Dickinson said the agency was in a much stronger financial position after the 2001 introduction of Powerball and didn't need to go into debt to fund projects.

"Powerball gave us a strong boost," Dickinson said. "We were able to handle our current needs with cash flow."

Will Shafroth was the first director of GOCO in the early 1990s and is now the executive director of the Colorado Conservation Trust.

Shafroth helped lead the effort to get voters to approve the GOCO bond funding proposal in 2001. In 2003, he criticized the GOCO board for dithering while open space was being lost. He says he now believes that the board has done the right thing by moving to preserve large swaths of land without issuing bonds.

"I'm satisfied the process they went through to determine if bonding was needed was a good one," he said. "I believe GOCO should only bond if there are extraordinary opportunities."

As for the tug-of-war between funding conservation easements and buying land, Shafroth says the state needs to do both.

"If I can get twice as many acres preserved through an easement, that makes sense. It's a balancing act," he said.

1.6 Million arces safeguarded
by Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News, September 13, 2005

A mish-mash of cities, counties, government agencies and nonprofit groups preserved 1.6 million acres in Colorado in the past 25 years, according to data collected by a land conservation group.

The Colorado Conservation Trust announced the total figure Monday, the first time anyone has taken the laborious step of adding up the efforts of more than 80 public and private entities devoted to protecting the state's rugged vistas, alpine meadows, valley ranches and wildlife-thick forests from development.
The 1.6 million acres amounts to 2.4 percent of Colorado 's more than 66 million acres, an area about the size of Pueblo County or about five times the size of Rocky Mountain National Park , according to the trust.

The organization's report, titled "Colorado Conservation at a Crossroads," also details another 2 million acres important to farming, wildlife and scenery that the organization believes should be a high priority for preservation over the next decade.

But the report also predicts a $1.2 billion funding shortfall for those purchases.

Because of that, the report calls for local governments to boost revenues for land purchases, more private giving for land protection and legislative changes to help preserve the additional 2 million acres.

"Local governments and private land trusts have done an incredible job of preserving open space . . . but we have a long way to go to preserve what's special about Colorado ," said Will Shafroth , the trust's executive director. "What we do in the next decade will determine what Colorado 's landscape looks like for generations."

Of the 1.6 million acres identified, 1.3 million of them have been preserved through the work of 46 private land trusts: nonprofits ranging from community-based groups to nationally known organizations like The Nature Conservancy.

The groups often work with private landowners to voluntarily conserve land through various legal agreements that prevent future development.

The 1.3 million acres puts Colorado third nationally in acreage preserved by private land trusts, exceeded only by land trust preservation totals in California and Maine .

Another 280,000 acres have been preserved through open-space purchases by local governments. In all, 40 cities and counties in Colorado have developed programs to purchase open space, including by raising sales taxes.

Most of that effort has been centered on the Front Range, where programs in Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder , Douglas, Jefferson, El Paso and Larimer counties account for 90 percent of the 280,000 acres statewide preserved by local governments, the trust found.

The amount of land set aside is something Coloradans should be proud of, said Chris Leding, a spokeswoman for Great Outdoors Colorado , or GOCO, which devotes proceeds from the state lottery to open-space purchases.

"It really is our landscape that fuels what Colorado is," Leding said. "It's certainly the reason people want to live here, work here and recreate here."

Land trusts and local governments have been aided in many cases by GOCO, which has provided $236 million in lottery proceeds to purchase open space since 1994. Various federal-level programs have contributed as well, with about $42 million going to Colorado open-space projects, the trust report said.

Far more Colorado land is protected, or semi-protected, through its ownership by the federal and state governments, land not included in the 1.6 million-acre total. Uncle Sam owns nearly 25 million acres in Colorado , according to the trust report, including national parks and U.S. Forest Service land.

But not all that land is free from development. Oil and gas drilling, for example, is permitted on large swaths of federal land, as is mining and some road-building.

Another 3.2 million acres is owned by the state of Colorado , including 44,000 acres of Colorado state park lands. But, like federal land, much of the state land has the potential for various kinds of development.

The trust's report argues that ramping up preservation efforts is critical in the next decade, as Colorado 's population is predicted to jump from 4.7 million this year to 7.1 million by 2030.

