Bill Would Shift Drilling Approvals From Forest Supervisors to White House Official

A little-noticed provision of the energy bill approved by the House late Wednesday would strip national forest supervisors of their authority to restrict oil and gas leasing, making it more likely that drilling will occur in such sites as the Bridger-Teton and Lewis and Clark forests.

The national forest provision is one of several in the bill that encourage expansion of oil and gas leasing on public lands. Under a procedural rule adopted by the House for handling the comprehensive energy bill, amendments to remove or revise the national forest provision could not be considered.

Environmental activists expressed concern about the forest proposal, which had generated little public discussion prior to Wednesday night’s expected floor vote in the House.

“It will be very difficult in the future to protect national forests from the pressure from oil and gas industries,” said David Alberswerth of the Wilderness Society.

At Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming, officials said they are aware of the possible implications of the energy bill provision. But they said they are moving ahead with a draft proposal by their forest supervisor to bar future drilling in 370,000 acres stretching between the Gros Ventre, Teton and Bridger wilderness areas.

Prized Pieces of Wilderness

The four tracts of land affected by the proposal are prized by hunters, hikers and anglers for their pristine trout streams, grizzly habitat and elk winter range. The national forest is south of Yellowstone National Park and 35 miles east of the resort town of Jackson, Wyo.

Forest Supervisor Kniffy Hamilton, in announcing her decision to bar leasing in the four tracts, said oil and gas development would have a negative effect on water quality, tourism and the “sense of place” that people derive from the region.

Hamilton was following in the footsteps of a former forest supervisor for the Lewis and Clark National Forest in Montana, Gloria Flora, who also cited the value of preserving the “sense of place” when she restricted oil and gas leasing in portions of the state’s Rocky Mountain Front.

Environmentalists fear that Flora’s decision could be reversed if the energy bill provision takes effect.

Heightening the concerns of environmentalists, these decisions would be handled in Washington by Mark Rey, President Bush’s nominee for assistant secretary of Agriculture and a former top timber industry lobbyist.

Representatives of oil companies as well as environmental groups agree that Rey would be less likely than forest supervisors to ban drilling.

“Leaving the decision to a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., would be absolutely disastrous for Yellowstone grizzly bears and elk herds,” said Tim Stevens of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, a Bozeman, Mont.-based environmental group. “People in this region recognize that their economic well-being is tied to the protection of places like that.”

But the policy change was defended by John Lockridge of Mountain Petroleum Corp., a Denver-based independent producer who has a different perspective on who should make decisions about exploration on public lands.

“I very definitely believe it should be people who have a broader view of our nation’s energy situation than our local forester,” he said.

Seven years ago, Lockridge paid a deposit on a 28,000-acre lease block in one of the disputed management areas in the Bridger-Teton National Forest. He believes there is plentiful natural gas in the region and wants the forest supervisor to process his application.

Lockridge said he believes the local forest supervisor is strongly influenced by “extreme environmentalists.”

“We don’t harm the water and we’re only there for a little while--three or four decades,” Lockridge said. “You cannot even find the wells that were drilled 30 or 40 years ago.”

The Bridger-Teton and Lewis and Clark forests are not the only areas that could be affected by the provision. But environmentalists said they are not aware of any national forests in California that would be vulnerable.

A Break on Wells’ Royalty Payments

Environmentalists also expressed concern about provisions of the energy bill that would increase the profitability of wells drilled on federal lands. One measure would expand the definition of low-production, “marginal” wells that are allowed to make reduced royalty payments to the government.

For the first time, wells that produce mainly natural gas would be allowed to participate in the royalty discount programs.

For oil wells, the qualifying threshold would be raised from 15 barrels per day to 30 barrels. The higher level would include 85% of all federal onshore producing wells, according to Mary Williams of the Minerals Management Service.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the royalty discount would reduce gross royalties paid to the federal government by $242 million over the next 10 years. A similar provision for offshore wells would cost Washington $249 million over 10 years, the CBO said.

Those provisions also would reduce payments to the states, which receive half of the royalties generated by wells drilled on federal public lands.

“The goal is to increase production” with such programs, Williams said. “We try to make them revenue-neutral.”