Ban on new oil and gas wells in “cherished” Colorado landscape is close after years of grassroots efforts

For nearly two decades, a unique coalition of conservationists, ranchers and recreationists have fought to block oil and gas development on a rugged section of land on the Western Slope.

The Thompson Divide is “quintessential, old-school Colorado,” as one advocate put it. It encompasses rugged canyons, dramatic mountains, scraggly foothills and broad valleys. Few roads cut through it, and cell phone service is sparse.

Temporary protections for the land are now on the horizon after years of lobbying and organizing. The U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management requested that the U.S. secretary of the interior block future mining and energy development on more than 350 square miles of the Thompson Divide for the next 20 years.

The final public comment period is set to end Monday for the proposal to withdraw the land from eligibility for oil and gas leasing under federal law.

“The 20-year withdrawal would be a big win for everyone who values the Thompson Divide,” said Will Roush, the executive director of Carbondale-based Wilderness Workshop. “It would give us some certainty while we work on permanent protections.”

The land to be protected reaches south from Glenwood Springs to Crested Butte, west of the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness outside Aspen and the Raggeds Wilderness south of Marble.

The 224,713-acre swath zigs across four counties: Pitkin, Delta, Gunnison and Garfield. It includes the headwaters of the North Fork of the Gunnison River and parts of 29 watersheds. The land also includes Sunlight Mountain Ski Area, parts of the massive aspen grove along Kebler Pass, the popular Lake Irwin and Lost Lake campgrounds outside Crested Butte, and the Oh Be Joyful Recreation Area.

Protecting the area has been a goal of conservation groups in the area for decades. Blocking energy development will safeguard the region’s water, grazing lands, wildlife and recreation, according to those advocating for the change.

The movement has united ranchers, business owners, hunters, climbers, real estate companies and local governments.

“The Thompson Divide landscape has been really important to the local ranching and recreation economies for the area as part of our identity and way of life here in rural Colorado,” said Michael Gorman, the campaign manager at Wilderness Workshop who characterized the land as quintessential Colorado. “Places like the Thompson Divide, that’s why a lot of people want to live here.”

The proposed change won’t affect the existing 22 energy leases in the area. If no protection is granted, according to an analysis by the federal agencies, up to 12 or 13 wells likely would be drilled in the area and create 38 jobs over the 20-year period.

While the area has a history of mining and oil and gas extraction, much of the economy has pivoted to agriculture, tourism and recreation, the Forest Service analysis says.

Mining, oil and gas make up a small percentage of the workforce in the four-county area, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. There are fewer than 1,400 jobs in natural resource extraction and 15,540 tourism jobs.

Of the four counties, Gunnison County has the highest rate of mining employment, with the sector accounting for 4.2% of local jobs.

Western Energy Alliance, a trade organization for oil and gas companies, focused on the timing of the process in its comments on the proposal. Scheduling the comment period from Dec. 8 to Jan. 8 — over the holiday season — limits the possibility of productive input, wrote Kathleen Sgamma, the alliance’s president.

The alliance previously wrote in opposition of the withdrawal, arguing that it was unnecessary because federal oil and gas permitting in the Thompson Divide area is already strict and heavily regulated.

“If USFS wants to actually receive substantive comments on the environmental assessment and all supporting documents rather than just form letters, it will extend the comment period,” Sgamma wrote in a Dec. 18 letter, referencing the Forest Service. “To do otherwise indicates that this comment period is not part of a truly deliberative process.”

No other energy company or interest group had submitted objections on the withdrawal in the most recent round of public comments as of Thursday.

The executive director of the state’s Department of Natural Resources and a bevy of local government leaders wrote in support of the withdrawal.

The protection would be temporary because none of the federal agencies have the authority to permanently block mining and energy development on the land. That would require an act of Congress.

Several of Colorado’s members of Congress continue to pursue the Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act, which would permanently protect the area. The bill on Dec. 14 passed out of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with bipartisan support.