Total developed acres in the state are also expected to rise significantly, from 2.5 million in 2000 to a projected 3.5 million in 2030, growth fueled by carving up sprawling ranches into large-lot subdivisions and conversion of agricultural land as farmers retire, the report said.

Also worrisome: Only 18 of Colorado's 64 counties have a dedicated source of revenue for open-space purchases, including many in high-growth or scenic areas where conservation experts say the need for land protection is high, such as Chaffee, Archuleta, Grand, Weld and Pueblo counties, among several others.

The trust's open-space inventory is distinct from a similar project recently undertaken by GOCO and Colorado State University . That effort, announced in June, will involve mapping all the state's open space to aid land preservation groups and governments in setting priorities for future conservation work and linking certain parcels. The project is expected to cost about $200,000 and take about two years to complete.

Lay of the land

* Here's how land ownership and preservation breaks down in Colorado :

Ownership Acres % of state land mass

Private land protected by land trusts, local governments 1,600,000 2.4 All private land (including protected land) 38,634,000 58.0

State land 3,180,000 4.8

Federal land 24,804,000 37.2

Total Colorado land 66,618,000 100

Source: Colorado Conservation Trust

Study: Conservation funding $1.2 billion short of goals
by Kim McGuire, Denver Post, September 13, 2005

Colorado faces a $1.2 billion gap between land-conservation goals and funding resources, according to a report released Monday by the Colorado Conservation Trust.

Local governments and land trusts surveyed by the Colorado Conservation Trust identified about 2 million acres in Colorado they want to protect over the next decade.

An increase in rural ranchettes, projected growth and a shortage of public funds create a roadblock to those goals, the report states.

" Colorado is at a conservation crossroads," said Will Shafroth , executive director of the Colorado Conservation Trust, one of the state's largest land-protection groups.

"We need funding, better conservation tools and more effective approaches toward conservation if we are going to be successful in achieving this goal," Shafroth said.

Only 1 percent of charitable giving in Colorado goes toward land conservation.

The primary public funding source, Great Outdoors Colorado , can fund only one out of every three applications, according to the report.

The Colorado Conservation Trust identified 12 counties most likely not to meet their goals, based on funding and growth.

The counties are: Archuleta, Chaffee, Elbert, Garfield , Grand, Lake, La Plata , Montrose, Montezuma, Ouray, Pueblo and Weld.

In Pueblo County , the lack of a local tax source to help fund open-space programs has made it difficult for Colorado Open Lands to obtain state and federal grants that require matching funds, said Dan Pike, president of Colorado Open Lands.

Pike's group is trying to conserve agricultural land on the east side of the Wet Mountains near Beulah and Rye .

"We haven't had any problems finding landowners who want to protect their land. The problem is most of these landowners are agricultural operators who need to be compensated to make it work," Pike said.

In Weld County , development has raised property values so much that conservation programs can't compete, he said.

Development hasn't necessarily been an obstacle in Garfield County , said Martha Cochran, director of the Aspen Valley Land Trust.

"Oil-shale development has people talking about what they want to do with their land in 30 to 60 years," Cochran said. "And that discussion has served conservation well."

The report's recommendations include tripling state funding to $75 million a year and raising private funding from $15 million annually to $25 million.

Staff writer Kim McGuire can be reached at 303-820-1240 or kmcguire@denverpost.com.

Leaving a legacy of our land
by Will Shafroth, Denver Post, Sunday, October 30, 2005

What's special to you about this beautiful state we live in? Is it the world-famous views of snow-capped mountain peaks; the rolling wheat fields on the Eastern Plains; the verdant ranchlands in the mountain valleys; the elk herds outside Estes Park?

And what kind of legacy do we want to leave our grandchildren and their grandchildren?

For most of us, it's actually a matter of both what we want and don't want.

Most of us want to make sure that the beautiful views of the mountains along the Front Range remain beautiful. What we don't want is industrial and housing development obstructing and spoiling this view that so defines our state.

We want to maintain the distinction between our communities, just as the preservation of the Greenland Ranch has accomplished in southern Douglas County. What we don't want is a continuous city between Fort Collins and Pueblo.

What we want are healthy working ranches and farming communities in this state. What we don't want is for ranchlands to be chopped up into 35-acre subdivisions, rendering them useless for agriculture and wildlife.

What we want is to maintain the rich diversity of Colorado's wildlife. What we don't want is for our elk, wild trout and bald eagles to be diminished because their habitats have been compromised.

But we need to act now if we are to keep what we want and stave off what we don't.

In the last 35 years, Colorado's population has grown from 2.2 million to 4.7 million. That number is expected to top 7 million in the next 25 years. The development footprint on the state has increased from 1.3 million acres in 1970 to 2.5 million acres in 2000 and is expected to top 3.5 million acres by 2030.

The total number of developed acres doesn't make up a large percentage of the state, but the patterns of growth have and will put certain landscapes at risk - productive farms, ranchlands, river corridors, mountain valleys, wildlife habitat, scenic vistas and lands that create separation between communities.

Growth in Colorado is inevitable; the challenge is to intelligently accommodate growth and still preserve what we cherish.

The Colorado Conservation Trust recently released "Colorado Conservation at a Crossroads," the most comprehensive analysis of land preservation ever undertaken in the state.

The results are impressive and provocative. Colorado is a national leader in land conservation and we have much to be proud of: Forty-six non-profit land preservation organizations and 40 community open space programs have protected 1.6 million acres of open space throughout the state. This was accomplished with public and private funding, state and federal tax incentives and the generosity of landowners.

Looking forward, the report found that the collective goal of these organizations and open space programs is to protect 2 million acres in the next decade. That is clearly ambitious. It is attainable, however, if we overcome four major obstacles: insufficient funding; lack of statewide priorities; inadequate and uneven capability to undertake conservation projects; and conservation tools that are too few and too weak.

Our analysis found a $1.2 billion gap between what is available and what is needed to meet the 10-year goal. The gap is even worse because, while the funding need is statewide, 77 percent of future local public funds will be concentrated in just seven Front Range counties. Another 27 counties have no public funding source of any kind. Great Outdoors Colorado, the primary statewide public funding source, can only fund one of every three applications it receives. And private giving for land conservation is very low. Even though more than 70 percent of Coloradans consistently express support for land conservation, only 1 percent of charitable giving is directed toward these efforts.

To address this challenge, the trust recommends: increasing statewide public funding by $50 million to $75 million per year; increasing private conservation funding from individuals, foundations and corporations by $10 million to $25 million per year; and expanding dedicated revenues at the local level. Coloradans have shown that they are willing to fund open space protection. When local open space funding measures are put on the ballot, they are approved more than 75 percent of the time, and no measure to extend an existing open space tax has ever failed.

But money by itself cannot meet this challenge. It is also important that all of us work smarter and more efficiently. We need to focus the limited human and financial resources in the state if we are to meet the 2 million acre goal.

To that end, the trust recommends that conservation leaders establish a set of priorities that takes into account the diversity of land types that need protection. These include agricultural land, community separators, lands that provide access to recreational areas, river corridors, scenic lands and wildlife habitat.

While many non-profit land conservation groups and local governments have done a superb job, many others don't have sufficient staffing or professional experience to meet future conservation needs.

The trust recommends bringing more expertise to the organizations and regions of the state where a gap exists between need and capacity.

And finally, the trust recommends refining and adding to the tools Colorado has to maximize conservation opportunities. Colorado's Conservation Easement Tax Credit Program - an innovative and effective land conservation program - needs some important refinements to ensure that public benefits and conservation values are maximized. In addition, public policies related to the authority of local governments to review development of lots larger than 35 acres often hinder a community's ability to conserve land, and counties need the option to review these developments.

These recommendations range from ambitious to modest and, when taken together, they could make a significant difference in achieving the 2 million acre goal.

Colorado is at a crossroads. The next 10 years will define the face of our state. Our actions in this decade will be our legacy for the future. We have the ability to preserve part of what's special about Colorado so that our grandchildren and their grandchildren will be able to enjoy what we value most about our state.

The Colorado Conservation at a Crossroads report can be found at www.coloradoconservationtrust.org.

Will Shafroth is executive director of the Colorado Conservation Trust

Eighteen counties have proposed preserving more than $300 million in key state landscapes, such as the scenic San Juan Skyway corridor in southwestern Colorado .

