Thompson Divide withdrawal package nears submission to the Sec. of the Interior as U.S. Forest Service considers the last of public comment

The public comment period on the draft environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) published by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) on Dec. 7 closed Monday, ending the public comment opportunity on a massive proposed mineral withdrawal in the Western Slope.

The Thompson Divide is a 224,713-acre swath of mostly public land across Pitkin, Garfield, and Gunnison counties, though the economic impact of the land also includes Delta County. 

USFS holds the majority of the land, 200,518 acres — of which approximately 78,000 acres fall in the White River National Forest. Portions of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison national forests account for about 122,000 acres. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) holds 15,465 acres, and 8,700 acres are privately-owned land with federal minerals underground, according to USFS. 

---

---

USFS and BLM started their latest pursuit of a mineral withdrawal on the land in 2022. A successful withdrawal would prohibit new mineral leases, like oil and gas, on the land. It would not affect the existing 22 oil and gas leases in the withdrawal application area (approximately 23,900 acres), 11 of which comprise the Wolf Creek Gas Storage Agreement.

The USFS site for public comment shows 713 individual letters of comment from stakeholders and members of the public. At least eight government bodies submitted comments and at least 20 conservation groups or mineral mining companies and advocates registered comments.

---

---

Now, USFS will hire an analyst to sort the comments into supportive, critical, and comments that point out a potential correction to the draft environmental assessment.

“If we take one (comment letter) where they’re calling into question some of our analysis, we’ll go look at our analysis and compare that to what they’ve said in their letter,” said Elysia Retzlaff, project manager for the Thompson Divide Withdrawal for USFS. “We will talk to the subject matter experts, and then we’ll make a determination if we need to change the analysis or not.”

From a sample of the letters, it appears that most letter writers support the withdrawal. Gunnison County, the county with the largest share of mining-related economic activity according to the draft EA, wrote a letter in support of the withdrawal but called for the document to more strongly emphasize the importance of recreation-based tourism in the withdraw area and the decline of mining activity.

“The county suggests refinement of the EA to better reflect economic realities, particularly with regarding (sic) to the significant and economic impact that tourism and recreational use of the proposed withdraw area has on the citizens of Gunnison County…,” the letter reads.

The Colorado Department of Natural Resources also supports the withdrawal, writing, “This mineral withdrawal will help maintain the roadless characteristics that this area provides, while also maintaining the integrity of the cold water tributaries, which are home to native populations of cutthroat trout. A withdrawal will also maintain intact habitat for a wide range of wildlife species including lynx, elk, mule deer, and bear. These lands also host a rich farming and grazing heritage, which has existed across this unique landscape for generations.”

Those in greatest opposition were Gunnison Energy LLC, the “owner (of) existing federal oil and gas leaseholds located within the area proposed to be withdrawn” and Western Energy Alliance, an oil and natural gas advocacy group based in Denver. 

Gunnison Energy LLC submitted a 21-page letter outlining its critiques of the draft EA.

“… (R)obust oil and gas development can occur in and around the Thompson Divide with appropriate and beneficial environmental protections. Gunnison’s long record of leading with best-in-class environmental practices proves the proposal considered in the Draft EA should not be adopted,” their letter concluded.

While USFS owns most of the land in the Thompson Divide, the BLM is involved in all mineral leases because the Department of Interior controls federal minerals, Retzlaff said. 

“We will work closely with the BLM to start compiling all the pieces of that withdrawal package,” she said. “We will finalize the (environmental assessment), and then we submit that with the withdrawal package and the BLM submits it through their review process up to the secretary.”

The withdrawal process being pursued by the two agencies is administrative, meaning the decision to grant the withdrawal rests with the Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland. Her office has the power to block new mineral leases on withdrawn land for 20 years at a time, with the opportunity to renew the withdrawal so long as the original purpose for the withdrawal is the same.

The withdrawal package also includes documents like a land survey report for the Secretary to consider. Retzlaff said the agencies are aiming to have a completed withdrawal package ready by mid-February. There will be no more opportunity for public comment. 

The only way to permanently withdraw land is through congressional action. The Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy (CORE) Act, a piece of legislation backed by Colorado Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper and U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse aims to protect nearly 400,000 acres of public land in Colorado. It has passed in the House of Representatives multiple times but continues to stall in the Senate.