T...-. for AIa!I<a <..I. lll1y 31 • 1997 C<lmnv:als Of! Bcad'or1 Sea 5* 170 DEIS TlUJ1CeS [Of AIaK4 'lal. lilly 31.1997 lands at Flaxman IsiandIPt Thomson) described in the DEIS involves untested technology It is C<mmlID ...-.Sco SoIc 170 DEIS currently technically infeasible to build a subsea pipeline ofany distance in the Beaufon Sea, especially for the 60-70 mile distance that would be required to reach the eastern patt of the Sale 170 exploration and development activities. There is litlle, ifany, suppon offered for this assumption. If area offthe Hulahula River Delta ofthe Arctic Refuge if oil were discovered for tr8nSpon via subsea TFA #11 it should prove incorrect, the proposed operations could result in population reductions, shifts in pipeline to landfall on State lands. Industry has proposed the first subsea pipeline in the US Beaufon cont. distn'butions away from traditional habitat, and deterioration ofthe health ofa large percentage ofa TFA#6 Sea for the Nonhslat project. Currently under environmental impact review, there are major given population Operating alone, anyone of the forgoing factors will have a devastating effect on cont. engineering questions regarding its technical feasibility that are as yet unresolved even for this 6-mile the ability of a species to survive in the harsh arctic environment. Some of the adverse effects from long subsea pipeline. If the offshore pipeline transponation method is not feasible, then onshore oil and gas development on the natural environment, and on marine mammals and other wildlife in pipelines across the refuge or tankering would have to be considered. the sale area are discussed below. Funhennore, the DEIS fails to address the impacts, and possible alternatives to a "new 1. Impacts to tbe Arctic National Wildlife Refuge location near Flaxman Island" for pipdine landfall on State lands to the Trans-Alaska Pipdine System (TAPS) (pIV-A-6). This landfall location is described repeatedly in the DEIS and Our organizalions have commented time and time again on proposed lease sales in the therefore, site-specific environmental impacts should be provided. Flaxman Island provides polar Beaufon Sea and have filed countless lawsuits to represent the public interest, and the interests of bear denning habitat. It contains imponant archeological and historical sites, including the our members in protecting sensitive marine and coastal ecosystems from the unprecedented effects of Leffingwell National Historical Site, placed on the National Register in 1971 and which became a Arctic offshore oil exploration and development. We are concerned that Sale J70, like previous National Landmark in 1978, and imponant traditional land use sites which are still presently used for TFA#12 Beaufon Sea Lease Sales, continues to jeopardize the integrity ofthe wilderness and wildlife, and the TFA#7 6 full range ofintact ecosystems ofthe Arctic National Wildlife Refuge-- including the lagoons, barrier hunting caribou, waterfowl, seals, and fish in the vicinity (Jacobsen and Wentwonh 1982 ). This islands, river mouths, and shorelines Most of our organizations also worked to prevent the Stale oil landfall location would be adjacent to the Arctic Refuge at the Canning River Delta, an irnponant and gas leasing of Camden Bay Sale 50, leases in the nearshore area adjacent to the eastern part of subsistence location, as weU as significant habitat for migratory birds, fish. and polar bears. A major Sale 170, and in Demarcation Point Sale 55 to the east, because these lease sales threatened the concentration of onshore staging areas, airpon, pump stations, processing plants, and pipelines at integrity of the Arctic Refuge. this landfall location could have major negative effects on the adjacent Arctic Refuge. The MMS has ignored and downplayed the potential major direct and cumulative effects to The DEIS also fails to adequately evaluate the unique risks oftankering oil from offshore the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge MMS erred in not considering this a significant issue raised platfonns in the ice-infested waters of the Beaufon Sea to landfalls for onshore pipelines to TAPS during scoping. There would be major effects from offshore exploration and development, even if across State lands. The DEIS cannot rely on a model based on past OCS spiU data which does not there is no construction of inli'astruerure on land, as described below. Funhermore, there would be incorporate the specific, greater risks that tankering in the Arctic ice would pose. Therefore, new intense pressure in the future to construct onshore pipelines, roads, docks, and other suppon ITFA #8 an.aIysis oftanker transportation needs to be included in this DEIS (including oil spill risks, including facilities in the refuge which would be devastating to the wilderness and wildlife ofthe refuge. for catastrophic accident, chronic spills, ballast water discharges, and impacts of iee-breakers oe«Ied Therefore, development of OCS leases would irreversibly degrade the wilderness qualities of the to suppon the tanker traffic) It is doubtful that this alternative would be acceptable, given the refuge and jeopardize the imponant habItats that Congress sought to protect with the creation of the policies of the Nonh Slope Borough (the DEIS says, "Although the NSB CMP limits suppon Arctic Refuge in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA). I facilities for tankering oil to market, the scenario indicates that pipelines will be used; therefore the policy is not reI evan,," p IV-B-76) The policy is relevant because it shows conflict over a key Adequate anaIysjs of oil transportAJjon methods is Deeded. The MMS has completely failed to transponation aJtemative, and shows that MMS evaded its responsibility to evaluate alternative ITFA #13 TFA analyze potential effects ofonshore infrastructure to suppon OCS development and production on I #9 aspects of the proposal that are of concern to residents who would be affected by the proposal. the coastal plain of the refuge. The MMS simply says the refuge is closed to oil exploration and development and therefore there would not be onshore pipelines, etc and therefore no effectsmr State Supreme Coon rulings regarding these same oil transponation issues provide MMS is so certain of this, then it should have no problem adding a stipulation to the leases that no temporary or permanent pipelines, roads, docks, or other onshore suppon facllities shall be allowed perspective on MMS's neglect of the transponation alternatives. Conservationists won coun on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for exploration, development, and production ofthe OCS ITFA #111 challenges to the Alaska Supreme Coun which agreed that the State's best interest finding was leases because these would be incompatible with the purposes of the refuge, and they are prohibited by law (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (pL 96-487), sec 1002(1), sec 1003, and others) 6 Jacobsen, MJ. and C. Wentwonh. 1982 Kaktovik Subsistence: Land Use Values through time in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Area U.S Fish & Wildlife Service, Nonhero Alaska However, the method of bringing oil to market (offshore pipeline to onshore landfall on State ITFA #11 Ecological Services, Fairbanks. 7 6 V. COMMENTS Y-?3 TFA. Trustees for Alaska Trust= for Alaska C1 01. July 31, 1997 Camncnls ",,_art Sea Sale 170 DEIS TnI3l=IforAlaskaelol. July3l,l997 Commcots ""_art Sea 5* 170 DEIS "deficient" because ADNR failed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of offshore pipelines vital to resources. The refuge shoreline includes low barrier islands, sand spits and peninsulas and lagoons, transporting oil from the Camden Bay leases (Trustees for Alaska y State DNR, 795 P.2d 805, 809 bays, and river deltas which would be particularly vulnerable to the effects of major oil spills and ITFA #17 (Alaska 1990) ''Camden Bay f'). The Supreme Court expressed dismay that DNR would overlook TFA#13 cant. chronic pollution caused by exploratory and development operations in the nearby Federal waters. such a vital and uniquely risky aspect of offshore oil development in the area since onshore support In addition to the Camden Bay and Canning River delta areas identified in Information to LeSsees, facilities in the Arctic Refuge are prohibited. No. 12, "Sensitive areas to be considered in the Oil-Spill Contingency Plans," this ITL should include ITFA #18 the entire shoreline ofthe Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In a second appeal, the Supreme Court ruled the "DNR erred in failing to discharge its responsibility to identify known geophysical hazard areas and archeological sites prior to the lease The shoreline within the Arctic Refuge adjacent to the proposed lease sale area has known sale" and "as we noted in Trustees for Naska y Gorsuch, 835 P.2d 1239,1246 n.6 (Alaska 1992), polar bear denning, Porcupine caribou herd caribou calving, caribou insect relief, snow goose the more segmented an assessment ofenvironmental hazards, the greater the risk that prior permits staging, muskox high use, and rearing area for DoUy Varden char (U.S. Fish & WJ.1d1ife Service). will compel DNR to approve later, environmentally unsound permits," (TrusteeS for Alaska y State The shorelines ofthe lagoon at Konganivik Point also contain tundra swan high density nesting DNR, 851 P.2d 1340 (Alaska 1993) "Camden Bay If'). Furthermore, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife areas. The Canning and Tamayariak River deltas, and mouth ofthe Hulahula River provide Service and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game recommended that Sale 50 not be considered important black brant fall staging habitat and tundra swan nesting habitat (U.S. Fish & WJ.1d1ife until litigation over the contested Arctic Refuge lagoons was completed and Congress made a TFA#14 Service, Maps ofBird Resources in the 1002 area, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. DOl, 1987, decision about leasing in the Aretic Refuge (see Preliminary analysis ofthe Director and Aretic National WJ.1dlife Refuge, Alaska Coastal Plain Resource Assessment).