A group of independent natural gas and oil producers gave high marks to the Bush administration for its plan to overturn a Clinton ban on road building in the national forests, which had placed more than 58 million acres of forest lands off-limits to energy exploration and production, logging and other activities.

“This is a significant decision that really corrects [the ban] put in place in the last few days of the Clinton administration” in January 2001, said Jeff Eshelman, a spokesman for the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA).

Under the Bush proposal, state governors would be allowed to petition the federal government to either keep their wilderness lands roadless or open them to road building. This approach is intended to promote greater cooperation between the individual governors and the federal government. The Bush decision also is subject to a 60-day public comment period.

Eshelman said the IPAA favored this approach over the “one-size-fits-all, blanket ban” of the Clinton administration. This will re-open the debate over the issue of whether the national forest lands are suitable for oil and gas development, he noted. The national forests come under the jurisdiction of Agriculture’s U.S. Forest Service.

When or if energy producers will see increased land access as a result of the Bush policy is an unknown. Environmentalists will likely challenge the administration’s decision, Eshelman said. It “could be a long way off.” Or, it “could produce no change whatsoever” if state governors decide to keep their national forests roadless, he noted.

The Bush decision comes a year after a U.S. District Court judge in Wyoming essentially voided the Clinton rule, saying it violated the Wilderness Act of 1984, which allows only Congress to designate wilderness lands. The ruling is being appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. In 2001, a U.S. District Court in Idaho granted an injunction against the implementation of the Clinton-era ban, which later was overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We’ve been arguing for a long time that the Clinton rule was illegal” because it foreclosed the potential for oil and gas activities on the lands that were covered by the rule, Eshelman said.

©Copyright 2004 Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news report may not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in any form, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.