Typically, Olander would let the soil rest through the winter months, but in recent years he’s begun experimenting with new varieties of barley that have been specifically adapted to withstand cold temperatures. Growing in the winter means the crops will absorb precipitation through the spring, a vital advantage as weather in the Western U.S. continues to get hotter and drier.

As the proprietor of both Olander Farms and Root Shoot Malting, which supplies Colorado breweries and spirit makers with locally grown and malted grains, Olander has to innovate to sustain his family’s 97-year-old farm. About five years ago, he began taking proactive steps to prepare for what he expects to be the next big challenge: the water crisis.

That looming threat was enough to begin cultivating the winter-friendly Lightning, Thunder and Buck barley without yet having customers for them.

“I can see the writing on the wall just with everything going on with water in Colorado. There’s a possibility of a reduction in our allotment and also the possibility of not having runoff we typically see from snowpack,” Olander said. “That’s why I’m trying to be ahead of the game.”

As the Colorado River continues to dry, local barley growers and maltsters are seeking out creative solutions to sustain their businesses in the face of climate change. Some are embracing nontraditional and drought-resistant grains while others are investing in technology to become more efficient. Their innovations aim to reduce water usage and bring the supply chain for craft beer and spirits closer to home, in hopes of ultimately building a resilient ecosystem that supports farmers, brewers and distillers in Colorado.

In 2022, local farmers grew 4,440,000 bushels of barley, the sixth most in the nation, according to the United States Department of Agriculture. A large portion of that is purchased by Coors Brewing, which contracts with around 800 growers in the Western states and Canada, according to the company’s website.

But Colorado is also home to several craft malthouses that kiln and roast barley for smaller brewers and distillers to use in making beer and liquor. Still, buying local has yet to become the norm since craft malt usually fetches a premium price.

Brewer Eric Larkin has been working with Troubadour Maltings in Fort Collins to procure custom malts since he opened Cohesion Brewing Co. in Denver two years ago. It’s not the cheapest option, but it works because the brewery specializes in specialty Czech-style lagers.

Larkin’s other options would be to import malt from Europe or use European-style malts grown in the U.S. While sourcing local might present unique challenges, the benefits of keeping his dollars in the local economy outweigh any potential downfalls, Larkin said.

“Every crop I get from Troubadour, the malt changes and I have to make adjustments in the brewhouse,” he said, acknowledging it’s easier for a small operation that focuses on a limited portfolio of styles to do that. “Keeping your dollars with local and small producers, the impact it can have really multiplies. It stays a little closer to home. That idea has always been really valuable to me from an economic standpoint and environmental standpoint.”

Spreading the gospel of local grain

The nonprofit Colorado Grain Chain aims to spread that ethos more widely with a variety of projects that connect local producers and makers, and incentivize collaboration. For example, the organization is currently building a digital marketplace where farmers can connect with companies or entrepreneurs seeking to purchase locally-grown grains.

Project manager Lisa Boldt, who also co-owns Primitive Beer in Longmont, sees a unique opportunity to amplify the Grain Chain’s message in the beverage space. That’s why the organization recently offered $4,000 “microgrants” to brewers and distillers who used novel grains in a new product.

Cohesion and WeldWerks Brewing Co. in Greeley received one grant to team up on a special release, Foamies Czech-style pale lager, using custom malts from Troubadour. The beer debuted in August and a second batch is due for release in November.

WildEdge Brewing Collective in Cortez earned a grant to experiment with a Munich wheat from Root Shoot Malting, with which it created a Dunkelweizen-inspired beer called From the Fields. Steamboat Springs’ Routt Distillery, another grant recipient, leveraged a trial batch of barley grown in Montrose by Proximity Malts for its new West Slope Sarvis Gin, which also features locally foraged sarvisberries.

Perhaps the most intriguing microgrant project came from Dune Valley Distillery in Mosca, which will release a vodka made from quinoa in January. The distillery, which opened this summer in the historic Mosca Community Hall and Gymnasium, shares a campus with a local food hub and a potato and quinoa processing plant. It specializes in making potato vodka specifically because of the resources at its disposal, said managing partner Nicholas Chambers.

“The local food approach is that you learn to consume what’s grown right near you,” Chambers said. “We are at literally the center of North American quinoa right here. It’s such a good crop for us because of low water use and it fits with our valley.”

Reducing water usage

One underutilized opportunity Audrey Paugh, marketing and networking specialist at the Grain Chain, sees for beverages is in millet. Colorado is the country’s top producer of proso millet, a gluten-free and drought-tolerant ancient grain. The state is also home to Grouse Malt House, one of the few U.S. maltsters dedicated to gluten-free grains.

Twila Soles founded the company with her late partner in 2013 after years of having celiac disease and being dissatisfied with gluten-free beer options. Malting even gluten-free grains requires a lot of water. Recently, Soles upgraded her system to include a steep tank that uses up to 40% less water than her original equipment.

Soles sources most of her grains within 200 miles of the malting facility in Wellington and has seen her producers weather unpredictable and sometimes devastating growing seasons.

