|
|
|
|
Alaska Wild Update #198 - Mar 12, 2003 QUOTE OF THE WEEK "It’s a wildlife refuge, not a gas station!" HEADLINES ARCTIC SHENANIGANS IN BUDGET; SENATE VOTE NEXT WEEK TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN: NO NEW WILDERNESS SENATOR LIEBERMAN REINTRODUCES ARCTIC WILDERNESS BILL NO COMMENTS FOR YOU! EXTENSION FOR NPRA COMMENT PERIOD DENIED NATIONAL ACEDEMY OF SCIENCES
REPORT ON DRILLING IMPACTS
As the Senate and House both move to begin considering the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2004, both chambers have been talking openly about including revenues from potential lease sales in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Lease sales will generate revenues that could be included in the budget, but only if drilling in the Arctic Refuge has been approved. This week, the Senate budget committee and the House Budget Committee both begin work on the FY 04 budgets. On the House side, Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-IA) has stated
that he doesn’t think Arctic drilling should be part of the budget
resolution. The House Budget committee began deliberations on the budget
resolution on Wednesday, March 12. Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, for
the third year in a row, declined to include assumptions of drilling revenue
in the resolution, which provides the broad framework for the annual spending
and tax bills. The resolution is non-binding, but merely serves as a Nevertheless, the threat to the Refuge looms large in the House of Representatives.
While the current budget resolution is silent on the issue of Arctic drilling,
it does not expressly prohibit drilling. The budget resolution includes
across the board spending cuts, and the House Resources Committee has
broad latitude to meet this target. It is well within the On the Senate side, Senate Republicans said Tuesday (March 11) they fully
anticipate a provision on developing oil in the Arctic Refuge to be included
as part of a budget measure to be taken up by the full Senate next week.
The Senate budget committee will be taking up the measure on Wednesday,
March 12 also. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles (R-OK), an
avid drilling supporter, easily has the votes in the committee to pass
a budget with Arctic drilling in it. Once the committee passes the bill,
the full Senate will vote on the budget sometime during the week of March
16 – 22. TONGASS LAND
MANAGEMENT PLAN: NO NEW WILDERNESS February’s decision builds off a bad draft plan which failed to recommend any new wilderness and drew widespread criticism in Alaska and nationally. During a public comment period on the draft plan, testimony at Alaska-based public hearings on the plan ran at almost ninety percent in favor of new wilderness protections. In addition, over 170,000 Americans from across the country submitted comments in support of new Tongass wilderness. “This decision is a disgrace, it’s a complete cave-in to Alaska’s
politicians and their friends in the timber industry,” said Tim Bristol,
Executive Director of the Alaska Coalition. “The Forest Service ignored
science, the public, and common sense with this decision. Nearly all the
areas analyzed would make tremendous contributions to America’s Wilderness The completion of this plan ends a court ordered prohibition on logging and road building operations in many of the areas analyzed in the plan. The Forest Service has over 50 timber sales in the works at this time. Nearly all of them will enter areas of the Tongass that for the time being are still road free and wild. “It’s a leave no tree behind policy in the Tongass,” said Cindy Shogan, Executive Director of the Alaska Wilderness League. “This decision is more evidence of the influence the logging industry has over the management of America’s national forests. “The Administration made a stark choice for the Tongass,” said Michael Finkelstein, Manager of the Alaska Rainforest Campaign. “This decision tells the public that fishing, tourism, recreation, subsistence, and the region’s incomparable fish and wildlife, are not as important as one-time road building and logging operations. History and the public will judge them harshly.”
