|
ANWR DEIS published
Public comment period opens; three alternatives for lease sale program
Alan Bailey Petroleum News
In preparation for proposed oil and gas lease sales in the 1002 area of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Bureau of Land Management has published a draft environmental impact statement for a leasing program in the refuge. Public comments are now invited on the draft document and must be filed by Feb. 11. BLM will then prepare a final EIS and issue a record of decision on whether or how to conduct the leasing program.
In addition to the customary “no action” alternative, the draft EIS proposes three other alternatives for oil and gas leasing in the 1002 area. The alternatives include various measures designed to mitigate impacts on resources and their uses in the reserve. At this stage BLM has not designated a preferred alternative.
Mandated by statute The DEIS development results from a provision within the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, requiring the Department of the Interior to conduct oil and gas lease sales for the ANWR coastal plain. The tax statute requires at least two areawide lease sales in the 1002 area by December 2024.
Although conducting the lease sales themselves would not have environmental impacts, the EIS addresses potential post-leasing activities, including seismic surveying, drilling, exploration, development and the transportation of oil and gas. However, the EIS record of decision for the lease sale program would not authorize any on-ground activities in ANWR - approval of these activities would require further National Environmental Policy Act analysis, and potentially site-specific stipulations beyond what will be specified in the final EIS, the DEIS says.
1.5 million acres potentially available A total of about 1.5 million acres within the 1002 area fall under BLM’s oil and gas leasing authority, while 28,800 acres of Native land are outside that authority. Of the 1.5 million acres, about 427,000 acres are thought to have high petroleum potential, 658,000 acres to have medium potential, and 477,000 to have low potential, the DEIS says.
The DEIS assumes that, if the record of decision for the final EIS allows oil and gas lease sales to proceed, there would be multiple sales, with at least 400,000 acres offered for leasing in the first two sales. However, not all the land identified as available for leasing would necessarily be offered in the sales.
Within the leasing alternatives that the DEIS considers, some land is subject to what BLM refers to as “standard terms and conditions” for leasing. Some land, although the subsurface can be leased, has a prohibition on surface activities. And some land is subject to restrictions over the timing for carrying out operations. There is a lengthy list of required operating procedures that can be mandated in various circumstances, to minimize environmental impacts from oil and gas operations. These operating procedures would be applied to oil and gas activities in leased land and would be imposed in conjunction with permitting the activities.
Leasing alternatives The DEIS comments that, although in its analysis it has included a “no action” alternative, designated alternative A, that alternative would not comply with the directive under the 2017 federal statute opening the reserve for leasing. However, this alternative provides a baseline, against which the impacts of other alternatives can be judged, the DEIS says.
The second alternative, alternative B, would make all the 1.5 million acres of land available for potential leasing, subject to some required operating procedures. However, surface operations would be prohibited on 359,400 acres of this land, and there would be timing limitations for operations on 585,400 acres.
A third alternative, alternative C, would also make 1.5 million acres of land available, but would prohibit surface operations on 932,500 acres. Timing limitations would apply to 313,900 acres. And, as in alternative B, there would be required operating procedures.
Alternative D includes further protections for biological and ecological resources. Leasing would be limited to less than the maximum of 1.5 million acres of land. And there are two sub-alternatives, D1 and D2, each with different approaches to mitigating impacts on caribou summer habitat. Under both sub-alternatives about 1 million acres would be available for leasing, with around 500,000 acres near specific waterways unavailable. Moreover, 708,600 acres would be subject to no surface operations restrictions, and 123,900 acres subject to controlled surface use. Sub-alternative D1 would have 204,700 acres subject to standard terms and conditions but no acreage with timing limitations. Sub-alternative D2 would have timing limitations on 204,700 acres.
The different alternatives specify various procedures for minimizing impacts on caribou and polar bears.
Likely impacts The DEIS also documents a list of likely impacts on the 1002 area, should oil and gas exploration and development take place. The list includes impacts on subsistence hunting; state and North Slope Borough employment, income and revenues; water quality; marine and terrestrial mammals; permafrost, vegetation and wetlands. And there could be impacts to Interior communities that depend on the caribou that use the ANWR coastal plain, the DEIS says.
During the scoping period for the development of the DEIS, commenters raised a wide range of issues relating to the potential impacts of oil and gas leasing in the 1002 area. These issues included concerns about impacts on fish and wildlife, including “special status” animals such as polar bears, bowhead whales and ringed seals. Commenters asked that the EIS should consider the indirect and cumulative impacts of the infrastructure associated with oil and gas development. Some people requested clarification of the meaning in the enabling statute of a limit of a maximum surface footprint of 2,000 acres for oil and gas development. And some requested consideration of impacts on the traditional way of life and economy of local communities.
Controversy Comments in response to the DEIS publication reflect the controversy that for many years has surrounded the possibility of opening ANWR to oil and gas activities.
“An energy-dominant America starts with an energy-dominant Alaska, and among the scores of accomplishments we have had at Interior under President Donald J. Trump, taking these steps toward opening the 1002 section of Alaska's North Slope stands out among the most impactful toward bolstering America's economic strength and security,” said Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke on Dec. 20, when the DEIS was published.
“Of all of the Trump administration’s conservation rollbacks, the drive to sell off one of America’s wildest places for dirty, high-risk oil-drilling ranks among the worst,” said Jamie Williams, president of The Wilderness Society. “Americans have no desire to drill the Arctic Refuge, and this action is pure pandering to special interests in the oil lobby. Americans want to balance our energy needs with conservation of some places that are simply too wild to drill.”
“A 1987 Interior report to Congress fulfilling our requirements under ANILCA recommended the Coastal Plain for oil and gas development. Since completion of that report, numerous oil fields have been discovered near the coastal plain and oil field technologies have changed significantly,” said Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management Joe Balash. “The depth of expertise in arctic resources and issues from tribal members, state, local and federal agency staff was integral in developing a comprehensive draft environmental impact statement.”
“The Gwich’in nation opposes any development in the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou Herd,” said Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the Gwich’in Steering Committee. “The rush and fast pace that they are moving in only proves that they have no intention of addressing our concerns.”
“Alaskans have anticipated the release of the draft environmental statement for decades,” said Alaska Gov. Michael Dunleavy. “My administration and Alaskans overwhelmingly support ANWR development, and we are eager to inform and educate our fellow Americans that it will be done utilizing the highest environmental standards and safeguards to protect its land, waters and wildlife.”
|