“Using a crop (such as millet) that takes less water to thrive is important now and will be even more important as climate change continues to impact weather patterns,” said Soles, whose biggest Colorado client is the gluten-free Holidaily Brewing Co. “I’m hopeful that the use of more drought-tolerant crops for craft beer grows.”

In Alamosa, Jason Cody knows the value of diversifying crops and revenue streams. Cody saw firsthand the desire for local, craft malts when he opened Colorado Malting Co. in 2008. At one point, Cody had more than 100 breweries waiting for the opportunity to buy his products. The venture saved his family farm, which first began growing barley for Coors in the 1990s.

But business has slowed amid economic pressures and larger companies cashing in on demand for cost-effective malts. So these days he focuses on serving a niche base of distillers and brewers.

Water usage is always top of mind for Cody, who manages the 300-acre farm his ancestors purchased nearly a century ago. In 2018, Cody began making original beers at his Colorado Farm Brewery, which highlights sustainable practices from grain to glass. He grows and malts his own grains, uses an original strain of yeast and recycles all the water from the brewing process to irrigate his farm.

“Every single gallon of water we use in the brewery that goes down the drain, goes out to the center pivot irrigation sprinklers and is injected into the line that the sprinkler is running on,” Cody said.

An added bonus: The brewery’s wastewater repeatedly tests high in nitrogen, sulfur, potassium and other compounds that reinvigorate soil, so he needs fewer fertilizers to keep the ground healthy.

Back in Berthoud, Olander has yet to malt last year’s winter crop, so he doesn’t know what it tastes like or if brewers will be interested in using it. Olander is hopeful Lightning in particular will be an apt pilsner-style product and catch on, but he’s not waiting for feedback to continue his experiment.

Last year, he planted 15 acres of Thunder, 15 acres of Lightning and seven acres of Kernza. This year, he planted 20 acres of Lightning and 10 acres of Buck.

“We decided, let’s roll the dice and go with Lightning,” he said. “Hopefully winter treats everything well and they’ll survive.”

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter.

Through a lawsuit filed in federal district court Monday, the industry organizations are seeking a court order to delay the release of gray wolves into Colorado by Dec. 31, a deadline required by the state’s Gray Wolf Introduction Initiative narrowly approved by voters in 2020.

The complaint alleges the two agencies violated the National Environmental Policy Act by not conducting an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement on the “environmental consequences of reintroducing gray wolves to Colorado.”

Previous environmental impact studies released this fall did not address those issues, the lawsuit states.

The Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, which represents 6,000 members, has long opposed the ballot measure to reintroduce gray wolves, with officials describing it as a threat to humans, domestic pets, livestock and wildlife.

Under the state’s reintroduction plan, up to 10 wolves will be brought to Colorado from Oregon by plane or truck and released in Summit, Eagle or Grand counties by the end of the year, where they will likely disperse by up to 70 miles.

The agency plans to bring up to 50 more wolves to Colorado over the next five years.

But despite years of planning and development, state and federal wildlife officials did not take the required steps to analyze the impact of gray wolf reintroduction as required under the National Environmental Policy Act, the lawsuit alleges.

In a statement, Gunnison County Stockgrowers’ Association President Andy Spann said concerns raised by the group during the reintroduction plan’s development were not sufficiently resolved.

“We believe that much of our input, and that of many others across Western Colorado, was diminished by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission,” Spann said. “We regret that a course of litigation on this and other issues seems to be the only recourse left to have these concerns legitimately addressed.”

The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the federal and state wildlife agencies violated the law by renewing an Endangered Species Act agreement without preparing an environmental impact statement on the reintroduction of gray wolves and a court order to delay reintroduction until it is complete.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials could not be reached for comment late Monday night.

This is a developing story and may be updated. 

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our daily Your Morning Dozen email newsletter.

On Wednesday, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission will consider two proposals — including a potential ban on the sale of new gas-powered lawn equipment along the Front Range — as part of its efforts to clean the air. One proposal was created by a state agency, the Air Pollution Control Division, and the other was written by a nonprofit whose board is appointed by the governor: the Regional Air Quality Council.

Gas-powered lawn and garden equipment contributes to the poor air quality along the Front Range because those tools release tons of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides — two key ingredients in the ground-level ozone pollution that is particularly bad on hot summer days, when that equipment is most likely to be in use.

The air quality council’s plan would essentially phase out gas-powered equipment usage along the Front Range, while the state’s proposal would impose minor statewide limitations but largely allow landscaping companies and homeowners to continue working with gas-powered equipment.

The Air Quality Control Commission could pick either plan or adopt a combination of the two.

Environmentalists are pushing for the more stringent restrictions, saying the Front Range’s air quality is so poor the commission cannot afford to take small steps. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency designated a nine-county area along the northern Front Range as being in severe non-attainment of federal air quality standards, leading to more governmental regulations in the region.

“Ultimately we shouldn’t have the dirtiest, most polluting equipment on store shelves,” said Kirsten Schatz, clean air advocate for the Colorado Public Interest Research Group. “That equipment for sale now could last 10 or 12 years. It’s important we get the dirtiest equipment off of the store shelves as quickly as possible.”

