From Deseret News archives:
Federal ruling affects oil and gas leases in Utah
Decision doesn't halt current development
The decision was issued Wednesday by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. The case is a consolidation of a suit brought by the state of California and others, and one filed by environmentalists.
On Sept. 20, the district court ruled against the 2005 measure called the State Petitions of Inventoried Roadless Area Management Rule, which loosened restrictions in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
The government violated several laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedures Act, by issuing the rule "without complying with the procedures required by those act," says the new decision, signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte.
The new decision spells out what the ruling meant. In doing so, "the court filed its order granting injunctive relief," said Keith Bauerle, spokesman for the environmental legal firm EarthJustice, which is based in Denver.
"It basically applies nationwide."
The Bush administration regulations made it easier to obtain oil and gas leases in areas that had been found to meet the official definition of roadless. Under those rules, many leases were issued, including the 100-plus in Utah.
When the 2005 rule was struck down, it meant that new development could not take place in areas that had become eligible for leasing under the changes. But it does not halt any development that has already begun. Laporte noted her earlier "admonition not to seek to enjoin (forbid) projects that are already under way" based on certain criteria.
She wrote that none of the oil and gas leases under challenge "have matured to any on-the-ground activity."
Those suing did not seek to completely throw out the leases, but to forbid any road-building in connection with the leases that would not be allowed under the reinstated roadless rules.
However, if oil and gas leases are in remote and difficult areas, developing them may be impossible without roads.
Although government lawyers argued that preventing work on the leases would cause economic harm to the lessees as well as to government entities that benefit from mineral development, "economic loss is not irreparable." Any such potential harm is outweighed by the harm of building roads in roadless areas, the decision indicates.
Bauerle said the Forest Service used environmental documents originally drafted for the 2001 rule, applying them to the 2005 revision. But, he said, "when the 2005 rule came out it was an entirely different proposition." Relying on the earlier studies was not appropriate.
There are "a little over 100 leases in Utah that would be affected," he added.
Contacted late Thursday, Erin O'Connor, communications director for the Forest Service's Intermountain Region, Ogden, said she had not seen the latest ruling. "At this point I can't comment specifically on the judge's order for injunctive relief," she said.
As with any court ruling at a lower level than the U.S. Supreme Court, the latest finding could be appealed.
E-mail: bau@desnews.com
