All right.
Welcome, everyone.
We're so glad to have you with us today for this informational session.
We are focused today on proposed
revisions to 43 CFR Part 2360 Management and Protection of the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska, and this meeting is hosted by the Bureau of Land Management.
My name is Meg Perry with SWCA Environmental Consultants,
and I'll be your facilitator for today's meeting.
Coming up during the meeting today,
we'll go through the meeting purpose and some logistics.
You'll hear
welcome and opening remarks from the Bureau of Land Management
and then a presentation regarding the reason for the Proposed
Rule, as well as the content of the Proposed Rule changes,
including protection of surface resources, current management
of Special Areas, designating and amending Special Areas, management of oil and gas
activities in Special Areas, subsistence use and co-stewardship opportunities
and next steps.
We have some pre submitted questions from registrants as well as
the opportunity for you to
submit questions during the meeting today.
The purpose of today's meeting is to provide an overview
of the Proposed Rule for management and protection of the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska and to answer questions from the public.
We are not accepting comments today, but we will go over the process
for submitting comments in writing.
So, just a few logistics
regarding the Zoom webinar that you are in.
You'll see that the meeting is being recorded
and due to the large number of potential attendees,
we do have microphones muted and chat disabled, but keep an eye on the chat
because we will use that to share some information
with you all throughout the meeting, such as links to the project website.
The primary way for you to engage is through the Q&A tool
in Zoom. You'll see two talk bubbles in one of the buttons
in your Zoom controls probably at the bottom of your screen
and you can click on that button to submit a question
and I'll explain a little bit more about that in just a moment.
You also are likely seeing closed captions running along your screen.
And if you click on the CC button in Zoom,
you have the ability to turn those on or off according to your preference.
If you do have a question
for the team today, you can click on that Q&A button in Zoom.
A box will pop up where you can type in your question and click send
and then you may receive a response live or in that same
Q&A box in Zoom.
As I mentioned,
there are no formal comments being recorded today, but you can comment
online on the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at www.regulations.gov. Where you
if you search for NPR-A, you'll find all the places to comment
or this link which I'll put in the chat momentarily.
You can also submit by mail to
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management.
Attention 1004-AE95
Director (630)
1849 C Street
Northwest, Room 5646
Washington, DC 20240.
And that comment deadline
has been extended to November 17th.
I'll now turn it over to BLM
Alaska State Director Steve Cohn for opening remarks.
Steve.
Thank you, Meg, and thank you all for joining us today
as we kick off this informational session for the proposed
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska or NPR-A Rule.
This is an informational meeting designed to provide some background
and an overview of the Proposed Rule and provide an opportunity
to answer some questions.
As Meg just mentioned, we're not accepting comments
at this meeting.
Before we share more
about the Proposed Rule, I want to provide a quick overview of the NPR-A.
This 23 million-acre swath of public land
is roughly 100 miles west of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
and 50 miles west of Prudhoe Bay, extending from the North Slope of the Brooks
Range to the Arctic coast.
In 1923
President Harding set aside this area as an emergency oil supply for the U.S.
Navy.
And in 1976, Congress passed the Naval
Petroleum Reserve Production Act or NPRPA
or Act, and the management of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska,
NPR-A or Reserve, was transferred to the Department of the Interior’s
Bureau of Land Management, where it resides today.
The NPR-A is home to two large caribou herds, polar bears, and other wildlife.
Millions of migrating shorebirds
and thousands of waterfowl rely on it for breeding grounds.
It has provided food and resources for Alaska Native people for millennia,
and 40 Alaska Native villages continue to rely
upon the region for subsistence.
We have a team of agency folks joining us today to help answer questions,
and I'd like to take a quick minute to introduce everyone,
and I'd ask that the team turn on your video when I call your name
Carrie Cecil,
Sean MacDougall.
Bonnie Million,
Emma Roach,
James Tichenor
and Henry Wykowski.
And I will now turn over to Nada Wolff Culver
Principal Deputy Director for the Bureau of Land Management.