The Regional Air Quality Council’s proposal would impose the most restrictions.

Under that plan, a prohibition on the sale of gas-powered equipment would begin in 2025 in the nine-county region that stretches from Douglas County in the south to Larimer and Weld counties in the north. The plan also would restrict government agencies, school districts, colleges and universities, and other special districts from using small, gas-powered equipment starting in 2025.

A restriction on usage by commercial operators and homeowners’ associations would go into effect in 2026, according to an outline of the plan provided by the air quality council.

Private residents would not be banned from owning or using gas lawnmowers and other equipment. But over time, as sales became limited, that equipment would be phased out, said David Sabados, a Regional Air Quality Council spokesman.

“We aren’t going around to round up gas mowers out of people’s garages,” he said.

Under the proposal written by the state’s Air Pollution Control Division, there would be no sales prohibition anywhere in Colorado. But it would ban state government agencies from using the equipment during the summer starting in 2025, and it would ban city and county governments along the Front Range from using the gas-powered lawn equipment beginning in 2026.

That plan would have a limited impact on increasing the use of electric equipment in Colorado because government restrictions on gas-powered equipment already are coming.

In September, Gov. Jared Polis signed an executive order that requires state-owned facilities to phase out gas-powered equipment such as push mowers, leaf blowers, weed whackers and other small equipment.

The governor wrote in the executive order that those things create high levels of hazardous air pollutants.

“These ‘nonroad’ emissions significantly contribute to air pollution, raising concerns about the impacts on public health,” the order stated. “Gasoline-powered lawn and garden equipment is also exceedingly loud contributing to noise pollution as well as air pollution.”

So far, Colorado has targeted the transportation sector and the oil and gas industry for reductions in greenhouse gasses and other air pollution. Limiting gas-powered lawn and garden equipment is a new strategy that could result in quick improvements in air quality, Sabados said.

A recent report from the Colorado Public Interest Research Group estimated that gas-powered lawnmowers, string trimmers, leaf blowers, chainsaws and other garden tools generated 671 tons of fine particulate matter pollution in 2020, which is equivalent to the amount produced by 7 million cars in a year.

The machines also contributed an estimated 9,811 tons of volatile organic compounds and 1,969 tons of nitrogen oxides — the same amount emitted by 880,554 cars — into the air in a single year, according to the report, which used EPA data.

“When it comes to lawn and garden equipment, these tools emit an astonishing amount of harmful pollution,” Schatz said. “We can cut a significant amount in a short period of time.”

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter.

A wolf killed the three lambs overnight on Nov. 17. One lamb was partially eaten. The wolf left the other two whole.

Anderson looked for tracks in the snow at the ranch, located just south of Walden. He found nothing. He called the local wildlife manager, who examined the carcasses and confirmed them as wolf kills.

Ranching with wolves has been a reality for people in Anderson’s community since 2019, when a wolf migrated south from Wyoming and established a small, now-dwindled pack.

In the coming weeks, ranchers in other parts of Colorado will have to learn to live with the apex predators, too, under the country’s first voter-mandated wolf reintroduction. After years of public meetings, planning and controversy, Colorado’s ranching community — bracing for the relocation of wolves to the state by Dec. 31 — is weighing methods to protect their livelihoods from a carnivore not seen in large numbers here in nearly a century.

“It’ll be interesting to see what December brings us,” Anderson said.

On the precipice of reintroduction, ranchers say they feel trapped by a bevy of unknowns. They don’t know exactly where the wolves will be released. They don’t know if any of the methods promoted by the state wildlife agency or nonprofits to prevent attacks will work for their ranches. They’re hesitant to invest in expensive prevention gear or make expansive, long-term changes to their operations without knowing more about how wolves will act here and where they will go.

“We don’t know what it’s going to be like,” said Renee Deal, a fourth-generation sheep rancher based in Gunnison County. “A lot of the stress is the unknown.”

Colorado Parks and Wildlife plans to capture several wolves in Oregon and release them in Summit, Eagle or Grand counties by the end of the year. The wolves are expected to immediately disperse from the release site by up to 70 miles and stay on the move for weeks. The agency hopes to continue releasing more wolves through the winter — up to 10 — as they’re captured in Oregon.

Over the next five years, the plan is to bring up to 50 more wolves to Colorado from other states.

Voters in 2020 narrowly approved the reintroduction effort, which drew almost all of its support from urban voters. In the three years since, ranchers in the rural communities where the wolves will land first have reckoned with what the species means for their livelihoods and way of life.

“There are those of us who aren’t one way or the other — we’re just trying to carry out the tradition of a ranching operation as best we can,” Anderson said.

Interviews with Colorado ranchers and wildlife experts underscored the ways that conflicts over wolves often serve as proxies for deeper societal rifts.

The animals have become a flashpoint for disagreements about federal versus state control, the rural-urban divide and the use of public and private property, said Kevin Crooks, the director of the Center for Human-Carnivore Coexistence at Colorado State University.

Matt Barnes, a rangeland scientist and former ranch manager, pointed to the creature’s symbolic value: “Wolves are referents for nature in general, and disparate views of what nature is and how we humans relate to or fit into it. How much wildness can be allowed in a working landscape? That’s a question that reflects a deeper question, like: How much wildness can be allowed in a civilized culture?”

