Gov. Dave Freudenthal criticized federal land managers this week for bypassing a full environmental review of coal-bed methane gas development in the Fortification Creek area of the Powder River Basin.

"This process is a troubling illustration of hurried efforts to facilitate meeting permit issuance levels dictated in Washington, D.C.," Freudenthal wrote in a letter to the Bureau of Land Management's Buffalo field office.

Freudenthal was referring to the Buffalo field office's prescribed goal of issuing permits for 3,000 new wells each year in the Powder River Basin. His criticism came this week with the deadline for public comment in the BLM's Fortification Creek Area Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Assessment.

Gas producers say there's a significant mineral resource in the Fortification Creek area, which spans more than 100,000 acres in Johnson, Sheridan and Campbell counties. And they have federal leases on those minerals, which gives them a right to develop.

Wildlife and outdoors enthusiasts say the area is a rare jewel in the region containing an isolated elk herd, steep slopes comprised of highly erosive, arid soils and rich cultural, historic and paleontological values - characteristics easily deteriorated by even a small amount of development.

Federal, state and industry officials agreed to consider a phased development approach in the area. However, several stakeholders involved, including Freudenthal, said they didn't expect the BLM to use the phased development plan as justification to bypass a full environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Phased development, which Wyoming's oil and gas industry is usually loath to succumb to, would limit development to one block of land at a time with specific reclamation measures to be met before moving on to the next.

"As a general matter, we don't support phased development. But at BLM's urging, we were willing to sit down and consider it in the Fortification Creek area," said Tyler Vanderhoef, president of Gene R. George and Associates. "Industry didn't want BLM to have to go through a full blown EIS, so phased development was an opportunity presented to avoid the EIS scenario."

Vanderhoef said that even under the current environmental assessment process the governor and several environmental groups seem to support the most stringent of three alternatives, which would allow for no net increase in roads and no development of areas with steep slopes. That would mean coal-bed methane companies would have to significantly cut development plans for the area.

Coal-bed methane producers are struggling with criteria for moving development from one area to the next under the current phased development scenario, according to Vanderhoef. In addition, a one-visit-per-week limit on facilities within year-long elk habitat would be very "prohibitive," Vanderhoef said.

BLM Buffalo field office manager Chris Hanson said an EIS isn't necessary in Fortification Creek because the agency's own resource management plan stipulates that no activities that would cause a significant impact are allowed in the area.

"If we can't develop the area without significance then we'd be violating our own planning decision," said Hanson.

Hanson said the agency's analysis shows the phased development plan would have no significant impact.

"It's not an arbitrary process. It is an analytical process," said Hanson.

Yet since the Fortification Creek development planning began more than three years ago, BLM officials have backed off several stipulations originally presented, such as burying power lines, piping out production water, entering wintering and calving ranges, a minimum 160-acre well spacing and allowing facilities on slopes greater than 35 percent.

Conservationists say it's unreasonable to assume no significant impacts without those stipulations.

"We're saying you can't reach a finding of no significant impact with these proposals. They represent significant change in management and will have significant impacts. I mean, the area won't recover from these impacts," said Jill Morrison, organizer for the Powder River Basin Resource Council.

Originally, the BLM had sought proof from industry that its reclamation efforts in other parts of the basin had been successful. Morrison said it's unreasonable to re-seed a construction area, wait a year, and expect that elk will move back into the area.

Wildlife biologist William Alldredge, in written comments to the BLM, said the BLM's finding of no significant impact is "scientifically flawed and unjustified." Alldredge said the BLM's plan would exclude nearly half of the elk herd's yearlong range and provide little or no buffer from human activity.

In addition, Alldredge said the BLM failed to explain how it would protect the elk herd from a non-recoverable decline.

"Furthermore, the track record of energy companies in meeting reclamation requirements is not stellar. (Benjamin E.) Kniola and (Julian Serafin) Gil (2005) indicated that most (coal-bed methane) facilities in the Powder River Basin are out of compliance with reclamation requirements," Alldredge wrote.

Freudenthal urged the BLM to adjust its goal of maintaining the elk herd size within 20 percent of 150 elk to the current herd size of 250 elk.

He also called for "beyond rigorous requirements to protect against erosion tied to water discharge." Freudenthal asked the BLM to modify its plan to prohibit "any surface disturbance of any type on slopes greater than 25 percent."

In the absence of a full EIS review, Freudenthal urged a cautious approach with safeguards.

"This plan has to include aggressive reclamation and most importantly the BLM and other agencies must follow through on these measures. These protective stipulations don't mean much unless they're enforced," Freudenthal wrote.

"I'm very pleased with the governor's stance. It sent a clear signal that the state is going to be looking over (the BLM's) shoulder on this," said Mark Winland of the Wyoming Wildlife Federation.

Winland said he shared the governor's concern that the BLM's current plan isn't "nimble" enough to stop development once it is found to impact elk.

"The plan has potential," said Winland. "We're not saying no development whatsoever. But I don't think the methods are clearly outlined in the plan that this phased development will actually work."

Contact energy reporter Dustin Bleizeffer at (307) 577-6069 or dustin.bleizeffer@trib.com

Last we knew: Federal land managers issued more than 100 permits in the Fortification Creek area straddling the Campbell and Johnson county border. The development would occur just outside the borders of a special management area.

The latest: Stakeholders submitted comments to the BLM regarding its Fortification Creek Area Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Assessment.

What's next: A hired consultant will analyze the comments over the next week to 10 days, then it's up to BLM officials to decide whether more analysis is needed. A "decision record" could be issued in January.]]->