County split over oil and gas comments

Chamberland votes against sending the letter

In a split decision, the Board of County Commissioners urged further analysis of seven North Fork Valley land parcels being proposed for an oil and gas lease sale. The Bureau of Land Management intends to put a total of 1,580.28 acres up for sale on February 14 of next year. That represents a significant reduction in the number of acres originally proposed for sale last August, but the County—while making a point of expressing its gratitude—is not fully satisfied.

Commissioners Hap Channell and Paula Swenson voted in favor of a letter outlining the county’s concerns, but Commissioner Phil Chamberland voted against it. “I do have issues with three or four of the parcels as well, and I will let the BLM know that at some point… But I think they went through great lengths to pare [the parcels] down to what was reasonable and still make it a valuable lease for the leaseholders,” Chamberland said.
 In August of this year, the BLM originally nominated 3,836.03 acres for lease in Colorado. The move generated so much public concern, however, that two parcels were eliminated altogether and four were reconfigured. The remaining parcels are now slated to be part of a February 14 sale that includes a total of 198 parcels in Colorado and Arizona.
According to county attorney David Baumgarten, the reduction “eliminated some of the more dramatic objections the board had.” As a result, the draft letter to the BLM started with a thank you.
“This is a serious thank you to the BLM for listening to what you had to say last time and—not a but, an and—say there were significant concerns that were left,” Baumgarten said.
The letter details further analysis the County would like to see, including the impact of slope profile (several of the parcels have slopes greater than 40 percent), unstable terrain, proximity to water bodies and residences, and potential effects on wildlife. It also requests an analysis of access to the parcels, and points out that impacts on agriculture and scenic byways have not been thoroughly addressed.
Baumgarten also requested that the commissioners add a paragraph at the end of the letter thanking the BLM once more for its consideration of earlier concerns, and then inviting them to work with the county to identify ways to reach the minerals under the objectionable parcels.
“We want to figure out a way, if one can, to reach the reservoir that is under some of the parcels that are objectionable from some of the parcels that are not objectionable,” Baumgarten said.
Commissioners Swenson and Channell liked that suggestion. “This letter really does track with the comments we put in back in August,” Swenson said, “and I do like the addition of the paragraph that says, ‘We’re here, we know we need to extract this. Let’s do this in a responsible matter,’” said Swenson.
“I’m just afraid we’re sending out a signal that we don’t want any development or leases out there,” said Chamberland. “Part of my concern and why the additional language was added was to not tie up the resource and find other ways to access it…. Looking at this, my question would be, what would we consider appropriate for leasing, if anything? If we want to decide as a board that nothing is appropriate then we ought to just state that rather than go at it piece meal.”
“At what point is the lease so ineffective that it’s just not worth going after?” he added.
Channell said he was sensitive to Chamberland’s concerns but thought that Gunnison County had a history of supporting some leases and not others. “I don’t think we have experienced, adopted or history shows that we don’t want any leases… It’s more the nature of how leases are proposed.”
County resident and former county commissioner Perry Anderson did have a question for the commissioners. “Is an EIS [environmental impact statement] not good enough for us anymore?”
He urged the commissioners to send a letter to the BLM telling them to go ahead with the lease sale. Channell thanked Anderson for his comments but said he was still voting to approve the letter.
“I’m not ignoring your concerns, I think they are valid. But we are within our rights and functions to ask for further mitigation and clarification beyond an EIS,” said Channell.