Deterring wolf attacks

But now ranchers are sorting through more immediate, and pragmatic, questions. And it’s Adam Baca’s job to help them navigate the coming change.

Hired in 2022, he is Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s first wolf conflict coordinator — one of several agency positions now dedicated to wolves. He’s tasked with helping ranchers use non-lethal tools to minimize conflict with the predators as well as answering their questions and working with outside groups that want to help.

He and others with the state’s wildlife agency have stockpiled stashes of wolf-deterrence supplies in the areas where they plan to release the transplants. The supplies to scare the canines away — LED lights, cracker shells, propane cannons and electrified fencing — will be lent out to ranchers who have wolves in their vicinity.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife officials previously said the agency would try to give at least 24 hours’ notice to ranchers living near the first release site in the north-central mountains, but they could not guarantee it.

Since 2019, Colorado Parks and Wildlife has confirmed that the wolves that migrated from Wyoming have killed five dogs, 13 cattle and Anderson’s three lambs. Wildlife officials believe two of the eight wolves in the North Park Pack remain in the area. At least four members of the pack were legally shot and killed just across the Wyoming border.

Baca has been living in a trailer in Jackson County since he was hired. Once the reintroduced Oregon wolves establish a territory, Baca will move to that area.

“I’m trying to lessen the learning curve that others might have to go through based on what happened in Jackson County,” he said.

Ranchers can try a variety of tools to ward off wolves. Dogs, donkeys and mounted riders can help scare them away. For a short period, bright flags tied on fencing or scare devices, such as motion-activated sirens and pyrotechnics, can keep the canines at bay.

But not all methods will work for all operations. And no method will work perfectly in perpetuity.

“As with all things science, trying to prevent things 100% is not possible,” Baca said.

When prevention fails, ranchers will be allowed to kill a wolf if it is caught in the act of attacking livestock or a person, according to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife rule finalized in November. State wildlife officers also will have the ability to kill or relocate wolves that repeatedly kill or injure livestock.

Ranchers can apply for compensation for animals killed by wolves. The agency will use money appropriated from the state’s general fund to pay a fair-market price of up to $15,000 for each animal killed. It also will cover veterinarian bills, up to $15,000, for injured animals. State lawmakers set aside $175,000 to pay for killed and injured animals in the first year and $350,000 for each year after.

Baca has been meeting with ranchers across the state to hear their concerns and talk about conflict prevention.

“You get a broad spectrum,” Baca said. “That’s part of meeting people where they’re at — some people are ready and willing to implement these tools, and some aren’t. Some will express frustration, and some won’t.”

CSU’s Center for Human-Carnivore Coexistence also hopes to help ranchers pay for prevention methods. The Wolf Conflict Reduction Fund already paid for trail cameras in Jackson County to help monitor calving pastures.

“These are considerable costs for ranchers who are often on the edge economically,” said Crooks, the center’s director. “Some of this will take considerable funding, but less funding than trying to address conflict after it happens.”

Most ranchers won’t experience direct conflict with wolves, Crooks said, and the wild canines have a relatively small impact on the broader livestock industry.

“But some ranchers will experience conflict — and for those individual ranchers, the economic and emotional impacts are real,” he said.

The fund is a chance for people who voted to reintroduce wolves to help pay for the consequences borne by those who voted against the reintroduction but now live with its impacts, Crooks said.

Only 13 of Colorado’s 64 counties in 2020 voted in favor of the reintroduction, which passed 51%-49% and by fewer than 60,000 votes. Eight of those counties are on the densely populated Front Range, whose residents are unlikely to have a wolf in their backyard.

“I would feel a lot differently about this issue if it weren’t a voter mandate from people who will have zero effect on their lives,” said Deal, the Gunnison County sheep rancher.

“An expensive proposition”

As reintroduction and its unknown consequences approach, ranchers are weighing risks: How much money should they spend preparing for wolves that may or may not come to their properties? Is waiting until an animal is killed or injured too late to act?

Lenny Klinglesmith ran the numbers on what it would cost to install fladry — bright red flags tied to fencing that are believed to keep wolves away — on all the calving pastures he uses in the spring: $150,000. He decided not to spend the money yet.

“Preparing for wolves, it’s an expensive proposition,” he said while moving cows last month.

In total, his combined operation of private land and leased public land near Meeker spans 80,000 acres — more than four times the land mass of Boulder. He’s looked at how much it would cost to hire more riders to supervise his herds, but that’s not cheap, either. While a greater human presence could ward off wolves, the likelihood that a rider would be in the right place at the right time to witness a wolf attacking a cow is extremely slim, he said.

It’s more likely the rider would find a carcass.

Klinglesmith is also worried that the elk and deer herds he helps by managing his animals’ grazing will draw more wolves to his vicinity. A lifelong resident of northwest Colorado, he enjoys having the wild animals around and contributing to their wellbeing. But if the wildlife become a draw for wolves, he may have to reconsider his practices.