The proposals were requested by Great Outdoors Colorado , which came under fire last fall for failing to activate a special bond pool authorized to finance such projects.
Voters OK'd the $115 million pool more than 2 1/2 years ago to protect Colorado 's rapidly dwindling open spaces.

Glimpsing The Futuree
by Amy Levek, Telluride Watch, December 2, 2005

The drive over Dallas Divide into Ridgway is one of the most beautiful in the state. Long views, grazing cattle, the occasional herd of elk or loping deer, the snowy peaks of winter, the vibrant fall colors - these vistas scream "Colorado" and define the San Juans. The corridor between Ridgway and Ouray, with traditional small ranches tended by generations of the same families, provides another glimpse into what defines the San Juans.

Fast forward a few years, with the estimate from the Colorado State Demographer that the population of western Colorado will grow by a million people by 2030, and it doesn't take much to realize the tremendous pressures these and other areas face. If the estimates are correct, where will these people go?

The choice for both public and private interests boils down to this: Either think critically and act more carefully, or just passively accept the results of potential growth. Now a group of land preservation organizations have joined together to thoughtfully engage in this dialogue, with the intent of actively providing solutions.

Regional open space protection could get a boost if the Colorado Conservation Trust and its local partners are successful. Poised with expertise and partial funding in hand, the land trusts have formulated an ambitious program geared toward maintaining traditional ranching, critical natural areas and significant visual corridors in both the Northern and Southern San Juans.

The Northern San Juan Initiative, a cooperative program involving The Nature Conservancy, San Miguel Conservation Foundation, Trust for Land Restoration and the Black Canyon Regional Land Trust, along with CCT, focuses on much of what we see when on the drive from Telluride to Montrose or Ouray. If the Northern Initiative is successful, "Five thousand acres on the Montrose-Telluride side of the corridor will be protected," says Chris Herrman, Western Slope field director for CCT. That includes land on Dallas Divide and along the Uncompahgre River between Ouray and Montrose - land a lot of people wrongly assume will always stay as it is.

The Northern Initiative springs from an assessment of critical land conservation issues CCT conducted in 2004. Another recent assessment for the Southern San Juans focuses on the Dolores River Corridor, wending its way through Dolores and Montezuma counties. Take a trip to Cortez and the Dolores River keeps you company from Lizard Head all the way to McPhee Reservoir and beyond. The Southern Initiative relies on the Montezuma Land Trust as CCT's primary partner in working with landowners.

"Ouray and San Miguel counties are ground zero," says Ridgway Mayor Pat Willits of the Trust for Land Restoration. A longtime player in the regional land preservation and restoration process, Willits worked for The Nature Conservancy prior to helping establish TLR, a "Colorado non-profit land trust dedicated to the restoration of environmentally significant lands degraded by mining and other human activity."

As mayor of Ridgway, Willits also frets about the future of his town and county. "Ouray County is what I am most concerned about," he says. "There's no land trust here, although Black Canyon has done some work. But there's nobody sitting down with landowners, attending government meetings and advocating on the part of smart growth." That advocacy would also include the area where Ouray County "spills over Dallas Divide to San Miguel County."

CCT brings considerable muscle and expertise to these local efforts, and funding as well. The organization does not hold conservation easements or buy open space, but rather helps to raise money and build capacity in conservation organizations throughout the state, "fostering leadership, strategic initiatives and increased investments in conservation," according to its website.

"We provide funding and expertise to get people much more strategic," says Herrman. "Rather than one organization taking on these projects, we've created a partnership for each initiative. I'm a convener, a nudge-er, an advocate for the position.

"We have a bunch of priority areas," he explains, noting that the needs assessment, besides establishing open space protection priorities, also looked at "who the players are and what they need" to be effective.

"Despite all the good work being done, there still needs to be more," Herrman observes. Citing the work of the San Miguel County Open Space Commission, The Nature Conservancy and others in protecting Gunnison Sage Grouse habitat, as well as San Miguel Conservation Foundation's efforts in preserving Bear Creek, and the Trust for Public Lands success in bringing the Red Mountain Pass and high country above and east of Telluride into public ownership, Herrman worries about the land beyond those specific purpose preservation efforts.

