Language in the recently passed U.S. House energy bill may undermine public involvement on public lands if it is not changed, conservationists say.

But others contend the language - which slipped largely under the radar during the recent energy bill debate - simply streamlines permitting processes for oil and gas development on public lands.

At issue is a section of the 1,000-plus-page energy bill passed by the House late last month. It calls for certain "limitations on required review" under the National Environmental Policy Act. That law requires federal land managers to conduct environmental studies before allowing significant development, and those studies include solicitation of public comments.

Under the House energy bill - which needs Senate approval before becoming law - companies looking to drill wells 5 acres in size or less may be exempt from NEPA review. So would permits to drill in already developed areas. And wastewater discharge from things such as coal-bed methane drilling would not be subject to NEPA - only to the federal water pollution control act.

Just what these provisions might mean is the subject of deep debate.

Claire Moseley, executive director of the Denver-based Public Lands Advocacy group, said the bill says there's a "limitation on review, but that doesn't mean there's no review."

U.S. Rep. Barbara Cubin, R-Wyo. - who voted for the energy bill and touted it as good for Wyoming - said the change is simply meant to eliminate the requirement for more study in areas where analysis has already taken place.

"The original environmental assessments have to go through public comment, be based on pre-approved land management plants and be compared to other alternatives," Cubin wrote in an e-mail. "That's a rigorous and effective process, and it's a waste of time and resources to do a second review on projects where the development has already been reviewed and approved."

Moseley said the bill is "not going to undermine the NEPA process." Any development proposal that goes beyond the scope of an original analysis done in the area will be subject to another environmental review, she said.

Conservationists aren't so sure.

Erik Molvar with the Laramie-based Biodiversity Conservation Alliance said the way the law reads, there are loopholes that development companies could expose.

"You read the letter of that law, and it says if there is pre-existing development in that area, you don't need NEPA," he said. "It's pretty clear."

Molvar said the bill would exempt the Jonah Field near Pinedale and development in the Wamsutter area from further studies. He also said the provision to excuse "geophysical exploration" means seismic studies - including the use of "thumper" trucks - in sensitive areas would not be subject to environmental review.

"What the real kicker is, is that most oil and gas well pads are smaller than 5 acres, so the (Bureau of Land Management) could start splitting up these projects into small (parcels)," he said. "They would legally be allowed to do it that way."

Moseley, however, said the individual permits would apply only to single wells, and entire fields would not be broken into individual permits. In the case of Jonah, she said a proposed infill drilling project goes beyond what was originally analyzed and would be subject for more study - as is going on now.

But Molvar questioned whether companies work to the letter of the law.

"What's to prevent them from splitting that up into 3,000 individual permits?" he said. "The way this law is written, it's just an invitation for abuse."

Cubin said that won't happen.

"The idea that a company could submit thousands of individual 5-acre permits for a field is a non-starter," she wrote. "The BLM and Department of Interior would lack the authority to approve leases like that, since no reasonable management plan that went through public comment and was approved would allow such a thing."

Methane water

The issue of coal-bed methane water discharge has also raised questions for some in Wyoming.

Jill Morrison with the Powder River Basin Resource Council said the bill, if passed by the Senate, would have devastating effects on ranchers and farmers in the Powder River Basin.

"The point of it is to try, in a really sort of tricky way, to get oil and gas exempt from a holistic cumulative analysis in terms of the impacts," she said. "(That) is really, really going to be detrimental to communities and water systems and wildlife and public health and other related issues. It's like the worst way to look at planning and good development is to take it piecemeal like this and exempt (permits), whether it's water discharge covered under the Clean Water Act or well pads less than 5 acres."

Currently, the state Department of Environmental Quality issues permits for individual water discharge points, according to John Wagner, administrator of the water quality division of DEQ. Groundwater is pumped to the surface in extracting coalbed methane.

Although Wagner said he had not read the bill and has only had it read to him, he said it is "fairly accurate" that there would not be a cumulative look at all the water discharge from coal-bed methane wells under the House's energy bill.

"It sounds like what they're saying is, 'OK, these operators have to get their discharge permit from the DEQ, and that should be good enough,'" Wagner said.

But Moseley said the bill would make it ultimately up to the state to manage the permitting process, in an effort to streamline permits.

Streamlining or exclusion?

Bruce Pendery, public lands director for the Wyoming Outdoor Council, said the so-called "Peterson amendment" - named for the Pennsylvania representative who introduced the language - seeks to exclude the public from the decision-making process.

"It would eliminate the environmental review for literally thousands of oil and gas wells drilled on public lands that do not individually disturb more than a few acres, but which in the aggregate transform whole landscapes," he said. "By eliminating the environmental review for these and other projects it eliminates the public from the decision-making process and represents a fundamental attack on the democratic process that NEPA ensures."

Moseley said the idea is not to exclude the public, but to "make things run a little more smoothly."

"I think what they're trying to do is .. not have so many time delays if it's a no-brainer decision," she said.

U.S. Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., called the bill "proposed language," and the Senate will begin writing its version next week.

"We will get to the specifics of our own bill very soon, and so it would be premature to consider what implications, if any, the House version might have, or that a particular section might imply," he said. "That's one of the great things about our legislative process - it calls for reconciliation of the House and Senate versions of a bill in conference. The process provides for greater input and allows legislators, and the public, to further scrutinize the details of a given plan."

Environmental reporter Whitney Royster can be reached at (307) 734-0260 or at royster@trib.com.