Klinglesmith for two years helped form the state’s wolf management plan as a member of the state’s Stakeholder Advisory Group. During that time, he said he came to accept the wolves and changes that were coming, though other ranchers remain bitter.

“It’s going to be hard,” he said. “But we’ll get through it and we’ll find a way. We don’t have any choice.”

In March, Anderson used 1.5 miles of fladry borrowed from CPW to ward off wolves from his calving area near Walden. No animals were killed and Anderson said he thinks it’s the best tool to deter wolves in the short term.

“But it would be an astronomical amount for us to go out and buy fladry, if you can even find any,” he said.

Deal is running her own calculations. Her family runs about 6,000 sheep every summer on 20,000 acres of national forest land near McClure Pass, south of Carbondale.

Being proactive for the sake of being proactive, she said, doesn’t make financial sense.

“There’s not a lot we can do to prepare,” Deal said. “Everyone says you need to prevent, prevent, prevent. But there are major challenges with that.”

The family already uses guard dogs, and sheepherders stay with its two herds. But many of the other tools promoted by CPW and others won’t work well for summer operations, she said.

Lights and sound equipment wouldn’t be effective on large swaths of land. There are no roads to their permitted grazing land — everything must be packed in by horse, and their permit allows only two horses per herd of sheep. It would be near impossible to bring in fencing and relocate it when the sheep are moved on to their next grazing spot.

And their U.S. Forest Service permit regulates those movements. So if they wanted to change their grazing plans to avoid wolves, they’d have to obtain approval first.

“Kind of getting the cart before the horse is difficult,” Deal said.

Beyond “glorified scarecrows”

Beyond flags and fencing and explosive tools to scare off wolves, some are advocating for a more long-term solution to minimize conflict with livestock.

“They’re all glorified scarecrows,” Barnes, the rangeland scientist, said of deterrence tools such as fladry. “Just like a scarecrow, the effect wears off in time.”

One strategy? Teaching cows and sheep to act more like bison.

Here’s how proponents say it works: Ranchers train their herds to respond calmly to stresses and to learn that they are safest from threats when they gather close together. Wolves prey on animals that panic, flee and separate from others. Training livestock to stick closer together and face wolves as a group, instead of scattering, can reduce killings.

The wolves, seeing that the herd is a more difficult meal, would search for something less risky to eat.

The training takes weeks and must be redone periodically, but the method works well even on Colorado’s vast rangelands, said Karin Vardaman, a co-founder of Working Circle, a nonprofit that aims to help ranchers successfully coexist with wolves. Vardaman traveled to North Park to work with ranchers there, and she said they have had success with the methods.

Other longer-term options include trying to time calving season with the months when deer and elk also are giving birth, providing wolves with more non-livestock prey options. Or ranchers could move cattle away from deer and elk entirely so the wild animals won’t draw wolves to their herds.

But reconstructing how a large operation handles its animals, grazing and birthing is easier said than done — and often comes with other consequences, Deal said.

For example, ranchers could condense their herds since it’s easier to protect calving cows on a 40-acre pasture than an 80-acre pasture. But calving in a smaller space heightens the risk of disease.

“I think in peoples’ minds who aren’t in the producer business and don’t really understand it — which is most people — they don’t realize all these other factors in play,” she said. “Everyone around us is saying what we should or shouldn’t be doing.”

Instead of fladry and lights, Deal is focusing on getting her records in order so that if animals go missing or are killed, she will be ready to apply for state compensation. She’s encouraged other ranchers to get to know their local district wildlife managers.

“There’s not really a whole lot more we can do, physically,” she said.

Part of the stress from the reintroduction is the potential to lose animals and income, Deal said. Part of it is the unknown. Another slice is the negativity the ranching community in Colorado has felt over the highly visible and highly contentious issue.

Ranchers are viewed by some as bloodthirsty, she said, and she’s seen and heard hateful comments online and at public meetings.

“I just want people to understand the amount of stress and heartburn and worry in our whole community,” Deal said. “It’s a huge unknown. There’s a general lack of empathy in our society and trying to understand what it’s like to walk in someone else’s shoes.”

Ranching and wildlife can coexist, Klinglesmith said. His family has worked with Colorado Parks and Wildlife for more than 15 years to make its lands the best habitat possible for elk, deer, sage grouse, trout, waterfowl and native plants. He fears that if ranching becomes less sustainable, western Colorado’s vast open spaces will slowly be sold off and developed.

“They like to paint ranchers out as wolf haters,” he said. “But the open space has to keep producing enough of a living to make it possible to keep it an open space.”

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter.

The proposal marks a sharp turnaround from five years ago, when officials in Donald Trump’s presidency said lynx had recovered and no longer needed protection after their numbers had rebounded in some areas. President Joseph Biden’s administration in 2021 reached a legal settlement with environmental groups to retain threatened species protections for lynx that were first imposed in 2000.

Populations of the medium-sized wildcats in New Hampshire, Maine and Washington state are most at risk as warmer temperatures reduce habitat for lynx and their primary food, snowshoe hares, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service documents indicate.

But declines for lynx would be seen in boreal forests across the contiguous U.S. under even the most optimistic warming scenario that officials considered, the newly-released documents show. That includes lynx populations in the northern and southern Rocky Mountains and in the Midwest.