Thanks, Steve.
I think we're going to start with the inevitable
slides now.
So, if we can go to the next slide,
that's the pretty blocks, that would be great.
Thank you.
We want to start with an overview
of how the federal rulemaking process works,
because it's different than what you might be used to
if you've been participating in land use planning or project planning.
And right now, we're in the process of receiving
public comments on the Proposed Rule.
So, this process starts when Congress passes a law, in this case
the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, and then the agency decides
if they need regulations, puts them out
as a Proposed Rule, then receives comments,
addresses the comments, and ultimately publishes a final rule.
So again, as Steve mentioned,
the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act was issued in 1976.
Our regulations were issued in 1977.
So, it's been a while and that's why we're looking at moving this forward now.
And if we can go to the next slide,
I'll talk about that in a little bit more detail.
But wanted to emphasize again,
this rule is proposed and we're looking for your comments.
So, again, while the
Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act has been in effect for quite some time,
the need to update the rule itself
has become more obvious over time.
In part because of what we've been learning about the lands
on which the law is applied and also the experience of the BLM implementing it.
So, we're looking to update the regulatory framework
for managing and protecting surface resources throughout the Naval
National Petroleum Reserve Alaska and the Special Areas
in the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, that have not been updated since 1977.
Notably, Congress did amend the act in 1980.
We are looking to respond to dramatically changing conditions in the Arctic
that are affecting natural environments and native communities, including impacts
from climate change.
We're looking to enhance management consistency
by providing one comprehensive regulatory framework.
Right now, the legal standards and procedures are found throughout
several statutes, regulations, policies, plans, and guidance documents.
And finally, we want to ensure that the BLM is, to the best of our ability,
meeting the statutory duties we have under the Naval Petroleum Reserves
Production Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and other authorities.
Go to the next slide.
So, the goals that we're trying to achieve with
this rule are to ensure maximum protection
of the surface values of the Special Areas as directed by the law,
to protect subsistence activities, including access, and to ensure balance
for surface resources in conducting future oil and gas activity in the NPR-A.
Again, following the direction in the law.
To accomplish this, the Proposed Rule revises
existing language in the regulation, but also adds some new sections,
and I'll highlight those specific changes along the way.
So, next slide.
Now we're going to go
through the Proposed Rule, I’m going to go over the content of the rule.
And as you heard at the beginning, we'll stop at the end of each section
to receive and answer questions.
You can submit questions during the presentation
using the Q&A function, but also, at the end of each section.
The Proposed Rule itself is a total of five pages in the Federal Register.
I'm not going to read every word of the regulation,
although it might be faster than going through a PowerPoint,
but I'm going to highlight key concepts and changes.
So, the first topic we're going to cover is protection
of surface resources and identification of Special Areas.
The stated
purpose for the Proposed Rule overall incorporates
the standards set out in the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act
for both management of surface resources and Special Areas.
So, you have here the purpose, the purpose of the regulations
in this subpart, which is protection - management
and protection of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
So, the purpose of the regulations in this subpart is to provide procedures
for protection and control of the environmental, fish and wildlife
and historical and scenic values of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska,
including mitigating the significantly adverse effects of oil
and gas activities on the surface resources of the Reserve, and assuring
maximum protection of significant resource values in Special Areas.
This purpose adds on to the existing regulatory language that sets out
the purpose in order to incorporate more direction from the statute.
For example, the statute specifically directs
the BLM, the Secretary of the Interior, to mitigate reasonably, foreseeable
and significantly adverse effects on the surface resources of the reserves.
So, this applies to surface resources throughout the reserves.
Statute also directs the Secretary to ensure that any exploration
in Special Areas shall be conducted in a manner
which will assure that maximum protection of such surface values
occurs to the extent consistent with the requirements of the Act for exploration.
These standards and procedures implement
these two core provisions of the
of the law that directs us how to manage the National Petroleum
Reserve Alaska, but also fulfills BLM’s mandate to take action
necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation.
So again,
we're looking at three aspects of how BLM manages the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska overall to manage for oil and gas activities,
but also, again, protection of surface resources and protection of Special Areas.
So, the next section we're going to go over, if we can move to
the next slide, is a section called Protection of Surface Resources.
This section in the current regulation is called Protection of the Environment.
We've changed the title to Protection of Surface Resources
to more closely track with the BLM’s statutory authority.
While some of the original language is maintained, some new parts have been added
and other sections have been moved to standalone subsections for clarity.
The Proposed Rule would establish new standards and procedures
for managing and protecting surface resources in the NPR-A
from the reasonably foreseeable
and significantly adverse effects of oil and gas activities.
In 1980, Congress authorized the Secretary to mitigate those effects
through necessary or appropriate conditions, restrictions, and prohibitions.
The current regulations generally require the officer - authorized officer
to take action to mitigate or avoid unnecessary surface damage
and to minimize ecological disturbance throughout the Reserve.
We propose to amend this paragraph to mirror the statutory language
and provide further clarification by recognizing that in some circumstances
the BLM may delay or deny proposed activities that would cause
reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects on surface resources.
The Proposed Rule would spell out new procedures
for protecting surface resources in the NPR-A.
As noted earlier, Congress assigned the BLM
the duty to protect the surface resources in the NPR-A.
But the current BLM, BLM regulations don't fully explain the scope of that duty.
This Proposed Rule would fill that gap.
The Proposed Rule would also direct the BLM to manage oil
and gas activities in accordance with an Integrated Activity Plan.
In doing so,
the Proposed Rule would enshrine longstanding BLM practice into regulation.
While the NPR-A is exempt from BLM’s planning
requirements under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
The BLM has prepared plans called Integrated Activity Plans,
or IAPs, since 1998, and these plans have provided an invaluable means
of evaluating management options, engaging the public, and guiding decision making.
The Proposed Rule would require the BLM to maintain an IAP.
Right now, we continue to take that action, but it's not required.
Doing so would help the BLM guide
how we issue authorizations. In the event, however, that there is a conflict
between an IAP and the regulations, the regulations would take precedence.
The Proposed Rule would also require the BLM in each decision
concerning oil and gas activity in the NPR-A to adopt measures
to mitigate the reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects
on surface resources.
Taking particular care with surface resources that support subsistence.
The BLM would do so by again documenting for each decision
the consideration of reasonably foreseeable effects,
including indirect and cumulative effects, and any uncertainty
concerning the nature, scope, and duration of potential effects,
as well as how that analysis informed the choice of mitigation measures.
For example, if the BLM determined that a proposed lease sale’s effects
on subsistence resources when added to the effects of other past present
and reasonably foreseeable future actions could be significantly adverse,
then under this proposed section,
the BLM would need to adopt measures to mitigate those effects.
This section would build on the existing regulatory language, which provides
that the authorized officer may limit, restrict, or prohibit use
of an access to lands within the reserve, including Special Areas.
This would note that authority also applies to protecting
subsistence use and resources.
Now, going to hand it back to Steve to go over the existing
Special Areas that we have
in the NPR-A.
Okay.
Thank you, Nada.
Okay.
Yeah.
I'll spend a little time talking about the existing Special Areas.
So, the Proposed Rule discusses the five existing Special Areas
Teshekpuk Lake, the Utukok River Uplands, Colville
River, Kasegaluk Lagoon and Peard Bay.
It also provides an overview of the significant
resource values for each existing Special Area, such as wildlife,
cultural resources, recreational access and subsistence.
The Proposed Rule also reiterates that management of these areas will
address existing and additional values that might be identified
by the process in the next section, which we’ll go over next.
Like the existing regulation,
the proposed regulation would require the boundaries of the Special Areas
to be depicted on maps available for public inspection,
but also ensure they are available on the BLM’s website.
To provide a bit on each of the five current Special Areas
with this map,
Okay.
Sorry.
