It will never be easy. Leasing of federal lands in the U.S. West will always be contentious. It could, however, be somewhat less messy.

In March, the U.S. Forest Service took a step toward making seven tracts in Northwest Wyoming's Shoshone National Forest available for oil and gas leasing. The fight has begun.

Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund Inc. says the Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act by not properly protecting grizzly bears in the Brooks Lake/Lava Mountain area under question. It also says the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by basing its leasing decision on an environmental assessment instead of a full-blown environmental impact statement. Area business interests say the service didn't take adequate account of the economic harm they expect to endure as a result of leasing and whatever exploration and production activity might follow.

THE DECISION

It's not as though the Forest Service, which is fairly new at this, wants to cover the scenery with drilling rigs. Its decision allows leasing with surface occupancy of 2,119 acres and with no surface occupancy of 7,518 acres. It denies leasing of 1,798 acres. It precludes surface activity within view of a Brooks Lake lodge and campgrounds, in high soil and water hazard areas, and where it might disturb grizzly bears and other wildlife. Its lease stipulations require special environmental care.

The decision doesn't fully satisfy anyone. Oil producers naturally want more acreage available for lease and surface occupancy of more of what's leasable. Environmentalists and tourism interests want less available for lease, nothing if possible. This is the perpetual conflict with which a leasing system must deal.

One weakness of the system now in place is vague wording of critical environmental laws. The deficiency subjects any leasing decision to attack. In its appeal of the Brooks Lake/Lava Mountain decision, Sierra Club lawyers lash quality of the Forest Service's study of leasing's potential effects on grizzly bears. The service didn't apply science suiting standards in the Endangered Species Act, they assert. Science that does live up to those standards by the Sierra Club's reckoning concludes that no leasing should be allowed anywhere in the region.

NEPA CONFUSION

NEPA is a bigger mess. The Sierra Club cites a 9th Circuit Court decision that says NEPA requires an environmental impact statement for decisions to lease. The Forest Service's decision follows a 10th Circuit Court decision that says environmental assessments are sufficient at this stage. The U.S. Supreme Court had a chance to resolve the conflict in 1989 but did not hear the case, which gave leasing opponents one more haggling point.

Another weakness of the current system is that it provides local interests too much leverage in leasing decisions. It's natural and proper for a political system to overprotect the on-scene few against intrusion by the off-scene many. Nevertheless, these are federal lands. They belong to everyone. Issues cannot be confined to tourism dollars and the visual sensitivities of a relatively few visitors. On federal lands, those concerns must be balanced against other public interests, including exploration of the federal petroleum resource. That's the law, and people who live on or near federal lands should know it.

Under its new leasing responsibilities, the Forest Service must arbitrate interests forever in conflict. Congress can help by clarifying environmental laws and reasserting its multiple use intentions for federal lands. With energy issues now under debate, it seems like a perfect time to do the job.

Copyright 1991 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.

CONFLICTS IN U.S. ONSHORE LEASING

In order to access this content, you must be logged-in and have an active subscription to the OGJ Premium Archive