Dear Editor:

I am writing in response to Roger Bentley's letter in the 1/18/12 edition. He and others in our county may be unaware of the value of our wildlife resources vis-a-vis energy development.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife's latest report, "The Economic Impacts of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Watching in Colorado" (BBC Research & Consulting, 2008), determined that total economic activity in Delta County from fishing, deer and elk and small game hunting in 2008 (based on data collected from 2006 to 2008) was $27,840,000. The statewide total impact amounts to $1,843,300,000. These figures do not include the economic benefits of wildlife watching which totals $1,218,200,000 statewide. While county-by-county amounts were not available in the report for wildlife watching, if we use the same ratio of Delta County/State of Colorado hunting and fishing applied to wildlife watching we get a figure of $18,394,800 of total economic impact for Delta County. In other words, according to this report the wildlife resources of Delta County are responsible for over 46 million dollars of economic activity in Delta County ANNUALLY.

Gas development will adversely affect this very significant sector of Delta County's economy. Parachute Creek Mule Deer Monitoring Report — 1982-2000, by Bio-Resources, Inc., is a major long-term study of deer populations near Parachute commissioned by then energy giant UNOCAL Corporation. It concludes that:

"Natural gas drilling operations in the lower valley add another adverse impact that should require mitigation of negative influence on the health of the deer herd. At present, the mule deer herd should be managed with several years of deferred hunting, and sheep and cattle grazing should be managed to avoid the steep-slope xeric shrub habitat. Natural gas development operations need to initiate a concerted mitigation program with realistic, measurable, result-oriented habitat and herd management. ...land management in Parachute Creek needs to assist the recovery by decreasing human land use impacts. Human presence should be controlled while deer occupy winter range." (emphasis added)

In other words, not only the hunting economy is being damaged, but the livestock industry as well. In fact, restoration of deer herd health and numbers from the effects of gas well activity will require the radical measure of controlling mere human presence.

The study found that deer populations declined "most drastically" in areas of gas well drilling:

The potential damage to our fisheries resource would be from contamination of streams by toxic hydro-fracturing compounds, produced water, fuel spills, sediment loading from soil erosion associated with well pad construction and pipe line installation, etc.

Mr. Bentley refers to the state receiving $178.6 million in 2010 for federal minerals. Presumably this is for all minerals, not just oil and gas production. While not an apples-to-apples comparison, the economic benefit to Colorado from our wildlife resources is more than 10 times that amount. The job numbers are roughly equal for wildlife and energy development. My point, however, is that the year-in-year-out wildlife-based economy will likely be severely diminished in some locations by extensive oil and gas development. Why should we trade one sector of our economy for a new one that has so many bad side effects and is subsidized by federal tax dollars? As for Mr. Bentley's statement that "The lease of federal land to American-owned oil exploration companies is in the best interest of Colorado and America," many of the companies are not "American-owned," assuming he means United States-owned.

Robin Nicholoff

Hotchkiss