Let me talk about the five Special Areas
and the first three of these that I'll go over
are - have been identified in Integrated Activity Plans.
And the second two are specifically identified
in the [Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act].
So, the Colville
River Special Area: the Colville River Special Area covers 2.44 million acres
along the southeastern boundary of the NPR-A.
It encompasses the Colville River
and two of its main tributaries, which collectively provide
significant habitats for raptors and other bird species.
The Special Area also supports the highest concentration of moose
on the North Slope, contains world class paleontological deposits
and is an important corridor for subsistence and recreational activities.
Kasegaluk
Lagoon Special Area, which encompasses approximately 97,000 acres, borders
the Chukchi Sea in the northwestern corner of the NPR-A.
It is rich in wildlife, including migratory birds,
and has especially high values for marine mammals.
It also features tidal flats that are rare in the North Slope.
Subsistence activities that take place in the Lagoon- subsistence
activities take place in the Lagoon as well as recreation.
Peard Bay Special area.
The Peard Bay Special Area,
also borders the Chukchi Sea, along the northern boundary of the NPR-A.
The Special Area covers 107,000 acres
and includes haul-out areas and near-shore waters for marine mammals
in a high-use staging and migration area for shorebirds and waterbirds.
Teshekpuk Lake Special Area.
And again,
this is one of the two Special Areas identified in - specifically in the Act.
The Teshekpuk Lake Special Area includes 3.65 million
acres in the northeastern corner of the NPR-A
Teshekpuk Lake provides important nesting, staging, and molting habitat
for a large number of ducks, geese, and swans.
Prime calving and insect relief habitat for the Teshekpuk
caribou herd, and overwintering habitat for fish.
The Special Area is of special importance
to subsistence users because of the caribou and fish resources
in the area and long-standing subsistence use of the area.
And lastly, The Utukok River Uplands Special Area
encompasses 7.1 million acres
in the southwestern corner of the NPR-A.
This Special Area includes prime calving and insect relief habitat
and the most intensely used summer movement area for the Western Arctic
caribou herd. In winter, this herd is within reach of subsistence
hunters from over 40 villages in northwest Alaska.
The current management of the Special Areas is set out in the current
Integrated Activity Plan and involves various layers of leasing protection
and infrastructure availability. In all Special Areas
infrastructure prohibitions do not apply to subsistence structures, single season
exploratory wells and infrastructure, and activities at existing gravel pads.
So, here's a
quick overview of the five Special Areas.
Teshekpuk Lake
Approximately 86% is closed to leasing.
New infrastructure is permitted, except around the lake.
Utukok River Uplands
91% is closed to leasing and new infrastructure is prohibited,
except the strip along the northern boundary.
The Colville River is open
to leasing and new infrastructure is permitted, except along the river
and only essential roads and pipeline crossings.
In Kasegaluk Lagoon
and Peard Bay are both closed to leasing.
New infrastructure is prohibited except essential pipeline crossings,
including for offshore development.
Thanks, Steve.
We will carry on with the text of the Rule.
We really appreciate that.
So, we wanted
to next talk about the Special Areas designation and amendment process.
The existing regulations anticipate that the Secretary may identify
new Special Areas, but they don't specify procedures
for designating and amending Special Areas.
The new - this is a new section in the regulation,
although it includes language from the previous section
that we've moved to this section to provide clarity for stakeholders
and ensure that the BLM is doing its best to the best of its ability,
fulfilling the statutory obligation to assure maximum protection
of Special Areas’ significant resource values.
The Proposed Rule would require that every five years
the BLM will evaluate new or existing Special Areas,
look at additional values and additional maximum protection measures
using best available scientific information,
which includes Indigenous knowledge, and also looking at the best
available information concerning subsistence uses and resources.
This process can happen
through the preparation or update of an Integrated Activity Plan,
or it can happen separately
with public participation and consultation in either approach.
The BLM can also
adopt interim measures to assure maximum protection of significant resource
values for lands under consideration for designation.
The five-year timeline that we are proposing for evaluation
reflects how rapidly conditions are changing across the Arctic
and is also the timeframe that the BLM uses for evaluating land
use plans across the country to check in on whether they need to be updated.
In addition, under the Proposed Rule, the public can recommend
Special Areas for evaluation by the BLM,
and the Proposed Rule reiterates that the BLM must adopt measures
to assure maximum protection of significant
resource values.
The Proposed Rule would provide that BLM can remove
Special Area designation from an area
when the significant values that supported the designation are no longer present.
For example, if important wildlife habitat
that supported the designation is no longer present.
This opportunity does not exist for lands in the
Teshekpuk Lake and Utukok River Uplands Special Areas.
These two Special Areas were identified in the Naval Petroleum Reserves
Production Act as Special Areas.
So, in the regulation we are identifying that they can only be removed by statute
because Congress already identified these as Special Areas.
For the other three areas and any other future areas
before removing them from the Special Area designation.
The Proposed Rule would require the BLM to provide the public with the opportunity
to review and comment on its proposed decision
and would require consultation with Federally Recognized Tribes
and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act corporations.
So, that's our overview of this section.
We're going to take a five-minute break to prepare for Q&A on the topics
of protection of surface
areas and designation and amendment of Special Areas in the Proposed Rule.
Please make sure you get your questions in through the Q&A tab
and we'll return shortly, Thanks.
All right.
Thanks.
We did have one question submitted at registration on this,
and then we'll get to any questions you all have submitted today.
So, I'll turn it over to Nada and Steve to share some responses.
Thank you.
Steve, do you want to ask the first one, then? Sure.
Yeah. Thank you, Meg.
Okay. Here's the first question.
With these changes, with these changes, will surface use and occupancy
be allowed in the Special Area, changing from not allowed.
So, no, the Proposed Rule
doesn't change the current management of the Special Areas.
Instead, the Proposed Rule would codify areas that are open
or closed oil and gas leasing, or
might have limitations, for example, on surface occupancy.
Those are all would be subject to the terms and conditions
in the 2022 Record of Decision for the Integrated Activity Plan.
Those are outlined in the maps that Steve went over
and that would be published with the Proposed
Rule, showing again the restrictions on leasing
and other stipulations such as no surface occupancies in Special Areas.
And it also includes showing limitations on new infrastructure, for example.
So, that would all be as
it is for now, unless changes are made down the road
in Special Areas, subject to the provisions in the regulation.
So, we can put the links to the maps again in the chat for the Zoom,
if that's helpful for folks.
Okay.
So Steve, we got another one in that I'm going to ask you.
When will the process to identify new Special Areas
and significant resource values begin?
So, the BLM will conduct a review
every five years after the Final Rule is issued,
which we are currently planning to release next spring. Under the Proposed Rule,
the public can also propose new areas or values in existing Special Areas
for consideration.
Looks like we just got another question,
so I'll just give you all a minute to look at the response there.
And I did just post the links to those two maps in the chat.
So, if you're looking for those, click on the chat button in Zoom
and you should see two links that you can either click on or copy
and paste into your browser to view those two maps.
Why don't I go ahead and read the question.
Okay. How will the five-year management plans
allow for adaptive management of existing projects?
Does the Proposed Rule impact existing oil and gas development projects
in this regard? Or, does this five year approach
only impact new development?
Thanks, Steve.
So, this five-year time frame we're talking about,
the review is really focused on existing and new Special Areas,
whether or not the existing Special Areas need to be changed,
whether the management needs to change, whether there are additional values
in those Special Areas, or whether there should be an entirely new
Special Area created. So, it does not exist -
the five-year time frame itself does not impact
ongoing projects.
However, if a new Special Area were to be designated or management of an
existing Special Area was changed as a result of the five-year review,
then that could affect future oil and gas activity within that Special Area.
Okay, so if those are all the comments,
then we can move on to the next topic, which is Management of Oil
and Gas Activities in Special Areas.
So, the Proposed Rule would be more specific
than the current regulations are regarding the mechanisms for assuring
maximum protection of significant resource values in Special Areas.
