It’s off limits; Fish & Wildlife ANWR plan bans oil development in coastal plain of refuge

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has published a final environmental impact statement for the agency’s conservation plan for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In that EIS the agency has selected a plan alternative that recommends that Congress should designate the entire refuge as wilderness, (see map page 23) including the coastal plain area, sometimes known as the 1002 area.

This wilderness designation would place the entire refuge off limits for oil and gas exploration and development. Land in the immediate vicinity of the coastal village of Kaktovik would be excluded from the wilderness designation but would still require Congressional approval for oil and gas exploration.

The coastal plain area, an eastward extension of the central North Slope area that hosts the producing oil fields of Arctic Alaska, is thought to be highly prospective for oil and gas but for many years has been subject to a prohibition on oil exploration and development. “Designating vast areas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness reflects the significance this landscape holds for America and its wildlife,” said Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell on Jan. 25 when announcing the publication of the final ANWR EIS. “Just like Yosemite or the Grand Canyon, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of our nation’s crown jewels and we have an obligation to preserve this spectacular place for generations to come.”

In response to the EIS publication, President Obama said that he felt proud that Interior had put forward a comprehensive plan that would protect the refuge and designate new areas, including the coastal plain, for preservation.

“And I’m going to be calling on Congress to make sure that they take it one step forward by designating as a wilderness, so that we can make sure this amazing wonder is preserved for future generations,” the president said.

During a hastily convened press conference on Jan. 25 Alaska Gov. Bill Walker expressed his anger at the Department of the Interior’s decision. Walker said that during a phone call with Secretary Jewell he had expressed strong disappointment over the lack of discussion over the Fish and Wildlife decision before the decision was made. “I’m very angry that this is happening,” Walker said. “They are taking our economy away from us piece by piece.”

Walker said that he had explained to Jewell that Alaska is dependent on resource development and has an oil pipeline that is now three-quarters empty. And in response to Jewell’s comparison between ANWR and Yosemite or the Grand Canyon, Walker commented on the amount of commercial tourism-related activity in the two Lower 48 parks.

“I think it’s quite a bit more than goes on in ANWR,” Walker said. “I’d love to be treated like the Grand Canyon or Yosemite as far as the kind of commerce that goes on there responsibly.”

This ANWR decision is like banning tourism in Hawaii to keep Hawaii pristine, he said.

Walker said that litigation against the Fish and Wildlife decision would not be his first choice in responding to the decision. Rather than initiating a four- to six-year litigation process, the governor said that he and his team would put together a plan of action and that he would first reach out to other states and the public. Kara Moriarty, president and CEO of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, an oil industry trade association, expressed her anger at the Fish and Wildlife decision.

“This is offensive,” Moriarty said. “It’s offensive to Alaskans when we have the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, already 92 percent of it is off limits to development. … I think this decision sends the signal that the federal government is not allowing Alaska to be open for business.”

On Jan. 26 Alaska’s Congressional delegation expressed its displeasure at the Obama administration’s actions, referencing not only the ANWR decision but also a permitting decision in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and a forthcoming outer continental shelf lease sale plan proposal, involving the withdrawal of some offshore lands from future oil and gas leasing. “It is a one, two, three kick to the gut of Alaska’s economy,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski. “We have said as a delegation that we will not stand it, we will not tolerate it, we will do everything we can to push back against an administration that has taken a look at Alaska and decided it’s a ‘nice little snow globe up there and we’re going to keep it that way.’ That’s not how you treat a state. Show us some respect.”

Rep. Don Young claimed that the Fish and Wildlife action violates ANILCA, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the act that established ANWR. ANILCA has a clause requiring an act of Congress before ANILCA’s scope can be extended.

“This brazen assault on Alaska only strengthens our resolve to push back,” Young said. “This latest decision, in clear violation of ANILCA’s ‘no more’ clauses, completely undermines the law and the many promises made to the Alaskan people. This is unacceptable and I am already beginning work in the House to ensure this assault is stopped dead in its tracks.”

“This attack on Alaska families and the middle class is deeply troubling,” said Sen. Dan Sullivan. “I pledge to do everything in my power to protect the economic growth and prosperity of our state, and defend the promises made to Alaskans under ANILCA.”

The Arctic Slope Regional Corp., the Native regional corporation for the North Slope, expressed its opposition to the Fish and Wildlife decision. “The people of the Arctic Slope region, specifically Kaktovik, have thrived in this area for over 10,000 years, and therefore fall outside of the definition of characteristics of wilderness,” ASRC said in a Jan. 26 statement. “The people of the Arctic Slope region, especially the residents of Kaktovik, are conservation minded, and yet rely on responsible oil and gas development to sustain our communities. This proposed designation as announced would effectively slam the door shut on the substantial economic opportunities associated with future development of the potential resources in the coastal plain.”

By contrast, environmental organizations have expressed their widespread support of a potential wilderness designation for ANWR. “We applaud and thank President Obama for adopting a conservation plan that for the first time proposes to designate a large portion of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness to protect it from exploitation and development. We call on Congress to follow the president’s lead,” said Trip Van Noppen, president of Earthjustice. “Known as ‘The Sacred Place Where Life Begins’ to Alaska Native communities and teeming with rare wildlife, this is a place of incalculable beauty and value, to be protected like Yellowstone and Yosemite, not turned into another polluted oil patch.”