For example, consider the land around Colona, down to Ridgway and on to Telluride. Traditional ranchlands dot the landscape, including Marie Scott's former spread that stretches up Dallas Divide. "No one is beating the bushes or thinking about Dallas Divide, working with traditional landowners and those with smaller parcels," says Herrman. "The San Miguel County Open Space Commission has done great work with the Colorado Cattlemen's Agricultural Land Trust in the west part of the county, but no one is paying attention to Dallas Divide and the land to the east."

The players in the Northern Initiative have been meeting for over a year, figuring out the best structure, individual responsibilities and how to be most effective (the Black Canyon Land Trust has been tapped for land management responsibility) and TNC and CCT are helping with funding - CCT is seeding the coordinator position, providing half of the funds for two years. TLR is providing office space.

"We've done a good job putting together the infrastructure, but the clutch move will be finding the right person to manage the project," says Willits. That person will need a grounding in land conservation and open space protection, but even "more importantly has to be an ally to landowners," he emphasizes, by "helping them understand the mutual benefits to their land values, themselves and the place to achieve more land conservation."

Black Canyon will hire a person specifically devoted to developing relationships with landowners. "That will provide good capacity for the organization to do deals with interested landowners," explains Herrman. That person can also build support for local open space efforts, leveraging funding to do educational outreach, getting the message out about the effects of different land use patterns and how to be successful in preserving open space. With state and local efforts to increase open space preservation funding, Herrman hopes that communities and land trusts can be more effective.

The goal of the Southern Initiative is to protect about 1,000 acres in the Dolores River valley by 2007. Nina Williams, co-executive director of the Montezuma Land Conservancy based in Cortez, is upbeat about the potential for success. "It's a huge job, since land values along the Dolores are the highest in the area and landowners are not about to give the land away," she says. However, with $3 million already in hand from Great Outdoors Colorado and another $1.5 million for the Mancos area, funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm and Ranchland Protection program and CCT's capacity building help, the Land Conservancy is well on its way.

"It's very doable," says Williams. With negotiations underway with "a handful of landowners who have most of what is worth protecting," she sees the potential for achieving preservation of "the signature Dolores landscape." Unlike the Telluride area, however, there is no public funding for open space. "We're a pretty poor county," she says of Montezuma County.

"I'm thrilled [the Southern Initiative] was formed to look at the river valleys," she continues. Calling the "whole conservation easement process pretty complex," with several years sometimes needed to work through the process with a landowner, the "partnership with the Northern San Juan Initiative and CCT is bringing new energy to land conservation in the San Juans and making new money and resources available."  

But while there are some sizable land parcels in the Northern Initiative area, Hermann observes, "most folks are smaller, multi-generational ranchers," for whom land trusts can be beneficial in helping to defray preservation costs - everything from buying easements to paying transactional costs to an outright purchase of development rights.  

When asked what landowner response to the Northern Initiative is likely to be, Willits says, "that's the million dollar question." But he also takes heart from San Miguel County's success in working with ranchers. "We see progress in the West End of San Miguel and Montrose counties. Hats off to the San Miguel County Open Space Commission for bridging those gaps.

"There's a lot of pressure here in Ouray County, and we're fortunate to have a handful of landowners," adds Willits. "We still have smaller old-time ranching families" for whom San Miguel County Open Space Commission's "Schmid Ranch conservation effort was a catalyst." Willits would like to see a similar effort take place in Ouray County, with the Northern Initiative "lining up the pieces to help, if needed."

However, based on a "few conversations with Ouray landowners," Willits acknowledges the need for more concerted land preservation efforts. "They say that people don't have to worry, that [landowners] are not here as developers; rather, they own large ranches," he says. "That may be true, but there really seems to be a need to have a conversation about land preservation."

The Nature Conservancy fields calls "from people on Dallas [Divide] all the time, but if there are no critical species, it's hard for them to do [anything]," says Herrman, since TNC's conservation work is devoted to critical species habitat protection. The Northern Initiative will fill the gap, assuming responsibility for more of the land preservation process.

"The best investment CCT can make is to help build local capacity, at the county and at the land trusts," concludes Herrman

<< back to In the News