Dear Senator Bennet, Re: BLM Uncompahgre Field Office Final Resource Management Plan/ FEIS Inconsistent with North Fork Valley and Colorado Vision for the Future I am writing to you today to thank you for standing up for the North Fork Valley over the years and to once again ask for your help regarding the Bureau of Land Management’s Final Proposed Uncompahgre Resource Management Plan (RMP). As you know, the North Fork Valley is a leader in renewable energy, small scale, resilient, organic and sustainable agriculture, and outdoor recreation. It continues its transition away from an economy dependent on coal extraction and is a thriving rural economy that has become a model for other communities. We have also witnessed how vulnerable it is to climate change, and how we are ground zero for drought contingency planning in an aridifying west. As such, the North Fork Valley is also leading the way in consistency with and achieving state policies and goals: • HB 1261, which sets 5, 10, and 20 year targets to aggressively reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all sources; • SB 181 which prioritizes the protection of public health, safety, welfare, the environment and wildlife, over oil and gas development; • Colorado’s Water Plan which ensures continued viability of irrigated agriculture; and • Colorado’s interest in maintaining a diverse, sustainable, and resilient economy. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Land Management has a different view of the North Fork Valley. It sees the North Fork Valley as resources to extract; not as resources and values worth protecting. The BLM’s Final Proposed RMP opens 95% of the federal mineral estate to oil and gas leasing, while eliminating stipulations intended to mitigate impacts and protect other valuable resources. The RMP is antithetical to State policies, including new state laws that you worked so hard get passed this year, that are intended to ensure Colorado remains the beautiful, great state that it is, and a magnet for attracting extraordinary talent. Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) regulations require that “resource management plans and amendments to management framework plans shall be consistent with officially approved or adopted resource related plans, and the policies and programs contained therein, of other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes…” and affords governors “60 days in which to identify inconsistencies and provide recommendations in writing to the State Director.” 43 CFR § 1610.3-2. The Governor has 60 days from June 28th to conduct his consistency review. The RMP is the first RMP post enactment of the landmark bills HB 1261 and SB 181. It is critically important that this RMP does not serve to circumvent the will of the legislature, nor the will of the people to put people, the environment and climate first! A thorough review of the RMP demonstrates that this RMP proposes unsafe and environmentally unsound oil and gas activity in the 2nd most geologically unstable corridor in the state. You will also find that this RMP is not only inconsistent with Colorado laws and regulations, but that it will serve to derail Colorado policies at a time when we simply do not have time to waste or gamble with our future. The BLM has ignored over 42,000 public comments, failed to address deficiencies in BLM environmental review identified in the 2016 draft or recommendations made by you, state and local governments, and the environmental community to protect the irreplaceable ecosystem present in the North Fork Valley. I respectfully request that you send a letter to the BLM expressing your concern for an RMP that appears to circumvent Colorado’s right to protect its citizens and climate, and that you ask the Governor to conduct a consistency review of the RMP, and upon determination of inconsistencies with Colorado laws, regulations or policies, that the BLM revise the RMP to be consistent with our laws and policies and vision for the future. In addition, I would like to add that the BLM submitted an entirely new Alternative E, that was not the subject of public comment as its preferred alternative and final proposed RMP. This is in violation of federal environmental law. Sincerely,