STATE OF COLORADO

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

136 State Capitol Building
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866 - 2471
(303) 866 - 2003 fax

John W. Hickenlooper
Governor

September 11, 2018

Gregory Shoop
Acting Colorado State Director
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
2850 Youngfield Street
Lakewood, CO 80205

Sent via email to gshoop@blm.gov and submitted through the ePlanning portal

RE: State of Colorado Response to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Sept 6 Letter Regarding the
December 2018 Oil and Gas Lease Sale

Dear Mr. Shoop:

Thank you for your September 6 letter in response to the State of Colorado’s scoping comments on the
December 2018 lease sale. I appreciate the time you and your staff have taken to provide this
information, and I share the value you place in our positive working relationship.
As we work through implementation of the first quarterly lease sale governed under Instructional
Memorandum (IM) 2018-034 we continue to experience frustration with the new policy. I do hope you
are correct in your prediction that future quarterly lease sales will be smaller in both parcels and
acreage in order to help the BLM, the State and the public better respond in such a short
timeframe. However, our frustration with the new policy extends beyond large parcel volumes and
short timelines.
We were surprised to see that on August 27 Colorado BLM posted Environmental Assessments (EAs) for
only two of the field offices involved in this state-wide lease sale; at that time no other information was
posted. This left the State, local governments, and interested parties to assume how BLM plans to
analyze parcels nominated for sale in the remaining Field Offices. Prior to IM 2018-034, the State and
the public would have had the opportunity to comment on any Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA)
decision made by BLM during a lease sale. We now are only provided the opportunity to review and
comment on EAs.
While we understand that BLM believes it can justify utilizing existing NEPA documentation to analyze
parcels for oil and gas development in several Field Offices, relying on DNAs for an oil and gas lease sale
of this magnitude is a significant change to common practice. And removal of the opportunity for the
public to comment on those DNAs is also a significant change. The result is a process that does not
afford the State, local governments or the public an opportunity to comment on stipulations for parcels
BLM plans to include in the lease sale until the Notice of Competitive Lease Sale is published. Once the
notice is published the only remaining formal opportunity to communicate concerns to the BLM, and for
BLM to respond to those concerns, is a condensed 10-day protest period.
This new process is insufficient to allow for meaningful input into a sale that currently includes 224
parcels and 230,944 acres across Colorado.

Again, we appreciate that your September 6 letter provided more detail about the BLM’s current
analysis and removal of parcels from this sale, especially for parcels outside of the two EAs that were
made public. However, despite your explanation, we remain concerned about the inclusion of specific
parcels in your December 2018 lease sale. Below we expand upon the concerns and recommendations
provided in our scoping comments.

Greater Sage-Grouse
Thank you for removing from this sale portions of 17 parcels, and one complete parcel, that are
unavailable for leasing in accordance with the 2015 Approved Northwest Colorado Greater Sage Grouse
Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA). We remain convinced that it is in the best interest of
the State for all 143 parcels in greater sage grouse habitat to be removed from this sale until the current
RMPA is finalized. IM 2018-034 gives you discretion to recommend to the BLM Washington Office
deferral of parcels for sale when a plan amendment or revision is pending. We explicitly request that
you make this recommendation.
Since submission of our scoping comments we have become more uncertain about the outcome of the
current Northwest Colorado Greater Sage Grouse RMPA. BLM IM 2018-093 regarding compensatory
mitigation greatly limits the BLM’s ability to fulfill critical elements of the proposed alternative in the
Draft RMPA. By participating in this plan amendment process, the BLM, the State, local governments
and interested parties are expending significant effort to achieve long-lasting conservation for the
species and greater certainty for oil and gas development.
Additionally, the 2015 RMPA and associated Record of Decision (ROD) direct BLM to prioritize leasing
outside of greater sage grouse habitat. The ROD states that BLM must "prioritize oil and gas leasing and
development outside of identified PHMAs [Priority Habitat Management Areas] and GHMAs [General
Habitat Management Areas].” This lease sale still has the potential to impact over 100,000 acres of
habitat for greater sage grouse. The BLM should take the time to ensure that new oil and gas leasing in
priority or general habitat fully complies with all aspects of the RMPA once this plan amendment is
finalized. As always, our species experts at Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) stand ready to assist the
BLM in this effort.

North Fork Valley Parcels

Thank you for confirming that the BLM has removed from the December 2018 sale three parcels in Delta
County, as well as the parcels under Paonia Reservoir. We understand that Gunnison County
Commissioners have expressed concern over the adequacy of the analysis conducted in the
Uncompahgre EA for this lease sale, including questioning local land use authority, and request deferral
of remaining parcels in the North Fork Valley from this sale. While the analysis in this EA incorporated
information from the current draft Uncompahgre Field Office (UFO) RMP, making development
decisions prior to a ROD could limit the BLM’s decision space as you finalize management decisions in
the new RMP. Given the continued local concern, we request that the remaining five parcels in the
North Fork Valley be deferred from this sale until the draft UFO RMP is finalized. IM 2018-034 gives you
discretion to recommend to the BLM Washington Office deferral of parcels for sale when a plan
amendment or revision is pending. We explicitly request that you make this recommendation.
More specifically, Parcel 8320, adjacent to Paonia State Park, remains a concern as development on this
parcel and access to it could negatively affect operations at Paonia State Park. We ask that you add a No
Surface Occupancy stipulation to this parcel or defer it until specific lease constraints consistent with
operations at Paonia State Park can be discussed with CPW staff.
And finally, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has also submitted comments
on the Uncompahgre EA regarding the analysis of air quality impacts and consideration of source water
protection plans.

Big Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors

In our scoping comments we requested that BLM incorporate a stipulation that limits the density of
surface facilities to no greater than one well pad/mile for specific parcels that contain the highest
2

priority big game winter habitats and migratory corridors. We believe incorporating this stipulation
would help satisfy the intent and specific requirements outlined in the Department of the Interior (DOI)
Secretarial Order 3362, Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and Migration
Corridors, which directs DOI bureaus to work with States “to enhance and improve the quality of big-
game winter range and migration corridor habitat on Federal lands . . . .”
Your September 6 letter suggests that timing limitations consistent with current RMPs have been
applied to relevant parcels, and that any reduction of surface disturbance will be considered when BLM
analyzes site-specific lease development. Timing limitations alone are inadequate to maintain the
functionality of habitat for big game, and a stipulation to limit the density of surface facilities in big
game winter range and migration corridors is supported by the best available science. Based on this
understanding, CPW has consistently recommended a stipulation to limit density in their leasing
correspondence with BLM since 2008. Additionally, CPW is often told that density limitations cannot be
applied at the development stage when a stipulation is not included in the governing RMP.
At least one BLM Colorado Field Office, the Tres Rios Field Office, has recognized the need for a
stipulation to limit the density of surface facilities by incorporating a Controlled Surface Use Stipulation
in their 2015 RMP revision. This stipulation was incorporated into the Tres Resource RMP due to
inadequate existing mechanisms to limit the density of surface facilities post-lease when faced with
development proposals and individual drilling permits. We encourage you to incorporate this
stipulation, or one like it, state-wide. And we request that you defer from this sale specific parcels
included in our scoping comment letter until the BLM is able to apply a stipulation that limits the density
of surface facilities to no greater than one well pad/mile.
In a conversation with Secretary Zinke he assured me that the State of Colorado’s concerns regarding
this lease sale would be addressed. We greatly value the opportunity to discuss these issues with you
and your staff. Thank you for your continued consideration of our concerns.

Sincerely,

John W. Hickenlooper
Governor