BLM lease – A Bureau of Land Management lease sale on June 16 would open tens of thousands of acres in northwestern Colorado to oil and gas, including habitat tied to the nation’s largest elk herd. The proposal cuts across sensitive wildlife corridors that also connect to
On June 16, the Bureau of Land Management moved forward with a lease sale that would put tens of thousands of acres in northwestern Colorado within reach of oil and gas development—land that the nation’s largest elk herd depends on for migration, foraging, and winter habitat.
The scale of what’s being offered is tied to a kind of geographic pressure point: more than 100 parcels included in the sale encompass elk. pronghorn. and mule deer migration corridors that extend into southern Wyoming. Many of those parcels sit in Moffat County. which describes itself as the “Elk Hunting Capital of the World” and says the hunting economy helps keep the region stable.
About two-thirds of the acreage in the 156,000-acre lease sale lies just south of Dinosaur National Monument. The park is among the country’s over 40 certified International Dark Sky Places—areas recognized for exceptionally dark night skies. In Moffat. tourism officials said they have already seen inquiries drop by more than half this spring. and they worry that the bright lights and truck traffic that often accompany fossil fuel extraction could imperil that hard-won designation.
“Things like that could put that status in jeopardy,” said Tom Kleinschnitz, the county’s director of tourism. “In the long run, I think it’s important to keep these areas as pristine as possible.”
The June lease sale lands on top of policy commitments that. at least on paper. have been moving the other direction. The record sale contradicts the Bureau of Land Management’s stated strategy for the national monument. as well as the 2024 amendments to area plans for northwestern Colorado—amendments that strengthened habitat protections for ungulates like elk and deer and for at-risk birds such as the Gunnison sage-grouse.
Wildlife experts and conservation groups argue that the stakes extend well beyond big-game migration. A 2. 360-line spreadsheet compiled by Denver-based nonprofit Rocky Mountain Wild enumerates 17 rare plants and endangered species whose habitat could be imperiled by fossil fuel exploration and extraction. The list includes the black-footed ferret, wolverine, boreal toad, and Colorado pikeminnow. It also includes threatened plants such as the Colorado hookless cactus and Parachute penstemon.
The spreadsheet and state wildlife assessments also tie the lease sale to species that are not the headline draw but remain critical to the ecosystem’s balance—such as the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. greater sage-grouse. ferruginous hawk. and swift fox. all identified by state wildlife officers as being of special concern.
The June event is part of a broader shift in Colorado’s leasing pace. It is one of four large lease sales in Colorado since Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed a bill in 2025 that included provisions to encourage drilling on the nation’s public lands. During President Joe Biden’s four years in office. conservation advocates say the opposite pattern held: just six sales in Colorado. with only several hundred acres offered.
In 2025, the legislation—described as H.R. 1—prioritized fossil fuel extraction over other uses such as recreation and conservation. It also mandated that federal officials hold a minimum of four lease sales each fiscal year in Alaska. Colorado. Montana. New Mexico. Nevada. North Dakota. Oklahoma. Utah. and Wyoming. It shortened public comment times and reduced the discretion land managers have over whether to offer acreage for lease.
The law also decreased oil and gas royalty rates. making extraction on public lands cheaper and reducing the share of profits from natural resources flowing to taxpayers. One estimate puts the potential hit to Colorado revenue at $148 million. according to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense. a nonpartisan watchdog organization. based on future production from about 81. 000 acres that sold in 2026.
The pressure for conservation, meanwhile, has not disappeared. A bipartisan polling conducted as part of Colorado College’s State of the Rockies Project found that a majority of voters in eight Western states want their congressional representatives to prioritize conservation over energy development on public lands.
And there is a mismatch in how oil and gas leasing is often described versus what it physically means on the ground. About 21 million acres of public lands overseen by the Bureau of Land Management are leased for oil and gas development already. according to fiscal 2025 statistics on the agency’s website. Only 12 million of those acres are actually producing fossil fuels. Conservation groups say that difference matters because. during the decade that energy companies hold federal oil and gas leases. parcels by law cannot be managed for other uses such as sensitive habitat. wilderness character. or recreation.
“Folks need to understand the long-term impacts of a rush to lease so much public land. ” said Peter Hart. legal director of the Wilderness Workshop. which works to conserve wildlife and the wilderness. “Once those leases are issued they are very hard to get rid of — they stay on the land for a long time. even if they aren’t developed.”.
In response to concerns raised in a 106-page comment letter filed March 13 by the Wilderness Workshop and 17 other organizations. the Bureau of Land Management said in an environmental assessment that it would conduct additional site-specific analysis of each parcel in the Colorado sale if a company files for a drilling permit.
The agency also emphasized that risks would be reduced through the “careful review of drilling and completion plans for proposed wells” by the Bureau of Land Management and Colorado’s Energy and Carbon Management Commission. Even so. officials removed four parcels and reduced a fifth—about 4. 800 acres in total—from the initial sale offering. citing a recent decision by the Interior Board of Land Appeals.
