| 
		Not so fast: Trump's Alaska drilling 
		study slammed by U.S. wildlife regulator 
		 Send a link to a friend 
		
		 [April 27, 2019] 
		By Valerie Volcovici 
 (Reuters) - The Trump administration failed 
		to adequately consider oil spills, climate change and the welfare of 
		polar bears in its expedited study of proposed drilling in Alaska’s 
		Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, according to comments published by the 
		U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service this week.
 
 The unusually harsh criticism from federal wildlife regulators could 
		deal a blow to one of the most high-profile items in President Donald 
		Trump’s energy agenda, and reflects the pitfalls of the administration’s 
		drive to speed up big projects with quicker, shorter environmental 
		studies.
 
 The Interior Department wants to hold its first lease sale of at least 
		400,000 acres in ANWR, America's largest wildlife sanctuary, later this 
		year, but could face lawsuits if its permitting process is flawed.
 
		
		 
		The Fish & Wildlife Service said the ANWR Coastal Plain draft 
		environmental impact study (EIS) failed to include oil spill response 
		plans, analyze the effects of climate change on the Arctic, or ensure 
		that surveys of polar bear denning habitats are required.
 The Interior subagency also listed dozens of other information gaps in 
		its 59 pages of comments and implied that the Interior Department's 
		Bureau of Land Management wrote the study without properly consulting 
		wildlife regulators.
 
 "The Service has managed the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and its 
		resources for several decades and has information and expertise that is 
		valuable in formulating a final EIS that can withstand the scrutiny of 
		legal sufficiency," the agency's Alaska director Gregory Sikanie wrote.
 
 The Fish & Wildlife Service declined to provide further comment. The 
		Interior Department said its Bureau of Land Management had received 
		thousands of comments on the draft study, all of which would be 
		considered.
 
 "BLM has an obligation to consider all of these comments -including 
		those from its sister agency (Fish & Wildlife) - and anticipates they 
		will inform the Final EIS inmultiple ways," spokeswoman Molly Block said 
		in an email.
 
		BLM completed the draft environmental impact study at the end of 
		December, after Trump expressed an interest in opening the zone to 
		drilling. The comment period ended on March 13.
 [to top of second column]
 | 
            
			 
            
			A polar bear keeps close to her young along the Beaufort Sea coast 
			in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska in a March 6, 2007 
			handout photo. Susanne Miller/US Fish and Wildlife Service/Handout 
			via REUTERS 
            
 
            The study was among the first of its kind since Trump’s Interior 
			Department in 2017 issued an order that assessments under the 
			National Environmental Policy Act be completed within one year and 
			be no longer than 150 pages.
 NEPA studies under past administrations have taken years and filled 
			out thousands of pages, a major source of frustration for drillers, 
			miners and other industries that argue the process creates 
			unnecessary delays.
 
 Experts said the effort to streamline environmental permitting, 
			however, could also cause problems.
 
 "Imposing the timelines and page limits will mean significant 
			impacts go un-analyzed. Tribal consultation and coordination will 
			likely get shortchanged, important scientific data will not be 
			considered, and the public’s ability to provide meaningful input on 
			alternative courses of action will be compromised," said Geoff 
			Haskett, former Fish & Wildlife Service director for Alaska and 
			president of the National Wildlife Refuge Association.
 
             
			ANWR covers some 19 million acres of Alaska’s North Slope, home to 
			bears, carbou, lynx and muskox, and overlying around 16 billion 
			barrels of recoverable crude oil reserves, according to federal 
			officials. It has been a lightning rod of contention between energy 
			companies that want to develop it and conservationists that want to 
			protect it since the 1970s.
 (Editing by Richard Valdmanis and Tom Brown)
 
		[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
			reserved.] Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.  
			Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |