Bureau of Land Management Could Close Some Public Lands to Oil and Gas Development

The Big Game Resource Management Plan proposes statewide actions and seeks public feedback for protecting wildlife from drilling impacts

Like 58% of Coloradans, Jim Ramey didn’t grow up in the state. He knew Colorado for its iconic wild spaces, like the Rocky Mountains, and the wildlife, like big horn sheep and elk. 

Protecting those species and their homes should be a top priority, said Ramey, Colorado state director for The Wilderness Society. 

“You get to see those absolutely spectacular wildlife in their natural habitat, and if we don’t do a good job of protecting their habitat and their ability to move between the different seasonal habitats, we can’t take that for granted that that’s going to continue to exist in the future,” Ramey added. 

The Colorado Bureau of Land Management’s Big Game Resource Management Plan, which guides land use decisions for BLM lands, is currently open for public comment until Feb. 6, 2024. The proposed amendment primarily addresses new oil and gas drilling projects or changes to existing drilling on BLM lands, and how these projects would impact wildlife habitat. 

“We’re really trying to line up our land use plans to be consistent with other federal and state agencies, local governments and tribes, and really try to conserve habitat for big game species,” said Brittany Sprout, public affairs specialist for BLM.

Once the comment period closes, BLM will revise its draft environmental assessment and determine which of the plan’s four proposed alternative actions to pursue, Sprout shared.  

The four alternatives, which are likely to be modified in the final decision, are: 

• Alternative A: No action, or the continuation of existing approved RMPs, as amended, throughout Colorado
• Alternative B: (BLM’s preferred action): Conservation and cooperation based on management alignment with the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission’s rules for oil and gas development in elk, mule deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep high priority habitat
• Alternative C: Contains all stipulations of Alternative B, with additional measures to cluster oil and gas development into a 3% surface disturbance threshold within big game high priority habitat on BLM surface lands
• Alternative D: Contains all stipulations of Alternative C, but the 3% disturbance threshold applies to big game high priority habitat on all BLM lands. This alternative would reduce the area open to oil and gas leases, particularly in areas identified with low, moderate or no known oil and gas development potential

Forming the plan

In the pre-planning stages of the RMP, the Bureau engaged county commissioners, congressional staff, tribal communities, state and local government agencies, and other BLM partners to determine the plan’s focus and decision area which are the BLM managed lands and minerals that will be directly impacted by the amendment. 

The Plan was made publicly available upon the release of the Notice of Intent on July 19, 2022, the RMP entered a 45-day scoping period in which interested parties could submit feedback. From now until Feb. 6, people can submit comments on the plan to BLM on the BLM National NEPA Register, and attend public meetings in December to share feedback in person. 

The current RMP comes after BLM entered several settlement agreements with Colorado government agencies this past April. These agencies sued the BLM over concerns that the Uncompahgre Field Office’s RMP did not do enough to safeguard public lands, and was out of compliance with state policies.

The previous plan intended to open 1 million acres of land in southern Colorado to oil and gas development, which raised concerns for The Colorado Department of Natural Resources and Gov. Jared Polis that big game wildlife would be negatively impacted. 

The settlements required BLM to conduct a statewide review of oil and gas impacts on big-game migration corridors and habitat areas on BLM-managed lands and release a Resource Management Plan Amendment that accounts for those impacts — which it did in July 2022. 

The Wilderness Society, which signed onto the lawsuit, was happy to see the state elevate the importance of big game animals to Colorado’s ecosystem and culture, Ramey said. Many wildlife species are being harmed by increasing development happening in vital habitat areas, he added. 

“When you think about Colorado, you think about the Rocky Mountains and wildlife,” Ramey stated. “These iconic species, they’re not all having a great time, they’re having a pretty rough go of it, for a number of reasons, and one significant one is oil and gas.

Protecting wildlife from oil & gas

In the past, oil and gas companies had major influence over development decisions by nominating the majority of public lands for leasing, and securing permits to drill, Ramey explained. Thankfully, with actions like the RMP amendment, that is beginning to change, he elaborated. 

The RMP applies to approximately 8.3 million acres of BLM-administered surface land and 4.7 million acres of Federal mineral split estate — where the land is privately owned but the subsurface minerals are owned by the government. Currently, 11.2 million acres are open to leasing between surface and mineral split estate and there are 4,712 drilling leases operating on 3.7 million acres of BLM land. 

The Wilderness Society is currently reviewing the draft amendment to submit feedback, but they think there are areas where BLM can strengthen the plan to better protect wildlife. In particular, BLM should take a more holistic approach to development impacts of projects like  renewable energy development and recreation infrastructure like roads and trail networks  — not just oil and gas projects. 

Even though this kind of cumulative analysis can be challenging, it will lead to the best possible outcomes for wildlife species, who aren’t only affected by one type of development, Ramey said. 

“Oil and gas, it does have very real impacts on these wildlife habitats and the ability of these different species to move across different habitats in different parts of the state, but it’s just one piece of the puzzle,” Ramey said. “You can’t solve the whole puzzle one piece at a time over many years, you need to be able to look at that big picture.” 

BLM chose to solely focus on oil and gas development to maximize its ability to protect wildlife from harmful disturbance, Sprout explained. 

“We decided oil and gas management would be the best way for us to impact the environment in a good way and conserve habitat,” Sprout added.

Preferred options

The Wilderness Society prefers Alternative D, which would limit oil and gas development to high potential areas, where most oil and gas drilling already occurs, and conserve other lands. 

Conservation Colorado hopes that BLM incorporates more elements of Alternatives C and D into Alternative B in the final plan, said Brien Webster, public lands campaign manager for Conservation Colorado.

The RMP is significant because it guides all BLM decision making on public lands, so the amendment is a chance to create significant and widespread protections for wildlife, which usually take decades to achieve, Webster said. 

“It’s a once in a generation opportunity to address adverse impacts from oil and gas on wildlife and wildlife habitat at a statewide scale,” Webster added. 

Conservation Colorado participated in pre-planning meetings with BLM representatives that made Webster feel the feedback is being heard and considered, he said. He also encourages Coloradans to share their own expertise and knowledge with BLM during the comment period so community voices are included. 

Keeping public lands intact is vital for healthy wildlife populations and their nutritional, sheltering and migratory habits. Because the RMP only focuses on oil and gas development, Webster would like to see the conversation about wildlife protections continue after the final plan is approved, to account for impacts from development, climate change and other biological crises. 

“We are losing wildlife habitat every day, and it’s difficult to notice at times, but it’s ceaseless and deserving of our attention,” Webster said. 

Once the environmental impact statement is finalized, it will be implemented uniquely across the decision area to account for the specific characteristics and needs of the land, Sprout said. 

“This is not a one-size-fits-all plan,” Sprout added. “This is just the beginning of a larger decision for smaller plans.”