“We praise the leadership of Senator Lieberman and the other co-sponsors for coming together to support legislation that permanently protects Alaska’s most threatened wilderness from the ravages of oil development,” said Cindy Shogan, Alaska Wilderness League’s executive director. “Sacrificing the crown jewel of our national wildlife refuge system for a six-month supply of oil that might be available 10 years from now is unconscionable.” The Arctic Refuge protects some of America’s most spectacular wilderness and wildlife, including polar bears, musk oxen, caribou, grizzlies, and millions of migratory birds. The Gwich’in people, a subsistence culture, consider the Coastal Plain, which serves as the calving grounds for the 130,000 migratory Porcupine River caribou herd, as “the sacred place where life begins.” Last week’s announcement comes on the heels of a National Academy of Sciences Report that outlines the adverse impacts that are a result of 30 years of oil and gas development on Alaska’s North Slope. Sponsors and co-sponsors of this bill are hearing the voices of the American people loud and clear. Recent polls have demonstrated that a majority of Americans want to keep the Refuge wild and free from development. The bipartisan wilderness legislation already enjoys the support of 25
Senators. NO COMMENTS FOR YOU! EXTENSION FOR NPRA COMMENT PERIOD DENIED The American people have been denied additional time to voice their opinion about the management of their public lands. A recent decision by the administration rejects a request to extend the public comment period for the draft oil and gas leasing plan of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska’s northwest area. A coalition of conservation groups formally requested extending the 60 day comment period to 90 days, as was requested and approved in 1998 for the northeast planning area of the NPR-A. The same group also asked for public hearings to be held in the lower 48 states, just as they were for the northeast planning area of this region, also called the Western Arctic. Only a single hearing outside Alaska was granted, to be held in Washington, DC on March 13 – a mere five days before the public comment period ends March 18. With so much land in the crosshairs of big oil, and so little – less than 5 percent – of the nation’s land permanently protected as wilderness, it is only fair that the public has adequate opportunity to speak up. "This is about corporate greed, pure and simple, because Americans don't want to see their remaining wild public land handed over to special oil and gas interests," said Mike Matz, executive director of the Campaign for America's Wilderness. "Americans deserve the chance to have their voices heard, yet the decision to shut off additional time for public comment is further evidence that the administration is putting special corporate interests over the public interest." On Thursday, March 13, a coalition of groups and individuals will use
this single opportunity outside of Alaska to make their case for a more
balanced approach in America's Western Arctic -- one that protects the
area's most special places from the irreversible ravages of oil and gas
drilling. Conservationists have united behind a "Wildlife Habitat
Hotspots Alternative" -- an alternative to the proposals believed
to have the inside "The administration has placed Alaska's arctic in jeopardy, attempting to open more and more of America's treasured lands to fill the pockets of the oil and gas corporations, " said Deb Moore, Arctic Coordinator of the Northern Alaska Environmental Center. "Just last month, the administration announced its intentions to open the Beaufort Sea to oil and gas leasing and it continues to use backdoor attempts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, despite overwhelming public opposition." If you haven’t commented yet, please go to http://www.alaskawild.org/new.html#NPRA
and do so! March 18th is the deadline! NATIONAL ACEDEMY OF SCIENCES REPORT ON DRILLING IMPACTS This is long, so if you want to see exactly what the report says instead of looking at we say about it, the report is also available directly from the National Research Council as follows: Press
Release: The report documents significant environmental and cultural effects that have accumulated as the result of three decades of oil development on Alaska ’s North Slope. Industrial activity has transformed what once was part of the largest intact wilderness area in the United States into a complex of oilfields and their interconnecting roads and pipelines that stretches over 1,000 square miles. Many important effects on animals and vegetation extend well beyond the actual “footprint” of development. New technologies have reduced some effects, but despite this, the committee concluded that expansion into new areas is certain to exacerbate existing effects and generate new ones (21). While no economic assessment of the environmental costs of oil development on the North Slope has been done (232), the report estimates that the costs of removing facilities and restoring habitat will run in the billions of dollars (155). No money has been set aside for this purpose by either the oil companies or the government. Because natural recovery in the arctic is slow, effects caused by unrestored facilities are likely to persist for centuries (16). Animals Bowhead whale migrations have been displaced by the intense noise of seismic exploration offshore. Spilled oil poses a great potential threat to bowhead whales due to their specific morphological characteristics. (164). The reproductive success of some bird species in the oilfields has been
reduced to the point where some oil-field populations are likely maintained
only by immigration from more productive “source” habitats elsewhere
(200). An important consequence of this phenomenon is that loss of such
“source” habitats can threaten the viability of a population
even though most of the habitat occupied by the species in region remains
relatively intact. The location of important source habitat for birds
or other species is not well Some denning polar bears have been disturbed by industrial activities. Though limited development offshore has taken place to date, full scale industrial development offshore would displace polar bears and ringed seals from their habitats, increase mortality, and decrease their reproductive success. Predicted climate change is likely to have serious effects on polar bears and ringed seals that will accumulate with those related to oil development (169). Caribou Although industrial development has not resulted in a long-term decline
in the Central Arctic Herd (the herd most affected by current oil development),
the Committee concluded that by itself is not a sufficient measure of
whether adverse effects have occurred (185). Female caribou exposed to
oilfield activity and infrastructure produced fewer calves, and following
years when insect harassment was high, that effect increased, which may
have depressed herd size. The spread of industrial activity into other
areas The Porcupine herd, which calves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, has the lowest growth capacity of the four arctic herds and the least capacity to resist natural and human-caused stress (187). Higher insect activity associated with climate warming could counteract any benefits of reduced surface development by increasing the frequency with which caribou encounter infrastructure (187). Development "Footprint" Development has directly affected 17,000 acres spread across an area roughly the size of the land area of Rhode Island. Of this, 9,000 acres are covered by gravel, excluding TAPS, the Haul Road and facilities in NPRA (64,65, 70). The environmental effects of oil evelopment are not limited to the “footprint” (actual area covered by a structure), but occur at distances that vary depending on the environmental component affected, from a few miles (animals), to much farther (visual effects and seismic effects on whales) (8 and 15). Climate change and new technologies Climate change will continue to affect the usefulness of many oilfield technologies and how they affect the environment (8). For example, the length of the winter season when seismic and other off road tundra travel is permitted, and ice roads and pads are constructed, has been steadily decreasing since the 1970’s (137 and 138). The coastline of the North Slope is presently eroding at a rate of 8 feet per year, the fastest rate of coastline erosion in the United States, and this will accelerate with climate change (95). Wilderness Oil development has compromised wilderness values over 1,000 square miles
of the North Slope. The potential for further loss is at least as great
as what has already occurred as development expands into new areas (239).
Roads, pads, pipelines, seismic vehicle tracks, transmission lines, air,
ground and vessel traffic, drilling activities, and other industrial activities
and infrastructure have eroded wilderness values over an area that is
far larger than the area of direct effects (227).`Most analyses of wilderness
effects Economic costs of Environmental Effects There have been no economic valuation studies of the effects of oil development
on the physical, biological, or human environment on the North Slope (232).
As a result, the full cost of oil development on Alaska’s North Slope
has not been assessed, quantified, or incorporated into decisions that
affect use of public land (233). Incorporation of environmental costs
into an overall economic assessment of development would alter projections
of economically recoverable oil and gas on public land on the North Slope.
For example, the U.S. Geological Survey periodically estimates the amount
of Spills Hundreds of spills occur each year in the oilfields, but to date they have not been large enough or frequent enough for their effects to have accumulated. Offshore, the industry has not demonstrated the ability to clean up more than a small fraction of oil spilled in marine waters, especially when broken ice is present (15). Air pollution Not enough information is available to provide a quantitative baseline
of spatial and temporal trends in air quality over long periods across
the North Slope, and little research has been done to quantify effects.
More than 70,000 tons of NOx, are emitted each year by industrial facilities
on the North Slope, along with thousands of tons of sulfur dioxide, carbon
monoxide, volatile organic hydrocarbons, and millions of tons of carbon Lack of restoration Only about 100 acres (1%) of the habitat affected by gravel fill on the North Slope have been restored (15). The Committee concluded that unless major changes occur, it is unlikely that most disturbed habitat on the North Slope will ever be restored (16). Because natural recovery in the arctic is slow, effects of unrestored structures are likely to persist for centuries, and will accumulate as new structures are added (16). Decision-making Decisions about development on the North Slope have generally been made one case at a time, in the absence of a comprehensive plan and regulatory strategy that identifies the scope, intensity, direction, and consequences of industrial activities judged appropriate and desirable (17). Similarly, the minimal rehabilitation of disturbed habitat has occurred without an overall plan to identify land-use goals, objectives to achieve them, performance criteria, or monitoring requirements. Little consideration has been given to how future trajectories of development would be viewed by different groups, including North Slope residents (241). In addition, as indicated above, the full cost of oil development on Alaska’s North Slope has not been assessed, quantified, or incorporated into decisions that affect use of public land. Winter off-road seismic exploration and ice roads The Committee estimates that more than 32,000 miles of seismic trails, receiver trails, and camp-move trails were created between 1990 and 2001, an annual average of 2,900 miles each year (154). If current trends continue, some 30,000-line miles will be surveyed on the North Slope over the next decade. These trails produce a serious accumulating visual effect and can damage vegetation and cause erosion. Data do not exist to determine the period that the damage will persist, but some effects are known to have lasted for several decades.(252). Seismic exploration is expanding westward into the western arctic and the foothills, where the hilly topography increases the likelihood that vehicles will damage vegetation (252). The use of ice roads and pads has increased and will continue to do so, but little information is available on how long effects persist. Regulatory issues The report did not evaluate the adequacy of existing regulations. However in the course of the review, a number of issues arose. Examples include the following. Protecting the tundra from winter off road travel DNR permits tundra travel for seismic camps where there is an average of 6” of snow and 12” of frozen soil, which the committee concluded are not based on scientific evidence (154). The only published study of seismic disturbance in relation to snow cover suggests that disturbance occurs at snow depths of 10”-28” of snow. In addition, the use of AVERAGE snowpack and frost thickness by regulatory agencies does not take into account differences in snow cover across different land forms or across the slope. Restoration Fewer than 1% of Corps permits contain restoration requirements, and those don’t generally include specific standards, requirements for long term monitoring, or performance criteria (147). Only 6 of the 1,179 permits issued by the Corps require the re-use of gravel. The Corps does not have an estimate of the area affected by permits it has issued. Groundwater Existing data on groundwater suggests that sub-permafrost groundwater may meet the regulatory definition of a drinking water source more commonly than thought. No testing of groundwater is required prior to waste injection (115-116). Water withdrawals Water withdrawals from fish-bearing lakes for purposes such as building ice roads and pads are limited to 15% of the estimated minimum winter water volume. The committee cited the lack of data to support this criterion, which it terms arbitrary (206). For fishless lakes, there were no restrictions on removal of water as of late 2002; all unfrozen water from such lakes can be drained. The effects of such complete withdrawals have not been evaluated (247).
Don’t forget to comment! Only 1week left until the comment period closes for the leasing of the NPR-A for oil drilling! Click Here to submit your comments. The Porcupine River Caribou herd is starting to move in their migration! |