The recovery plan says protecting 95% of current lynx habitat in the lower 48 states in coming decades would help the species remain viable. And it suggests lynx could be moved into the Yellowstone region of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho — an area they don’t currently occupy — as a potential climate change refuge.

There are roughly 1,100 lynx in the contiguous U.S., spread across five populations with the largest concentrations in the northeastern U.S. and northern Rockies. Most areas suitable for lynx are in Alaska and Canada.

Those numbers are expected to plummet in some areas, and the proposal would aim for a minimum contiguous U.S. population of a combined 875 lynx over a 20-year period across the five populations, including 400 in the northeast and 200 in the northern Rockies, according to the proposal.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service faces a November 2024 deadline to draft a related plan to protect land where lynx are found. That came out of a legal settlement with two environmental groups — Wild Earth Guardians and Wilderness Workshop.

U.S. government biologists first predicted in 2016 that some lynx populations could disappear by 2100.

However, under Trump officials shortened their time span for considering climate change threats, from 2100 to 2050, because of what they said were uncertainties in long-term climate models. A government assessment based on that shortened time span concluded lynx populations had increased versus historical levels in parts of Colorado and Maine.

The proposed recovery plan comes two days after the Biden administration announced protections for another snow-dependent species — the North American wolverine. That came in response to scientists’ warnings that climate change will likely melt away the wolverines’ mountain retreats and push them toward extinction.

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter.

The Colorado Wolf and Wildlife Center has announced a naming contest for the first gray wolves that will be reintroduced into their original native range. Until Dec. 20, middle school students in grades five through eight will have the opportunity to vote once for their favorite name from a list of 14, with the results to be finalized no later than Jan.1.

The contest comes just before the first gray wolves are set to be officially reintroduced to Colorado for the first time since they were killed off in 1940. The reintroduction is the product of a voter-approved 2020 bill that directed Colorado Parks and Wildlife to reintroduce some gray wolves back into the state by late 2023.

According to the announcement, the name with the most votes will be assigned to the first wolf released into the range. The naming process will then go in sequential order by the next highest vote tally for each subsequently released wolf. The total number of wolves that will be introduced is unknown.

The center sent an invitation to participate in the contest to all reachable Colorado public middle schools, according to the announcement. Representatives from schools that were not contacted can participate in the contest by sending an email to wolfcontestco@gmail.com with “Wolf Naming Contest” in the subject line.

However, 6 million pounds of greenhouse gas emissions is just a bite-sized chunk of the air pollution Colorado wants to reduce. The state’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap calls for a reduction of 12.7 million tons in annual transportation emissions by 2030.

People who chose to ride RTD’s buses and trains in July and August likely reduced the number of vehicle miles traveled by 145,393 a day, or 9 million miles over the course of two months, according to the Zero Fare for Better Air 2023 Evaluation report released Thursday.

By not traveling all those miles, drivers did not contribute to the pollutants that combine on hot summer days to create ground-level ozone.

The Regional Air Quality Council, which is tasked with finding ways to cut air pollution, helped RTD officials figure out how much was reduced during the two-month program. The air council used the modeling formula that federal officials use to measure greenhouse gas and other emissions created by transportation.

The air council’s study concluded that 2,583 pounds of volatile organic compounds and 2,235 pounds of nitrous oxide were reduced during the two months, according to the report.

Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions is crucial in the nine-county region surrounding Denver because the area is not in compliance with federal air quality standards. Metro Denver and the northern Front Range are listed in serious violation of ozone standards by the Environmental Protection Agency and are under pressure to improve conditions.

Poor air quality is dangerous for humans, especially children, the elderly and people who suffer from chronic lung conditions such as asthma. The pollution from cars, trucks and other gas-powered vehicles also creates a brown haze that blankets the area, and transportation-related pollution is one of the largest contributors to climate change and global warming.

Mike Silverstein, the air council’s executive director, said in a news release that increased use of public transportation reduces fuel production by the oil and gas industry, which also contributes to air pollution.

“RTD’s Zero Fare for Better Air initiative helps reduce both our fossil fuel use and the demand for its production, making a positive impact on our local air quality during peak ozone season,” Silverstein said.

The Zero Fare for Better Air evaluation also included statistics on how increased ridership impacted crime, including drug use, vandalism and assaults, on RTD property. Train operators and bus drivers feared security problems would undercut the program and they complained to RTD’s elected board just before the program launched.

There were fewer arrests and narcotics usage decreased during the Zero Fare period when compared to the average number of incidents during the rest of the year, the evaluation said. However, there were increases in criminal mischief/property damage reports, assaults, trespassing and biohazard incidents.

RTD also reported a jump in security incidents —  interactions with people fighting or otherwise disorderly, sick or impaired — during the two-month free fare period. In June, RTD recorded 601 security incidents but that number rose to 750 in July and 914 in August. In September, 737 security incidents were reported.

The transit district noted that it is difficult to make year-to-year comparisons on crime during the Zero Fare program because it recently changed how it accounts for crime on its buses and trains.

This year, the free ridership program expanded to two months rather than one and that longer period resulted in a 10% increase in ridership, with more than 6 million people taking advantage of the free transportation.

The program cost RTD $15.2 million in lost fares and other expenses such as marketing and surveys that help understand how the program impacts employees and customers. The Colorado Energy Office reimbursed RTD $13.9 million to help offset the lost fares, the report said.

This story was updated to correct the name of the Regional Air Quality Council executive director.

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter.

The vapor was released from a pump that was not functional and had not been used or properly inspected in seven years, according to the report detailing the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration‘s investigation into the accident. The fire burned for six hours.

The report, obtained by The Denver Post through a federal Freedom of Information Act request, said the likelihood of injury had been higher because “employees were exposed to the hazards for nearly 7 years without the equipment being inspected properly.”

Suncor was fined $15,625 — the maximum allowed — in June for a serious violation of federal safety standards in connection with the fire at Colorado’s only oil refinery.

Most of the 1,090-page report was redacted, but it still revealed some new information about the circumstances surrounding the Dec. 24 fire that burned one person’s face so badly that he was hospitalized. A second worker was injured but did not need hospitalization, according to the report.

OSHA officials could not be reached to explain why so much of the investigative report was withheld from the public.

In response to a Denver Post inquiry about the investigation, Leithan Slade, a Suncor spokesman, wrote in an email, “Suncor has repaired and replaced the equipment related to the fire and is identifying, inspecting and testing all dead legs in the unit where the December 24, 2022 fire occurred. That work will be complete by the end of the year.”

The OSHA investigation raises questions about how Suncor manages its inspection of “dead legs,” an industry term for pipes that are no longer used and are shut off from liquids and vapors.

The explosion took place after a cold front rolled into the region, causing an extreme and fast temperature drop, on the afternoon of Dec. 21. The deep freeze caused extensive problems, and Suncor officials over the course of about a week shut down the refinery.

The Commerce City facility remained closed until early April while it was being repaired, fueling a more than 50% jump in gas prices in Colorado.

The cause of the shutdown was shrouded in secrecy with Suncor revealing little information about what had happened. Since then, details have been emerging in bits and pieces.

At a Nov. 16 meeting of the Air Quality Control Commission, state air regulators gave a briefing on Suncor’s operations and their efforts to enforce environmental regulations at the refinery. That briefing included an update on the December shutdown, which remains under investigation by the state’s Air Pollution Control Division.

The extreme weather caused instruments to freeze and the refinery was unable to make steam, said Shannon McMillan, who manages the air division’s compliance and enforcement program. Other equipment also needed to be shut off because of freezing and thawing issues.

“There were also two people that were injured during the initial days of the shutdown, which obviously further elevated the concerns about what was going on,” McMillan said.

However, her division does not investigate injury accidents. Instead, the air division is looking into air pollution violations that occurred during the shutdown. The refinery exceeded the amount of hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide and visible emissions allowed under its air permits and exceeded the benzene limits allowed in its water permit. That investigation is ongoing, McMillan said.

The Suncor refinery has more than 200,000 flanges and valves that require inspection, according to the air division’s briefing.

Suncor gave OSHA a copy of its dead leg inspection program but it was redacted in the copy of the report provided to The Post.

John Jechura, a Colorado School of Mines professor in the chemical and biological engineering department, described a dead leg as being like a garden hose that is turned off at the spigot and has the valve closed on the nozzle.

“If it gets water in it and there’s a deep freeze, it freezes and expands,” Jechura said. “You don’t really know it until it thaws out.”

The report shows the pump that exploded was a backup and rarely used, Jechura said. It would make sense for the refinery to have a system of backups in place so that operations would not be interrupted if one failed.

Jechura, who reviewed the OSHA report for The Post, said too much information was blacked out to determine whether there were oversights that led to the explosion or what Suncor could have done to prevent the accident.

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter.

Those waxes, however, may be toxic.

Some ski waxes contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS — a label for thousands of types of manufactured chemicals that do not break down in the environment. As that toxic wax glides along the snow, it slowly flakes off. As the snow melts into water, it carries the tiny deposits down into Colorado’s water supplies.

Humans who are exposed to PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” are at risk when the substances build up in the body. They can cause decreased fertility, increased risk of some cancers and suppressed immunity.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has focused more intently on ski waxes in recent years, though little has happened on the state or local levels to address the toxic waxes in Colorado — home to 28 downhill ski resorts, and even more nordic centers, that millions of skiers visit every year.

“This is a classic micropollution problem. On an individual basis, it’s small,” said Peter Arlein, founder of a Carbondale-based company called mountainFLOW that sells non-toxic, plant-based ski waxes. ”This is invisible, but it adds up.”

Many industries use PFAS to keep things from sticking. Chemicals are applied to cooking pans to create a non-stick surface, to furniture to help them resist stains, and to skis so that they glide easier and faster across snow.

The EPA has banned the production or importation of new flouro ski waxes, but already existing fluorinated waxes can still be sold and purchased. Fluorinated ski waxes often are expensive and are generally reserved for ski racing.

