|
NMFS revising its proposed Arctic EIS Agency plans to include an alternative allowing four drilling programs in the Beaufort and four programs in the Chukchi annually Alan Bailey Petroleum News
The National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS, has announced that it is preparing a revised version of its draft environmental impact statement for Arctic offshore oil and gas exploration, taking into consideration comments the agency received on an earlier draft of the document. That earlier draft caused considerable concern in the oil industry because it would have limited exploration drilling, at best, to two programs per year in the Beaufort Sea and two programs in the Chukchi Sea, with those limitations applying across both the federal outer continental shelf and state waters around the coast.
During the public comment period on the draft environmental impact statement, or EIS, industry representatives pointed out that the number of drilling programs allowed per year would be substantially less than the number of companies operating offshore leases, a situation that would have prevented some companies from exploring in leases that they had purchased from state or federal authorities.
New alternative NMFS now says that it is adding an alternative to the EIS, allowing up to four drilling programs in the Chukchi Sea and up to four programs in the Beaufort Sea. Other alternatives under consideration include a no-action alternative, in which the federal government would not in the future issue any seismic permits. This alternative would also stop the issuance of any authorizations for the disturbance of marine mammals during drilling operations, in effect prohibiting offshore drilling.
Other alternatives under consideration envisage allowing different amounts of offshore drilling and seismic activity, with one alternative requiring the use of some new seismic technologies and another requiring scheduled closures of some environmentally sensitive areas.
NMFS says that it will publish its new document for public review in the form of a draft supplemental EIS. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, has been working with NMFS on the document, with the North Slope Borough and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission also involved.
Long history Some people have questioned why NMFS is preparing the EIS, given that there does not appear to be any specific proposed activity of a type that would normally trigger an EIS development. The history of the EIS goes back to 2006 when the U.S. Minerals Management Service, BOEM’s predecessor agency, elected to conduct a programmatic environmental assessment for envisaged multiple seismic surveys on the outer continental shelf. Over time, with concerns about the possible cumulative impacts of multiple offshore exploration programs, that original assessment morphed into an EIS that encompassed exploration drilling as well as seismic surveys, with NMFS becoming the lead agency in the EIS development. NMFS is an agency within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA.
Delegation comments Alaska’s congressional delegation has lauded NMFS’ willingness to listen to people’s concerns about the draft document. And Sen. Mark Begich attributed the NMFS rethink in part to the actions of the federal Interagency Working Group, established by the Obama administration to coordinate federal Arctic permitting.
“The fact that NOAA heard what the delegation and I had to say and expanded the document speaks volumes for the process and framework established by the Interagency Working Group,” Begich said. “I commend NOAA for taking another look at this.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski continues to express concerns about the need for the EIS.
“When we met with (NOAA) Administrator Lubchenco in April, I was clear that the original environmental impact statement was deeply flawed and went beyond the agency’s expertise and mission,” Murkowski said. “I appreciate the willingness to take a second look, but I continue to believe that this document is unnecessary and that NOAA is interfering with matters that rightfully belong under the jurisdiction of Interior.”
|