Those removed parcels included habitat for the greater sage-grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse as well as high priority habitat for big game. Numerous other parcels with similar characteristics remain in the sale.
The environmental assessment said the agency would apply stipulations to leases issued for sensitive parcels, aimed at protecting animals, plants, cultural resources, and fish.
Conservation groups that monitor the process closely say that even with stipulations. federal land managers have significantly less leeway at the permitting stage to move oil and gas operations. add conditions of approval. or cancel a lease altogether. They also point to limits on what officials can undo: a key problem is that they cannot remove parcels that were deferred from past sales because they included habitat for sensitive species.
“During the first Trump administration. there was a sale that was initially proposed to be much larger than this and the state Bureau of Land Management was able to use its discretion to defer parcels that were inappropriate because of greater sage-grouse conflicts. ” said Alison Gallensky. a conservation geographer at Rocky Mountain Wild. “Now, they are being forced to offer a much larger sale than that one turned out to be,” she added.
Even the birds most targeted for protection are vulnerable to the details of infrastructure, Gallensky said. Greater sage-grouse, she said, are very sensitive to oil and gas infrastructure. She described the behavior as intuitive: even if equipment is moved farther away from habitat. the birds sense a “winged predator” could land there. and they won’t breed if they feel in danger.
There is also a practical reliance built into some protections—one that conservation groups say depends heavily on the operator and on oversight that may not be guaranteed. Provisions in the environmental analysis for the June lease sale. such as requiring an oil and gas company to build a pad farther away from nesting locations. rely on operators to follow through. Gallensky said. while federal monitoring may not always be staffed enough to verify compliance.
The June sale also continues a trend described by advocates: leasing public lands in more remote parts of Colorado that are farther from densely populated areas. Yet in September. the agency leased a parcel near the Aurora Reservoir—bordered by a densely populated Denver suburb—for about $5.6 million. The acreage is part of the Lowry Ranch Comprehensive Area Plan. a more than 150-well project approved by state regulators and strongly opposed by nearby residents.
For the June sale. many of the more than 340 individual comments urged the agency not to lease similar parcels near the reservoir. Residents and conservation groups wrote that emissions from oil and gas development on that acreage would worsen pollution in an area already out of compliance with federal air quality rules.
Other concerns centered on Weld County, home to the state’s largest and most productive oil field. In its analysis for the June sale. the agency estimated that several parcels listed in Weld County could result in up to 150 wells. Conservation groups wrote that emissions from these wells would worsen smog in a region that already fails to meet national standards.
“BLM’s implication that this lease sale ‘would result in no emission increase’ or that emissions are not reasonably foreseeable enough to perform a conformity determination are thus entirely baseless,” said numerous organizations in the March 13 comment letter.
In its response within the environmental analysis. the Bureau of Land Management said it would conduct a project-specific emissions inventory if companies file for drilling permits on the parcels after leasing them. Permit requests. the agency wrote. would include details such as how many wells are proposed. a drilling and completion schedule. and a list of the equipment to be used—inputs meant to allow a more thorough analysis.
On Colorado’s western slope, where the June sale concentrates much of its acreage, residents describe an uneasy balancing act: pollution and environmental concerns on one side, and the economic reality of rural life on the other.
In Moffat County. community representatives said they need to weigh those environmental concerns against rising grocery and gas prices hitting rural areas hard. Some residents in the sparsely populated region—where 80 percent of voters cast ballots for Trump in 2024—rely in part on royalties from drilling to make ends meet. Kleinschnitz said.
“Many people in outfitting have agricultural businesses, and hunting is incredibly important to keeping people on those landscapes,” he said. “And some of them make royalties from oil and gas and have benefited greatly from having those.”
The lease sale, then, is not just a question of land management. It is a collision of timelines: the long lifespan of leases and infrastructure, the seasonal rhythms of migrating elk, and the fragile visibility of dark skies that depend on keeping the night truly dark.
In the end. the Bureau of Land Management’s stated approach relies on later steps—reviews tied to drilling permits. stipulations for sensitive parcels. and analysis that can change as details of proposed wells emerge. But for communities and conservationists watching the June decision unfold. the fear is that once the lease is issued. the ground is already committed—whether development arrives immediately or not.
BLM Colorado oil and gas leasing elk migration Dinosaur National Monument International Dark Sky Places sage-grouse Gunnison sage-grouse public lands H.R. 1 Royalties Moffat County
So they’re leasing land for oil next to the elk paths??
I swear they keep doing this and acting like it won’t affect anything. If the elk herd has to move, how are they gonna do that when you put rigs everywhere? Seems like common sense but whatever.
Isn’t BLM like the same as the federal government that’s always “protecting” wildlife though? Also I saw on some page that hunting keeps the area stable, but if the corridors are cut off then the elk just… teleport? Or they’ll freeze in the winter? I don’t get it.
This is why I don’t trust any of the “lease sale” language. They say tens of thousands of acres like it’s not huge. And Moffat County calling itself elk hunting capital… so are they protecting the elk or trying to sell the whole migration map to drill companies? Seems backwards.