In 2020, ski wax company Swix Sports settled alleged violations for importing ski waxes with PFAS that violated the Toxic Substances Control Act. In 2021, a different company, TASR, settled alleged violations for also importing ski waxes with PFAS.

“Review of the risks from PFAS in ski waxes is particularly important,” the EPA said in an alert, given the potential exposure for ski wax technicians and skiers who apply their own wax. “Additionally, PFAS may enter the environment from the use of waxed skis and from the ski wax shavings scraped off during application.”

Colorado lawmakers in 2022 banned the sale of an array of products to which PFAS were added — including rugs, food packaging and cosmetics — but did not address ski waxes.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has not investigated how PFAS from ski wax might be affecting the state’s water. But a department spokeswoman said the agency was aware that some waxes contain forever chemicals.

“The Water Quality Control Division has been laser-focused on monitoring for and mitigating PFAS in drinking water because we know when drinking water is contaminated with PFAS, it could be a significant source of exposure,” spokeswoman Kaitlyn Beekman said in an email. “If any communities have concerns about the presence of PFAS in their drinking water, the division has resources, including grants, to help them with further testing to identify any potential contamination.”

No bans in Colorado

While neither local governments nor resorts in Colorado’s ski country have banned the use of fluoro waxes, at least one Rocky Mountain ski town has outlawed the products.

Park City, Utah, in March banned the use or sale of fluorinated ski wax after connecting PFAS in its water supply to a cross-country ski area that is directly above an aquifer, said Michelle De Haan, the city’s water quality and treatment manager. Further testing in the spring matched the chemicals found in the water with those tested at the cross-country race start line, as well as near the lifts at the resort.

“This is impacting our drinking water and our environment broadly,” she said. “It doesn’t go away. We don’t want the concentration to get worse or for it to hit another water source.”

Enforcing the ban is difficult, De Haan said. The city has focused its efforts on public education. Officials have encouraged people and ski shops to turn in any fluorinated ski wax sitting on shelves.

Since last winter, they’ve collected more than 600 pounds of wax, which must be incinerated by a contracted company.

“Being a small town, the community has responded well,” she said.

The ski competition community has begun to ban fluorocarbon waxes, though enforcement has proved tricky there, too. The International Ski and Snowboard Federation multiple times has postponed the implementation of a ban on the substance because testing whether athletes are using banned waxes is slow and expensive.

The federation, which oversees the highest level of alpine sport competition, finally banned flouro waxes for the 2023-24 season. It will randomly test for the substance.

In Colorado, Summit County officials are aware of Park City’s initiative but have no plan to follow suit, said Sarah Wilkinson, a county spokeswoman. The county will test for PFAS when there is a concern, she said.

But there have been voluntary changes.

Arapahoe Basin years ago swapped to a biodegradable ski wax, Purl, and recently added mountainFLOW wax to its shop, said Mike Nathan, the sustainability manager at the ski area. Arapahoe Basin will start a takeback program this winter in which people can drop off any fluoro wax they have and receive a free wax from the shop.

“It might be tough for us to ban it or know what people have on the bottom of their skis and snowboard,” Nathan said. “We’ll certainly be hoping to motivate people.”

Alternative wax options

As the ski world moves away from fluorinated waxes, companies are producing waxes that are better for the environment.

In 2019, Carbondale-based mountainFLOW began selling plant-based, flouro-free ski wax. Arlein, the founder, worked in the ski industry for more than 20 years, including years spent waxing skis in a shop’s small back room.

“The more I learned about it, the more I became passionate about something that was better for the planet,” he said.

People who have applied fluorinated waxes to skis, a process that includes melting the wax and releasing vapors, are most at risk of experiencing harmful health effects. The chemicals can build up in their bodies, increasing the risk for cardiovascular disease, liver damage, cancer and hormonal problems. Studies conducted in Norway and Sweden found that wax technicians working for World Cup ski teams had blood levels of some chemicals that were up to 45 times higher than the general population.

But as the industry shifts, Arlein has concerns about the waxes that will replace fluoro versions. Most are still petroleum-based products, he said, which carry their own ecological impacts.

“For the most part, we don’t know what’s in the wax, and we don’t know what they’re using instead of flouro — it could be good or it could be worse,” he said.

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter.

The Gunnison sage-grouse inhabit a small section of Montrose County, a satellite population called the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa group. The bird, which also is found in several other Colorado counties — with the largest population in the Gunnison Basin — and in Southeast Utah, is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act; ongoing human development and habitat fragmentation are seen as critical drivers behind decreasing population numbers.

As part of efforts to conserve the bird, the BLM recently released an updated draft Resource Management Plan amendment and environmental impact statement to incorporate habitat protections and management decisions as identified in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2020 Final Recovery Plan. That plan defined occupied habitat (where Gunnison sage-grouse breeding occurs, or is known to have occurred), and unoccupied habitat (areas formerly occupied by the species that still have appropriate habitat features to support the bird).

The BLM’s prior draft plan and environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Gunnison sage-grouse was released in 2016, but was placed on hold and ultimately canceled when the USFWS announced its forthcoming recovery plan.

Read more on the Montrose Daily Press.

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter.