FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 10, 2008
Contact: Ryan Talbott (814) 221-1408

Oil and Gas Drilling Threatens Rimrock Overlook and National Scenic Byway
Forest Service identifies numerous concerns with U.S. Energy proposal for drilling

U.S. Energy has notified the Forest Service of its intent to drill at least 35 oil and gas wells near the Rimrock Overlook and Longhouse National Scenic Byway according to documents obtained by the Allegheny Defense Project. This would be in addition to the oil and gas wells proposed by Papco Inc., which also notified the Forest Service of its intent to drill oil and gas wells near the Rimrock Overlook. According to a letter written by Robert Wetherell, the Recreation Program Manager for the Forest Service, there are numerous concerns about how drilling would alter the character of the Rimrock Overlook and surrounding forest.

Mr. Wetherell’s letter, which was written to Jim Seyler, the Oil and Gas Administrator for the Allegheny National Forest, states:

“Given that the general location of this proposal is in the immediate proximity of the Rimrock Overlook and appears to directly impact the Rimrock Trail I am concerned that the level of development and associated impacts may exceed the threshold for [Roaded Natural Recreation Opportunity Spectrum] for trail and to a lesser extent possibly the Overlook. This development may also dramatically alter the scenic quality of the area due to the level of development and placement on the landscape and possible visibility from the Allegheny Reservoir or the Longhouse Scenic Byway. Given the density of the development, and an unknown but certain road and pipeline development scenario it appears that impacts on the trail itself will be severe. Impacts would be evident from noise associated with initial road construction and well development followed by periodic automated pumping. Impacts would be evident due to road, well pad, and tank battery construction. Impacts would also be noticed through a dramatic rise in activity and encounters of visitors with the industrialized development found in this section as well as neighboring sections that are planned for similar development.”

“This is precisely why the Forest Service must follow federal law like other national forests and analyze the impacts of proposed oil and gas drilling as required under the National Environmental Policy Act, said Ryan Talbott, forest watch coordinator for ADP. “The Forest Service’s internal documentation reveals that these oil and gas drilling proposals have significant impacts to surface and water resources, wildlife habitat, historic artifacts and recreation opportunities. The Forest Service cannot approve drilling at Rimrock or in any other area of the national forest without first consulting with the public.”

Earlier this year, ADP filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents pertaining to the Forest Service’s analysis of oil and gas drilling in the Allegheny. To date, ADP has received and reviewed over 7,300 pages of documents regarding dozens of oil and gas drilling proposals since June 2007.

“It is simply outrageous that the Forest Service continues to act in such an aberrant manner admitting that oil and gas drilling impacts to the Allegheny National Forest are destroying the recreation and surface resources it is mandated to protect while still refusing to follow federal law,” said Bill Belitskus, ADP’s board president. “It is a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act to approve oil and gas drilling projects without doing an Environmental Assessment that includes the public in the decision making process. The Allegheny Forest Service has been operating like a rogue national forest among all of the other national forests for far too long.”

##

You can read the Forest Service’s letter here

September 19, 2008
Contact: Ryan Talbott (814) 221-1408

Forest Service reverses course – approves controversial timber sale
South Branch Kinzua Creek Timber Sale threatens Wilderness Trout Stream

Nearly five months after the Forest Service withdrew its decision approving approximately 1,800 acres of logging within the South Branch Kinzua Creek watershed, the agency has re-approved the timber sale according to the Allegheny Defense Project. The Forest Service withdrew the logging project in April citing concerns that it may not comply with the Forest Service Chief’s decision regarding the Allegheny’s forest management plan. That decision stated that the Forest Service did not provide enough opportunity for public comment on oil and gas drilling issues, did not effectively elucidate the agency’s role in regulating oil and gas drilling and failed to consider the cumulative effects that oil and gas drilling has on local and regional air quality.

“The Chief’s decision regarding the forest plan’s air quality section specifically stated that it was the agency’s failure to disclose the effects of oil and gas drilling on air quality that was the problem in the first place,” said Cathy Pedler, an ADP board member. “In addressing the Chief’s decision, however, the Forest Service actually repeats the same mistake. The Forest Service has not disclosed its new air quality analysis to the public or allowed the public to comment on it, even though it is now relying on this analysis to approve timber sales in wilderness trout stream watersheds.”

