An Assessment of the Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Leasing
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
An Assessment of the Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Leasing Activities in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas on Steller’s Eider (Polysticta stelleri), Spectacled Eider (Somateria fischeri), Kittlitz’s Murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris), Yellow-billed Loon (Gavia adamsii), and Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Minerals Management Service Final Version, July 2009 1. The Proposed Action: The Minerals Management Service (MMS) has responsibility for the development of oil, gas, and other resources on America’s outer continental shelf (OCS). In Alaska, this effort has included a number of lease sales in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas (Figure A). At this time industry holds leases on fewer than 500 lease blocks from a number of previous lease sales in the Chukchi Sea and fewer than 250 lease blocks from a number of previous lease sales in the Beaufort Sea (Table A and Figure A). Of these, three blocks are producing oil (BP Alaska Inc.’s Northstar project) and two blocks are in development (BP Alaska Inc.’s Liberty project). For OCS activities MMS is authorized to use an incremental step process for section 7 consultation. Using this process, MMS and the Fish and Wildlife Service conducted consultations for threatened spectacled (Somateria fischeri) and Alaska-breeding Steller’s (Polysticta stelleri) eiders for MMS’s lease sales. These consultations authorized exploration activities in both Planning Areas and concluded the described hypothetical developments that may result from lease sales would not jeopardize the continued existence of listed eiders. Both the Northstar and Liberty projects underwent subsequent, site-specific consultation as individual development projects are also reevaluated for impacts to listed species in the next incremental step (in this case development). Since these incremental step consultations were performed, new information has become available regarding the status of listed eiders. In addition, the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was listed as a threatened species pursuant to the ESA on May 15, 2008, and the yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii) was designated a candidate species on March 25, 2009. As the MMS has existing leases and is considering additional lease sales in the Chukchi (Lease Sales 212 and 221) and Beaufort (Lease Sales 209 and 217) seas (also called the Alaskan Arctic OCS), the MMS has been working with the FWS to make sure Section 7 consultations for OCS activities in the 2007-2012 5-Year Program Areas are as current, thorough, and accurate as possible. Towards that end, this assessment evaluates the potential impacts of oil and gas leasing, exploration and development in the lease sale areas (the Action) on listed spectacled and Alaska-breeding Steller’s eiders, critical habitat, and polar bears, and the candidate species Kittlitz’s murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris) and yellow-billed loon. Specifically, the assessment evaluates the projected impacts of MMS’s described reasonable exploration and development scenarios, which include substantial mitigation measures, developed for oil and gas activities for all previous lease sales and future lease sales in both the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. The MMS believes that preparing a single assessment document for this Action will provide for a thorough and comprehensive analysis of all potential impacts to listed species and critical habitat from oil and gas activities in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea OCS. The types of activities that could result from existing leases in each sea are the same as those that could result from the proposed lease sales. The MMS requested Section 7 consultation be conducted incrementally pursuant to 50 CFR 402.14(k), with leasing and exploration considered and authorized in the first incremental step. However, as required the consultation will also consider impacts through the endpoint of the actions as described in the hypothetical development scenarios for each sea. This will allow analysis to determine whether these scenarios would jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. This comprehensive analysis considers the potential direct and indirect effects of the Action, as well as cumulative effects and effects of interrelated and interdependent activities, when added to the environmental baseline, to provide an aggregative analysis of impacts to listed species and critical habitat. 1 The MMS has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Oil and Gas Lease Sales 209, 212, 217, and 221 in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas, November 2008. The program areas (Chukchi Sea in blue and Beaufort Sea in red, Figure A), are smaller areas of the Planning Areas. Existing leases are within these areas. Much of the following material in this assessment is based on information from the DEIS. Table A. Active lease summary for the Arctic Planning Area of the OCS, current as of March 18, 2009. Leases may be relinquished by the lessee at any time and returned to MMS. Hectares are rounded to the nearest hectare. Northstar is currently in production, while Liberty is in the construction stage. Sale-Planning Area Hectares Active Leases Production BF -Beaufort Sea 3,033 2 Northstar 124-Beaufort Sea 2,235 1 Northstar 144-Beaufort Sea 3,334 2 Liberty 186-Beaufort Sea 73,576 34 195-Beaufort Sea 245,760 117 202-Beaufort Sea 198,580 90 193-Chukchi Sea 1,116,277 487 none Totals: 1,642,795 733 2 Some editing was completed to make the draft sections more readable and consistent from their original DEIS form. The original sections can be found in the DEIS, as are any other sections, maps, figures, tables, appendices and literature references cited. Figures A and B, Tables 1 and 2, and Appendix 1 (Mitigation Measures) are specific to this assessment. THE PROPOSED ACTION: Our Proposed Action is to continue to authorize oil and gas exploration and development activities on the Alaskan Arctic OCS consistent with our previous leasing programs (Figure B) and those specified in our current 5-Year Program. At this time industry holds leases on fewer than 500 lease blocks from a number of previous lease sales in the Chukchi Sea and fewer than 250 lease blocks from a number of previous lease sales in the Beaufort Sea (Table A and Figure A). Of these, three blocks are producing oil (BP Alaska Inc’s Northstar project) and two blocks are in development (BP Alaska Inc.’s Liberty project). Our current 5-Year program proposes additional lease sales in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. Program areas are typically smaller portions of the larger Planning Areas (Figure A). Sales 209 and 217 in the Beaufort Sea would offer for lease the entire program area as scheduled in the 2007-2012 5-Year Program (Figure A). The Beaufort Sea program area encompasses approximately 6,123 whole or partial blocks that cover approximately 33,194,467 acres (about 13,426,469 hectares). Sales 212 and 221 in the Chukchi Sea would offer for lease the entire area as scheduled in the 2007-2012 5-Year Program (Figure A). The Chukchi Sea program area encompasses 7,326 whole or partial blocks that cover approximately 40,192,866 acres (about 16.1 million hectares). These areas, minus any blocks currently leased at the time of the sale, would be offered in the proposed sales. The proposed action covers existing leases and potential future leases acquired in the program areas shown in Figure A. 3 2. EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS. Our reasonably foreseeable activities are dependent upon scenarios. 2.4. Scenario Framework. [note: original numbering sequence from DEIS was retained] 2.4.1. Assumptions regarding OCS Exploration and Development Scenarios. For analysis purposes, MMS developed scenarios of activities that could occur subsequent to the proposed sales. The primary purpose of the scenarios in this document is to provide a common basis for analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with future activities, assuming these activities occur as presented in the scenario. The scenarios are hypothetical. In these scenarios, we assume a reasonable scale of development considering the petroleum potential, available technologies and industry trends. The scenarios, although subjective, are based on professional judgment and as much information as possible, including petroleum geology, engineering and technology, and economic trends. The scenarios are generalized, because the size and location of future commercial pools are unknown at the present time. Industry will take the lead in exploring these frontier areas, but we have no direct knowledge of industry strategies. Scenarios are not intended to be firm predictions. Actual operations would be conducted according to site-specific conditions, and no one can identify these locations at the present time. All scenarios are hypothetical, but they can be described as reasonably foreseeable or speculative. A reasonably foreseeable scenario is interpreted here to mean a continuation of current trends into the near- term future. The timeframe considered to be “foreseeable” is not fixed, and is based on professional judgment and the availability and reliability of relevant information. Clearly, the shorter the timeframe, the more likely that predictions would be accurate. In contrast, a speculative scenario would involve a significant change from historical trends or timeframes beyond several decades into the future. Speculative scenarios are much more uncertain, because there is no accurate way to define the timing or characteristics of operations