For its part, the Fish and Wildlife Service said in the ANWR EIS that its decision was based on a thorough analysis of the environmental, social and economic considerations presented in its revised ANWR plan and in the EIS. The agency said that the EIS it did not address oil and gas development or seismic surveying because ANILCA prohibits oil and gas operations in ANWR without approval by Congress.

US President Dwight D. Eisenhower established ANWR in December 1960 as the 8.9 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Range. In 1980, Congress passed and President Jimmy Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), which renamed it a wildlife refuge, enlarged it to 19 million acres, and designated 7 million acres of it as wilderness.

Management of its 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, which was set aside for possible future oil and gas development under ANILCA Section 1002, has been a recurring issue for decades. It represents about 8% of ANWR’s total acreage.

http://www.ogj.com/articles/2015/01/obama-administration-proposes-making-anwr-coastal-plain-wilderness.html

- - - - - - -

Note the agreement during the Carter administration to greatly expand the refuge, was done with the agreement of setting the Coastal Plains aside for oil/gas exploration. One well was drilled, the results not released, and no more work was ever permitted.

{North Slope Borough} NSB DECRIES INTERIOR DEPARTMENT PLANS FOR ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE WILDERNESS
http://www.north-slope.org/news/detail/nsb-decries-interior-department-plans-for-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-w
January 26, 2015

USFWS Plans for Wilderness Designation of 10-02 Violating ANILCA /NEPA
http://anwr.org/2015/01/usfws-plans-for-wilderness-designation-of-10-02-violating-anilca-nepa/
Jan 25, 2015

the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell announced today that it will pursue a recommendation for complete wilderness designation of ANWR. The Service has been studying its management practices under a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) of ANWR for more than 4 years and today announced its decision on one of 6 alternatives proposed. Variations of either no wilderness status quo, partial, or full wilderness were offered in the CCP. Wilderness designation equates to the most restrictive land use designation offered in the nation with no fly over, no use of any mechanized vehicle and limited foot access to an area. No resource development use of the area can take place. The designation flies in the face of the US Geological Survey’s review of the Coastal Plain of ANWR as the most prospective area on the North American continent to find a super-large oil and gas field. USGS estimated the “10-02” Coastal Plain to contain a mean average of 10.4bbls. of oil at a conservative 35% recovery rate.

The USFWS decision was met with strong opposition from Alaska’s Governor Walker, the Alaska State Legislature and the three Alaskan Congressional delegates, all whom are unanimous in their opposition to any wilderness designation in ANWR. All Alaskan elected officials at the state and federal level, including the government of the North Slope Borough, which includes ANWR in its territory, have been unanimous in their support of exploration on the Coastal Plain of ANWR for over 30 years. The current vote on the issue in Alaska’s state legislature is 60-0 in opposition to wilderness designation.

The USFWS CCP is a non-binding recommendation to Congress and does not actually declare wilderness land designation. Only Congress has the authority to declare wilderness. Congress has debated the issue for over 30 years and in 12 votes in the House and 3 votes in the Senate passed legislation in support of development and against wilderness designation. Only once did both bodies agree to the same pro-development bill in 1995 only to have it vetoed by President Clinton.

Further to fuel the fires against today’s USFWS decision is the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA -1980), which formed the modern border of ANWR. ANILCA contains a “no more clause” which stated no more than 5000 acres can be declared wilderness in the state without Congressional approval. The coastal plain of ANWR is 1.5million acres. The USFWS has claimed the 10-02 does not fall under the clause because by inclusion in ANWR it already takes the land out of public domain and thus is not applicable to ANILCA. The State claims the wording and intent of the law are plain and simple, no new wilderness. ANILCA states the coastal plain must be held in a state ready to be included as wilderness land should Congress decide not to allow exploration. Given the 15 successful votes by Congress in favor of development it should be clear the view is decidedly against wilderness designation.

The USFWS CCP decision on wilderness also violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in that any study or declaration of wilderness must consider all alternative land uses. The CCP deliberately leaves out oil and gas exploration as a potential land use which is ironic considering the definition of the Coastal Plain under ANILCA is an area set aside for the study of oil and gas exploration potential. The State has maintained this study was a breach of NEPA since it was first proposed in 2010.

It will now be up to the State of Alaska to challenge the CCP. The only other CCP completed on ANWR was in 1987 and in that the Dept. of Interior stated any impact on the land would be minimal and could be mitigated. The history of development in the Arctic even just 2 miles away from the 10-02 has shown that over 30 years the land has not suffered and the wildlife has flourished. The Central Arctic Caribou Herd that migrates through Prudhoe Bay oil field just next to ANWR has increased from 5000 animals in the 70s to over 50,000 today. No animal that uses the coastal plain affected by current development has shown a decline in population or significant impact effect. The State of Alaska has always maintained the highest environmental protections on land uses in the world and state that declaration of wilderness will do nothing to enhance the wildlife or ecology beyond what it already is, only restrict any land use of the area beyond reason or need. Given the status of the 10-02 Coastal Plain currently, which is completely off limits to any trespass or development without congressional or USFWS approval, it is hard to see why additional formal designation is needed nor what would be achieved by it. Rather this wilderness designation is merely a political policy objective of the current Administration and President against oil and gas development in the Arctic of Alaska.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.