More comments soughtNOAA seeks public input on an draft EIS for offshore Arctic exploration Alan Bailey Petroleum News
For anyone interested in the pros and cons of exploration for oil and gas in offshore Arctic Alaska, there has been no shortage of opportunities to express opinions on this controversial topic.
In the latest of a series of government regulatory actions requiring public input, the National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS, a division within NOAA, is seeking public comments on a draft environmental impact statement for potential offshore exploration in the years 2012 to 2017. The environmental impact statement, or EIS, describes five alternative approaches to offshore exploration, including an option not to issue permits for exploration activities. The EIS covers both federal waters of the outer continental shelf, or OCS, and state nearshore waters.
Seismic and drilling The findings in the completed EIS will determine NMFS’ approach to the authorization of the incidental harassment of marine mammals as a result of seismic and exploration drilling activities. The findings will also impact the licensing of offshore seismic survey operations on the OCS by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. The alternatives considered in the EIS propose limits on the number of drilling and seismic programs that can be conducted offshore in a single year.
NMFS requires comments on the draft EIS by Feb. 13. The agency will decide on a preferred alternative after it has analyzed the public comments, Candace Nachman, NMFS fisheries biologist, told Petroleum News Dec. 29.
“We know how important marine mammals are to healthy Arctic ecosystems and the people who depend on them for food and cultural traditions,” said Eric Schwaab, assistant NOAA administrator for NMFS, when announcing publication of the draft EIS on Dec. 22. “We want to hear comments on these proposed alternatives to lessen any effects of oil and gas exploration in the Arctic.”
Started 2006 The story behind the EIS goes back to 2006. Up to that time the U.S. Minerals Management Service, predecessor agency to BOEM, had provided categorical exclusions from environmental review for seismic operations on the OCS, on the grounds that the surveys did not have significant environmental impacts. But faced with increasing concerns about the effects of the surveys on the environment and subsistence hunting, and with Shell, ConocoPhillips and GX Technologies planning surveys in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas in 2006, ahead of the 2008 Chukchi Sea outer continental shelf lease sale, NMFS decided to conduct an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act. And rather than preparing an individual assessment for each survey, the agency prepared a programmatic assessment for all of the surveys.
However, with continuing indications of increased offshore seismic operations, and with questions being raised over the possible cumulative impacts of sound and other environmental disturbance from multiple surveys, MMS ultimately decided to prepare a programmatic EIS.
When a draft version of that EIS appeared in 2007, the EIS also addressed the potential effects of the incidental harassment authorizations that NMFS issues for seismic surveys. These authorizations, although not a legal requirement for offshore seismic work, allow the accidental, minor disturbance of animals such as whales without causing a violation of the Marine Mammals Protection Act. The authorizations place restrictions on how operations are to be carried out, to minimize animal disturbance and prevent significant harm to wildlife.
Drilling added Incidental harassment authorizations also apply to offshore drilling. And, after publication of the seismic survey EIS, NMFS determined that the scope of the EIS should include harassment authorizations for exploration drilling as well as for seismic — in October 2009 MMS and NMFS withdrew the EIS and announced a decision to prepare a new EIS that would consider the impacts of both seismic surveying and exploration drilling, with the EIS also assessing cumulative impacts over longer timeframes than had previously been considered. As well as traditional seismic surveys, designed to gather data about potential subsurface oil and gas targets, the EIS would consider the impacts of shallow hazards seismic surveys, conducted in preparation for drilling.
And since the Marine Mammals Protection Act applies to state land as well as to federal land, NMFS policies for the issuance of incidental harassment authorizations for seismic surveys and exploration drilling would apply to state waters within three miles of the coastline, as well as to the federal outer continental shelf.
It is this expanded EIS that has now been released for public comment.
Public hearings As part of the EIS public review announced on Dec. 22 officials from NOAA and BOEM plan to conduct hearings in eight North Slope communities in January and February. BOEM and the North Slope Borough have been working with NMFS on the preparation of the EIS. NMFS has also been coordinating with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, as required under the terms of the Marine Mammals Protection Act.
Once a final EIS is published, NMFS anticipates using the EIS as the documentation required under the National Environmental Policy Act when issuing incidental harassment authorizations for Arctic offshore oil and gas exploration. Permitting decisions outside the scope of the EIS may also reference the EIS findings. BOEM says that the EIS will form the basis for National Environmental Policy Act analysis of future OCS seismic survey permitting.
Five alternatives The five alternatives that the EIS presents for future permit applications for offshore exploration consist of:
• No action, in which no seismic permits or harassment authorizations would be issued.
• Level 1 activity, with a maximum of four seismic surveys and one drilling program allowed in the Beaufort Sea and a maximum of three surveys and one drilling program in the Chukchi Sea each year. Up to one on-ice seismic survey per year would be allowed in the Beaufort.
• Level 2 activity, with a maximum of six seismic surveys and two drilling programs allowed in the Beaufort Sea and a maximum of five surveys and two drilling programs in the Chukchi Sea each year. Up to one on-ice seismic survey per year would be allowed in the Beaufort.
• Level 2 activity, but with scheduled closures in areas such as Camden Bay and the Hannah Shoal.
• Level 2 activity, but with the use of alternative technologies to augment or replace the use of traditional seismic air guns.
Other EISs Separately from this EIS, there are two previously completed BOEM EISs for OCS lease sale programs. One encompasses the 2008 Chukchi Sea lease sale in which Shell, ConocoPhillips and Statoil purchased leases that they are now trying to explore. That EIS is currently subject to litigation in the U.S. District Court in Alaska. The other encompasses the 2005 Beaufort Sea sale in which Shell purchased the leases involved in the company’s current Beaufort Sea exploration program.
BOEM has also published a draft EIS for the agency’s 2012-17 outer continental shelf lease sale program and has been conducting public hearings to garner comments on that document.
These lease sale EISs form the primary starting points for National Environmental Policy Act evaluations of companies’ exploration plans and permits such as drilling permits, as companies progress from initial exploration through field development and eventual oil and gas production. If at any point in the process leading to oil and gas production BOEM determines that an activity will cause a significant environment impact, beyond the impacts reviewed in the lease sale EIS, the agency will mandate an additional EIS for that specific activity.
The NMFS EIS that is now out for public comment would apply to seismic surveys conducted independently from lease-related exploration, as well as to lease-related seismic and drilling operations.
Sharon Leighow, press secretary to Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell, told Petroleum News in a Dec. 29 email that the governor’s office would not make any statement about the EIS until the completion of a review by state agencies of the draft EIS.
| 