South Branch Kinzua Creek is one of the only wilderness trout streams in the Allegheny National Forest. Previously, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission expressed concerns about the impacts that logging could have on this sensitive watershed. ADP says after the recent oil spill that devastated a stream that was home to populations of naturally reproducing wild trout, it is more important than ever to protect the Allegheny’s unique watersheds.

“Not only is the Forest Service’s recalcitrance to the Chief’s decision on air quality issues deeply troubling, but its warped view of watershed management continues to plague its decision-making process,” said Bill Belitskus, ADP’s board president. “The Allegheny was specifically designated for watershed protection, yet the Forest Service and the oil and gas industry continue to ruthlessly cut up Pennsylvania’s only national forest with more roads, clearcuts, oil and gas wells and storage tank facilities that threaten our watersheds.

ADP says the new forest plan air quality analysis is flawed in numerous ways, first and foremost in its estimation of oil and gas development rates that were used to estimate emissions from oil and gas operations throughout the forest.

“The Forest Service relied on outdated oil and gas development rates that are not reflective of the reality on the ground,” said Ryan Talbott, forest watch coordinator for ADP. “We know that the rate of oil and gas drilling is more than double the rate used by the Forest Service so it goes without saying that its oil and gas emissions estimates are far too low. This is precisely why full disclosure and public participation is vital to quality analysis and decision-making. The Forest Service must allow the public to review and comment on the changes in the air quality analysis before it uses that analysis to approve ill-conceived logging projects.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 20, 2008

Contact: Ryan Talbott (814) 221-1408 (Allegheny Defense Project)
Karen Atwood (814) 726-2774 (Tionesta Valley Snowmobile Club)
Reg Darling (814) 723-2540 (Friends of Rimrock)
John Stoneman stony99@verizon.net (Allegheny Outdoor Adventures)

Coalition: Storage Tank Oil Spill Underscores Need For More Public Oversight Of Proposed Oil And Gas Developments In Allegheny National Forest

The recent oil spill from seven storage tank batteries owned by Snyder Brothers, Inc. that devastated North Chappel Fork and Indian Run in the Allegheny National Forest underscores the need for more public oversight of oil and gas development proposals according to a coalition of environmental and recreation groups. While the cause of the spill has been attributed to two former employees of Snyder Brothers, the groups, which include the Allegheny Defense Project, Tionesta Valley Snowmobile Club, Allegheny Outdoor Adventures and Friends of Rimrock, claim both the Forest Service and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection bear responsibility for the spill as well.

“These storage tank batteries never should have been located so close to these streams or their tributaries,” said Ryan Talbott, forest watch coordinator for the Allegheny Defense Project. “Obviously, the individuals who recklessly opened the valves on these storage tanks were responsible for the final step of this disaster, but if the Forest Service and DEP exercised greater concern for our streams before an environmental disaster, maybe they would have realized that permitting so many storage tanks full of oil near a wild trout stream was not in the best interest of protecting this unique habitat.”

ADP says the Forest Service must now comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and allow the public to review and comment on proposed oil and gas development projects before the agency approves any more drilling activities in the Allegheny National Forest.

“We cannot rely on the Forest Service alone to review oil and gas development plans,” said John Stoneman from Allegheny Outdoor Adventures. “All too often, the Forest Service gives the green light for oil and gas companies to drill wells and locate storage tanks in sensitive wetlands and high-quality watersheds. If the Forest Service followed the law like other national forests in allowing public review and comment on private mineral developments, an alternative location for these tank batteries could have been suggested that would have prevented this tragedy.”

According to ADP, the only recourse for the public if it wants to review oil and gas drilling proposals on the Allegheny is to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Forest Service. By the time the Forest Service responds, however, the road construction and drilling has already started. According to Bill Belitskus, ADP’s board chair, the documents should be made available to the public before any road construction or drilling takes place.

“The Forest Service only does a cursory, internal review of the environmental impacts from proposed oil and gas drilling projects,” Belitskus said. “In some instances, impacts to threatened and endangered species were not considered until after the Forest Service had already approved the drilling. It is this kind of after-the-fact analysis that can lead to results we are now seeing with this oil spill.”

ADP recently filed a FOIA request for documents pertaining to the Forest Service’s internal process for approving oil and gas drilling projects. ADP has made many of the Forest Service documents available on its website. One oil and gas case file offers a pointed exchange between Darryl Pierce of Papco, Inc., the company that wants to drill at the Rimrock Overlook, and Bradford District Ranger Anthony Scardina over whether Papco needs approval from the Forest Service to drill on the Allegheny.

Mr. Scardina wrote to Mr. Pierce:

“I must caution you that you may not proceed with any timber harvest, ground disturbing actions, or commercial activities on National Forest System lands without written approval from me. This approval will be in the form of a Notice to Proceed letter, with an attached Operating Plan, providing the conditions that constitute reasonable access across National Forest System surface ownership to your privately held sub-surface ownership.”

ADP says this confirms that the Forest Service says one thing internally and another publicly regarding its role in regulating oil and gas development.

“On the one hand, the Forest Service tells the public that it can do very little to regulate oil and gas drilling in the Allegheny because it does not own the mineral rights,” said Karen Atwood of the Tionesta Valley Snowmobile Club. “On the other hand, when it chooses to, the Forest Service can exert firm control over oil and gas drilling projects and the documents ADP received prove that. Now it is long overdue for the public to be included in the process.”

The bottom line, says the coalition, is the agencies in charge of regulating oil and gas drilling are not doing their job and must follow federal environmental law during the permitting process and involve the public with formal notice of proposed development plans and required public comment.

“This is Pennsylvania’s only national forest,” said Reg Darling from Friends of Rimrock. “The public, however, is completely ignored when it comes to the impacts to surface and water resources from oil and gas drilling. If we are to learn anything from this tragic oil spill, it is that the Forest Service must comply with federal environmental regulations for conducting an environmental analysis with public comment. I’m sure the public can come up with better locations for oil storage tanks.”

##

To see the internal Forest Service oil and gas analysis documents ADP obtained through its FOIA request, visit:

http://www.alleghenydefense.org/issues/ogm.shtml

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 5, 2008
Contact: Ryan Talbott (814) 221-1408

Forest Service cancels Stone Pit Expansion Project
Allegheny Defense Project called stone pit expansion project illegal;
Forest Service still not in full compliance with federal environmental regulations

A recent Forest Service proposal to expand eight stone pits on the Allegheny National Forest for oil and gas companies has been canceled. According to the Allegheny Defense Project, the Forest Service canceled the stone pit expansions after ADP filed comments indicating the Forest Service could not expand the pits without considering the cumulative environmental impacts of proposed road and well site construction or without charging the oil and gas companies for using the stone.

“For decades, the Forest Service has conducted a corporate welfare program providing oil and gas companies free stone from the Allegheny National Forest to construct their roads and well sites without any analysis or public input,” said Bill Belitskus, ADP’s board president. “Even now, when these companies are raking in record profits, the Forest Service was still willing to just give away public resources. There has to be a public accounting of all taxpayer owned stone resources given away for free to oil and gas companies over the last three decades.”

About one month after ADP filed comments opposing the stone pit project, Forest Supervisor Leanne Marten notified oil and gas companies that the laws, regulations and policies governing the use of stone pits “have not been appropriately applied on the Allegheny National Forest.” Supervisor Marten’s letter went on to say that she was directing her District Rangers “to cease issuance of Notice to Proceeds that include the removal of mineral materials from pits located on National Forest System lands unless procedures for disposing of mineral materials owned by the United States have been followed.”

Those procedures include appraising the value of the stone material located in pits on the Allegheny and charging oil and gas companies that want to excavate the stone material for use in their oil and gas road and well site developments. According to an email that ADP received, however, the Forest Service is “having difficulty setting a stone value and need[s] to complete an appraisal.” The email concludes, “there is no estimated time to finalize an appraisal, so it was deemed prudent to cancel [the stone pit expansion project] at this time.”

Earlier this year, ADP intervened in a lawsuit filed against the Forest Service by Duhring Resources, a Warren-based oil and gas company. One of the claims brought by Duhring Resources’ seeks to “enjoin[ the Forest Service] from preventing the mining or use of stone located below the surface of the ANF in the course of OGM development operations.”

“The oil and gas rights owned by Duhring Resources and other companies operating in the Allegheny do not extend to the use of stone material for the construction of roads and well sites,” said Ryan Talbott, ADP’s forest watch coordinator. “If these companies want to drill on the Allegheny, they must realize they have to pay for any stone material they want to excavate from pits located on the national forest. And no oil and gas development project can take place until the Forest Service complies with federal environmental regulations that require public commenting.”

Earlier this year, ADP provided documents demonstrating that other national forests in Michigan, West Virginia and Arkansas require private mineral developments to go through a public comment and appeal process before allowing companies to access the federal surface. Now, ADP has obtained evidence that even the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) supports the notion that oil and gas development cannot take place on the Allegheny without the express authorization of the Forest Service.

“Even the DEP understands the Forest Service must approve oil and gas developments before the companies can start drilling,” said Tim Reim, an ADP board member. “This discrepancy highlights the Allegheny Forest Service’s increasingly isolated position that federal regulations do not apply to its approval of private oil and gas development projects in the Allegheny National Forest. This is precisely why ADP intervened in the lawsuit filed by Duhring Resources – because the Forest Service cannot be trusted to faithfully execute its legal obligations.”

According to a DEP form titled “Coordination of a Well Location with Public Resources,” before the DEP considers issuing a well drilling permit, it first asks, “must the administrator of the public resource approve or otherwise authorize the proposed well, well site, access road, or gathering pipeline?” When the public resource in question is the Allegheny National Forest, the DEP checks the “yes” box.

“Even though the mineral rights underlying much of the Allegheny are privately owned, the Forest Service must issue permits for oil and gas companies to access and occupy the national forest,” said Cathy Pedler, an ADP board member. “That permitting process requires the Forest Service to develop alternatives and include the public in the decision-making process. The law is clear and is being applied on numerous other national forests around the country that contain private minerals. It is long overdue for the Allegheny Forest Service to end the unlawful management of our public resources.”

##

Action Alert
Tell Forest Service to Keep Recreation Sites Open and Operating

The Forest Service is proposing to close several campgrounds and
significantly reduce operation and maintenance of numerous other
facilities across the Allegheny National Forest. The proposals are a
result of the so-called “Recreation Facilities Analysis” (RFA) that is
occurring nationwide. There are several issues with the RFA process and
how it was implemented in the Allegheny that warrant an extension of the
public comment period and a re-engaging of the public to ensure the public
has a say in setting priorities for maintaining developed recreation
sites.

Please use the sample letter below as a basis for your own letter to the
Forest Service. Please add to it with any personal stories about your
recreation experiences in the Allegheny and how you don’t want to see
those opportunities disappear.

***SAMPLE LETTER***

Linda White
Public Services & Wild & Scenic Rivers
Allegheny National Forest
222 Liberty Street
Warren, PA 16365
r9_allegheny_nf@fs.fed.us

Dear Ms. White:

I am writing to request an extension of the public comment period for the
Recreation Facilities Analysis (RFA) until December 31, 2008, as
authorized by Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell. The RFA process on the
Allegheny has been flawed from the start and public input has been widely
ignored in an effort to steamroll through a process that has resulted in
many public recreation facilities being proposed for closure or
decommissioning of service. The public must be re-engaged in the RFA
process and more public hearings must be held so the public has a say in
setting priorities for maintaining developed recreation facilities.

First and foremost, the RFA must be subject to National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and public comment regulations. To date, the
Forest Service has only accepted public input informally without the
benefit of any analysis pursuant to NEPA. Much like the Forest Service
must conduct a NEPA analysis for a forest management plan, so must the
Forest Service conduct a NEPA analysis for the RFA as it represents
systematic and connected agency decisions allocating agency resources to
implement a specific executive directive.

The appropriate time for the RFA was during the forest plan revision
process that was conducted from 2003-2007. Even though the Forest Service
considered Recreation one of the “major issues” for forest plan revision,
virtually none of the information that the public is only now beginning to
find out was made available when it would have really counted. The Forest
Service cannot carve recreation out of the Forest Plan and consider the
issue in a separate analysis that is not subject to NEPA. At the very
least, the RFA requires a Forest Plan amendment subject to the preparation
of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Unfortunately, before the comment period has even closed on the RFA, the
Forest Service already has a project in the works to turn over the
maintenance and operation of many developed recreation sites to
concessionaires. This makes the RFA look like nothing more than a
dog-and-pony show. If the Forest Service is sincerely interested in
hearing what the public has to say about developed recreation in the
Allegheny, why does it already have a proposal to turn over management of
several developed recreation sites before the public comment period for
the RFA has expired?

The Forest Service must immediately re-engage the public in the RFA by
announcing it’s intention to prepare an EIS and soliciting public comment
in accordance with NEPA. No site-specific projects should move forward
until the full scope of the RFA is analyzed and the public has a much
better understanding of the current status of recreation management in the
Allegheny National Forest.

Sincerely,

_________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 2, 2008

Contact: Bill Belitskus – (814) 778-5173 (Allegheny Defense Project)
Karen Atwood – (Tionesta Valley Snowmobile Club)
Reg Darling – (Friends of Rimrock)
John Stoneman – (Allegheny Outdoor Adventures)

Coalition condemns Forest Service recreation proposals
Recommendations benefit ATV riders at the expense of other forms of recreation

A coalition of recreation and environmental groups is condemning the Forest Service’s recommendations in a recent assessment of its recreation infrastructure in the Allegheny National Forest. The Forest Service recommendations include closing campgrounds at Beaver Meadows in Forest County and Tracy Ridge in McKean County. The recommendations also include reducing services at numerous other campgrounds and recreation facilities throughout Pennsylvania’s only national forest.

“The Forest Service just spent the last five years revising the forest plan for the Allegheny National Forest and never disclosed that it planned to close campgrounds,” said Karen Atwood, member of the Tionesta Valley Snowmobile Club. “Despite the fact that recreation was one of the three so-called ‘significant issues’ the Forest Service focused on, it failed to inform the public that barely a year after the new plan was completed, it would start closing recreation sites. It is outrageous.”

The coalition, a united front comprised of the Tionesta Valley Snowmobile Club, Allegheny Defense Project, and Friends of Rimrock and Allegheny Outdoor Adventures, claims that by proposing these recommendations after the revision of the forest plan, the Forest Service is circumventing environmental laws because, as the agency itself states, only “some of the proposed actions will require full National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis” subject to public comment and appeal.

“It is not a coincidence that the Forest Service waited until after the forest plan was completed to disclose these proposals,” said Reg Darling, spokesperson for Friends of Rimrock, a group dedicated to protecting the Rimrock Overlook and Picnic Area from oil and gas drilling. “The Forest Service recreation proposals are aimed at crippling tourism at a time when the oil and gas industry would like to have free reign on extraction without public input and without tourists viewing the environmental devastation which so often accompanies drilling.”

The coalition also claims the Forest Service is not fulfilling its legal obligations to manage the Allegheny for a broad array of recreation activities. For instance, in 2007, the Forest Service suggested that citizens might want to go to “other State or National Forests” for remote recreation opportunities. Additionally, the groups contend that a recent tourism study completed for Warren County indicated that the Forest Service as well as local elected officials “expressed concern that trying to grow Warren County’s tourism industry might conflict with the timber, oil and gas industries.”

“What we are seeing is the systematic dismantling of recreation opportunities in the Allegheny,” said Ryan Talbott, ADP’s forest watch coordinator. “By closing campgrounds and other recreation facilities across our national forest, the Forest Service paves the way for oil companies to drill in these areas. If you remove the public from these areas, they are less likely to see them turned into oil fields.”

The coalition points to the proposed closing of the Tracy Ridge and Beaver Meadow campgrounds as evidence that the Forest Service is attempting to remove controversies ahead of time so that oil and gas drillers can proceed with their extraction agendas unencumbered by tourist sensitivities to the devastation which so often results from such drilling.

“Tracy Ridge is a campground in a National Recreation Area,” said Cathy Pedler, an ADP board member. “We know, however, that test wells have already been drilled adjacent to Tracy Ridge and that oil and gas companies are pressuring the Forest Service to authorize access to Tracy Ridge, which is also the largest roadless area in the Allegheny. Closing this campground serves a dual purpose – reducing recreation and turning our public land over to the oil and gas industry.”

The coalition also claims that the Forest Service’s recommendations are biased against low-impact recreation to the benefit of the ATV industry.

“The Forest Service wants to close the Beaver Meadows campground and transfer the toilet buildings to the Marienville and Timberline ATV Trails,” said Bill Belitskus, ADP’s board president. “This biased management is the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy. For years, instead of actively promoting all forms of recreation, the Forest Service has actively discouraged citizens from coming to the Allegheny with the exception of ATV users. Now, the Forest Service wants to reduce or completely eliminate a multitude of recreation opportunities and blame it on the public instead of addressing the root of the problem, which is the Forest Service’s skewed priorities.”

“The Forest Service wants to blame the public for low visitation rates, but what it really needs to do is take a long look in the mirror,” said John Stoneman of the Allegheny Outdoor Group. “The reason the Forest Service is registering lower visitation rates is partly because it does not perform the most basic maintenance of existing infrastructure. There have already been several times this summer that the restroom facilities at the Rimrock Overlook and Picnic Area were without the basic necessity of toilet paper. The Crown Jewel of the Allegheny and one of the most advertised and visited attractions in our area, were not maintained to accommodate the visiting public. We hope the Forest Service is not trying to dissuade the public from visiting Rimrock so oil and gas companies can destroy this gem in the heart of the Allegheny.”

##

June 27, 2008
Contact: Ryan Talbott (814) 221-1408

Agencies fail to protect Pennsylvania’s forests and watersheds from Marcellus Shale gas boom

On April 1, 2008 the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) announced its decision to lift a five-year moratorium on shallow oil and gas drilling in Pennsylvania’s state forests and to also authorize the drilling of deep gas wells into the Marcellus Shale. The Allegheny Defense Project criticized the DCNR’s decision claiming that forests and watersheds will be severely impacted by increased oil and gas drilling across the state’s forestlands. The DCNR, however, claimed that any drilling, for both the shallow wells as well as the deeper Marcellus Shale wells, would only be allowed if environmental regulations are followed and the state’s forests and watersheds are protected.

An announcement by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on June 6, 2008 calls the DCNR’s claims into question. According to DEP Secretary Kathleen McGinty, the agency has already “uncovered a number of serious violations that will adversely impact nearby water resources.” The violations included poorly constructed and over-topping impoundments, inadequate erosion and sediment controls, improper waste and fluid disposal, and an inability of site operators to identify the source of water in some impoundments.

The announcement came just one week after two oil companies were shut down for violations of Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law after each withdrew millions of gallons of water from two Pennsylvania streams. Range Resources-Appalachia LLC and Chief Oil and Gas LLC had their Marcellus Shale well operations shut down because the companies failed to “take the necessary precautions to protect nearby streams from pollution or impairment during the drilling process.” The two companies took a combined 7 million gallons of water from nearby streams to use in the drilling process before being told to shutdown.

ADP questions whether the DEP and other state agencies are capable of rigorously enforcing the state’s environmental regulations to protect forests and watersheds impacted by oil and gas drilling.

“The problem with these agencies is that they actually believe it’s their job to facilitate oil and gas drilling for the benefit of the oil and gas industry instead of protecting Pennsylvania’s environment for its citizens and wildlife,” said Ryan Talbott, forest watch coordinator for the Allegheny Defense Project. “The DEP and DCNR are facilitating the degradation of the resources they are charged with protecting. These oil and gas companies are laughing all the way to the bank as our state officials turn over some of our most precious public lands for drilling.”

ADP points to testimony that DEP Secretary McGinty provided in 2006 to demonstrate that the DEP is biased toward the oil and gas industry rather than protecting Pennsylvania’s environment. In the testimony before the state House Appropriations Committee, Ms. McGinty stated:

“oil and gas drilling activity is at record levels due to high natural gas and crude oil prices. The energy industry responded to these market demands by re-visiting Pennsylvania’s oil and gas fields. DEP staff responded in kind — working intensely to marshal a record number of permits without delay.”

“While the DEP works intensely to marshal record numbers of permits to the oil and gas industry, it does not harbor that same intensity for regulating and monitoring these drilling operations once they have been permitted,” said Cathy Pedler, an ADP board member. “The DEP is admittedly understaffed to monitor oil and gas operations in the field at a time when oil and gas companies are exhibiting a ‘gold rush’ mentality. Record oil and gas prices combined with lax government oversight spells disaster for Pennsylvania’s environment.”

So far, oil and gas companies have been focused on the eastern and central parts of Pennsylvania for exploiting the Marcellus shale formation. According to ADP, however, this deep gas drilling has now reached the Allegheny National Forest region and will only increase the level of impact on the country’s most heavily drilled national forest.

“DEP can issue all the permits it wants but the fact remains that no amount of drilling in Pennsylvania will lower the price of crude oil or natural gas,” said Bill Belitskus, ADP’s board president. “We cannot drill our way to energy independence. The solution is conservation and investing in clean energy alternatives. Our public lands are far more important for wildlife habitat, watershed protection and recreation than they are for the small amount of oil and gas that can be drilled.”

##

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 23, 2008
Contact: Ryan Talbott (814) 221-1408

ADP Intervenes in Oil & Gas Lawsuit to Defend Allegheny National Forest
Conservation group intervenes in defense of Forest Service regulation of oil, gas drilling

The Allegheny Defense Project (ADP) has intervened in a lawsuit filed against the U.S. Forest Service by Duhring Resources, a Warren-based oil company. Duhring Resources filed the lawsuit last November claiming the Forest Service was preventing it from drilling new oil and gas wells in the Allegheny National Forest. ADP has intervened in defense of the Allegheny National Forest claiming the Forest Service has authority under federal law to regulate private oil and gas developments and, if anything, is not doing enough to regulate drilling operations that have reached record levels in Pennsylvania’s only national forest. ADP claims the lawsuit should be dismissed.

“Duhring Resources essentially wants the Forest Service to disregard its mandatory duty to ensure surface resources in the Allegheny are protected from oil and gas developments,” said Ryan Talbott, ADP’s forest watch coordinator. “Duhring Resources is not entitled to drill with impunity in the Allegheny National Forest. If anything, the Forest Service has to do much more in terms of bringing sensible regulation to oil and gas drilling, including preparing environmental assessments and soliciting public comment for proposed developments in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).”

According to ADP, several other national forests with private mineral estates employ more stringent regulations on drilling and mining activities than the Allegheny Forest Service does. The Ottawa and Huron-Manistee National Forests in Michigan, the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia and the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas all require environmental analysis and public commenting on proposed private mineral developments pursuant to NEPA. The Allegheny Forest Service, however, only conducts an internal review of proposed oil and gas projects prior to its authorization to permit the developments to move forward.

“Not only is Duhring Resources off-base for suing the Forest Service over what little oversight the agency performs, but the Forest Service itself is to blame for allowing the situation to get to where it is today,” said Bill Belitskus, ADP’s board president. “The oil and gas industry believes it is entitled to carte blanche access because of the Forest Service’s decades-long failure to perform its mandatory duties to regulate oil and gas development pursuant to NEPA. Now, oil companies such as Duhring Resources are crying foul for what is standard operating procedure in other national forests.”

The Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association (POGAM) has also intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of Duhring Resources and claims that oil companies are not only immune from Forest Service regulation of their drilling operations, but are even entitled to the free use of public stone material from pits that are mined elsewhere in the Allegheny. ADP obtained documents indicating at least one POGAM member, Warren-based Pennsylvania General Energy (PGE), was making the same arguments last summer that are now part of POGAM’s complaint in this litigation. Last summer, Craig Mayer, counsel for PGE, claimed that “stone from stone pits on the ANF used for purposes of road and well pad construction have been shared by the ANF and OGM operators for, at least, the past 27 years without cost to the OGM operators” and that the Forest Service, by implementing additional restrictions on oil and gas development, including restricting the use of stone pits, was preventing his company from “develop[ing] its property and tak[ing] advantage of historically high oil and gas prices.”

“While the public continues to get gouged at the pump, these oil companies, which are already making record profits, actually think the public should subsidize their oil and gas developments,” said Cathy Pedler, an ADP board member. “The oil and gas industry wants the American taxpayers to subsidize its private road construction that fragments and damages the Allegheny’s watersheds and wildlife habitat as well as significantly reducing recreation opportunities. The oil and gas rights these companies have do not extend to the free use of public stone from other parts of the national forest.”

POGAM President Steve Rhoads recently stated that local oil and gas production “is very small in the overall picture of things.”

##

June 17, 2008
Contact: Ryan Talbott (814) 221-1408

Oil, gas and timber special interest groups file second lawsuit in six months against Allegheny National Forest management
Industry groups trying to derail strict regulation of oil and gas drilling in Pennsylvania’s only national forest

According to the Allegheny Defense Project, a lawsuit filed against the Forest Service by the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association (POGAM) and the Allegheny Forest Alliance (AFA) should be dismissed because the claims raised by the parties are premature. POGAM and AFA filed the lawsuit claiming the Forest Service violated federal law when it approved new standards and guidelines in the 2007 Forest Plan for regulating oil and gas drilling in the Allegheny National Forest. The suit also claims the Forest Service is causing economic hardship for withdrawing the South Branch Kinzua Creek timber sale after ADP filed an appeal to stop the timber sale located in a wilderness trout stream watershed.

According to ADP, however, the lawsuit is premature since the Forest Service Chief’s office in Washington has already thrown out those standards and guidelines and told the Allegheny staff to redo the oil and gas section of the Forest Plan with additional public participation and comment.

“We agree with the oil and gas industry that the Forest Service erred when it added the oil and gas standards and guidelines so late in the forest plan revision process without allowing for additional public comment,” said Bill Belitskus, ADP’s board president. “The Forest Service Chief, however, has already taken corrective action to remedy those problems. Now, the oil, gas and timber industries, which in the past have attacked ADP for using the courts to enforce the law, have themselves filed suit, for the second time in 6 months. Ironically their litigation, rather than enforcing clearly applicable laws, is obviously intended to stop the Forest Service from developing legally required strict standards and guidelines for regulating oil and gas drilling.”

The Allegheny Forest Service approved the new Forest Plan for the Allegheny National Forest in March 2007. In the months that followed, the agency received approximately 80 appeals from conservation and recreation groups as well as the oil, gas, and timber industries. Most of the appeals centered on the Forest Plan’s regulation of oil and gas drilling in the Allegheny. At issue in the lawsuit is the fact that numerous standards and guidelines for regulating oil and gas drilling that appeared in the final version of the Forest Plan were not present in the draft version, thus the public was not afforded an opportunity to comment on them.

In February 2008, the Forest Service Chief upheld the 2007 Forest Plan with three exceptions. Those exceptions all focused on the oil and gas section of the Forest Plan and stated the Allegheny Forest Service failed to give the public an opportunity to review the new regulations imposed on oil and gas drilling, did not effectively define the agency’s role in regulating oil and gas drilling in the national forest, and failed to consider the cumulative effects that oil and gas drilling has on local and regional air quality.

“POGAM and AFA are suing to get the court get involved before the Allegheny Forest Service has had a chance to comply with the Chief’s forest plan appeal decision,” said Ryan Talbott, forest watch coordinator for ADP. “Until the Allegheny Forest Service revises those regulations in accordance with the Chief’s instructions, POGAM and AFA’s claims are premature because the agency has not resolved this issue yet.”

“After years of complaining about conservation groups filing so-called ‘frivolous’ lawsuits to protect the Allegheny, Pennsylvania’s only national forest, it is certainly ironic to see special interest oil, gas and timber lobbying groups like POGAM and AFA filing a federal lawsuit to get rid of regulations that no longer exist,” said Cathy Pedler, an ADP board member. “It is clear that POGAM and AFA want the court to make management decisions for the Allegheny instead of the public as required by law.”

##

June 9, 2008
Contact: Ryan Talbott (814) 221-1408

Allegheny National Forest conservation group files Freedom of Information Act request for Forest Service documents on oil and gas drilling

The Allegheny Defense Project has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Forest Service seeking documentation of the federal agency’s claims that it conducts environmental analysis of private oil and gas drilling in the Allegheny National Forest. According to ADP, the Allegheny National Forest policy does not comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations that require environmental analysis and public comments before approving private oil and gas developments. According to the Forest Service’s regional office in Milwaukee, WI, however, the Allegheny Forest Service does require “environmental analysis of some kind.”

On May 22, ADP revealed that national forests in Michigan, West Virginia, and Arkansas routinely require environmental analysis and public comments on private oil and gas drilling proposals. On May 29, Jane Cliff, spokeswoman for the Eastern Region, was quoted claiming the Allegheny Forest Service is “doing environmental analysis of some kind [on private oil and gas drilling proposals], but there are different levels of analysis and project-by-project evaluations…there’s no one-size-fits-all plan. It’s very site specific and project specific.”

“If the Forest Service does indeed conduct environmental analysis on private oil and gas developments, then it should be able to produce the documents we are requesting,” said Ryan Talbott, forest watch coordinator for the ADP. “Additionally, if what the regional office claims is true, any analysis that the Forest Service has conducted should disclose how it has involved the public in the decision-making process before it approves private oil and gas developments.”

On June 4, Allegheny National Forest spokeswoman Kathy Mohney said that local Forest Service officials are “working on the talking points” with officials from the regional office in Milwaukee, WI to respond to ADP’s claims that the Allegheny Forest Service is not complying with NEPA regulations that require environmental analysis and public commenting on private oil and gas drilling projects.

“No matter what kind of analysis the Forest Service claims it is doing, if it is not involving the public in the decision-making process, then it is not complying with federal law,” said Bill Belitskus, ADP’s board president. “The public must be included in decisions that affect public land. It is that simple.”

The Forest Service has twenty working days to respond to ADP’s FOIA request.

##