The current regulations paraphrase
the maximum protection requirement of the NPRPA
and provide examples of measures that the BLM could potentially take to assure
maximum protection like limiting types of aircraft that can be used.
The Proposed Rule would instead add a new section to establish standards
and procedures for achieving maximum protection of Special Areas’
significant resource values.
With the specific focus on addressing the impacts of oil and gas activities
of note, the section would affirmatively establish
that assuring maximum protection of significant resource
values is the management priority for Special Areas.
The Proposed Rule requires
that for management of oil and gas activities in Special Areas,
BLM must adopt maximum protection
areas for each significant resource value.
So, the rule doesn't define - the Proposed Rule doesn't define maximum protection.
Instead sets out how those measures would be defined and
developed for each resource.
It requires
that leasing and infrastructure management must conform to maps two and four
from the current Integrated Activity Plan,
which would be published along with the Final Rule,
unless the BLM makes revisions in accordance
with the regulations to amend the Special Areas.
Just to note,
there is a table in the Proposed Rule that summarizes the provisions in the maps
also.
The Proposed Rule, would also note
that there is a presumption against leasing and infrastructure on lands
allocated as available, unless there is specific information
clearly demonstrating that oil and gas activities
can be conducted with no or minimal adverse effects
on the significant values of the Special Area
except for valid existing rights, infrastructure for local communities
and subsistence, and drainage, which would be conducted using no surface
occupancy leases when there is a risk of drainage of Federal resources.
The Proposed Rule also includes, as an example of maximum protection,
conditioning, delaying action on, or denying proposals in whole or in part.
Finally, if
the BLM cannot avoid adverse effects, then the BLM must prepare
a statement of adverse effect documenting its decision,
which addresses the resource values affected,
how the resource values are affected, and the justification
for proceeding.
Again, the Proposed Rule would require leasing and infrastructure
to conform to maps two and four from that Integrated Activity Plan.
These maps are available in the IAP on our website in the links.
So next slide. This is map two,
and this map shows you the areas of the NPR-A,
including the Special Areas that are open and closed to oil and gas leasing.
The map reflects that approximately 11.8 million acres are open to leasing,
subject to the terms and conditions in the Integrated Activity Plan.
These show up as tan, and approximately 11 million acres are closed to leasing.
That's the purple.
This includes, as we've talked about,
most of the Teshekpuk Lake and Utukok River Uplands Special Areas.
The map also shows areas
that are open to leasing, but subject to no surface occupancy limitations,
which are shown in turquoise and areas that are outside the BLM subsurface
authority.
Those show in hatch marks.
Map four which is the next slide we have,
is also referenced in the regulation.
If we could go to that map
and that map is also available, again, on our website
in the Record of Decision for the 2022 Integrated Activity Plan
and is in the chat here., This map shows
the areas of the NPR-A that are available and unavailable for new infrastructure.
The map shows that new infrastructure is prohibited
on approximately 8.3 million acres.
It's limited to essential infrastructure on approximately 3.3 million acres
and permitted on approximately 10.8 million acres.
Now, going back to this limitation on infrastructure,
that's only quote unquote essential, which affects 3.3 million acres.
We are considering including, in the Final Rule a definition of that term.
It would be similar to the provisions in a lease
stipulation from the IAP, stipulation K-12
for those of you following along in your copy, and the definition would say
“essential” means that proposed infrastructure is necessary
for development and production on a valid existing onshore or offshore lease
and no other feasible and prudent option is available.
In the Proposed Rule we are requesting feedback on the approach
that we're taking here, as well as the definition.
Again, the restrictions that we've been talking about on maps two
and four would apply to new oil and gas leases and new oil and gas infrastructure,
and those are further detailed in the Integrated Activity Plan.
So, if we want to go to the next slide, we are seeking specifically
we've asked in the rule, Proposed Rule, feedback on this approach of codifying
the existing protections and restrictions from the 2022 Record of Decision
for the Integrated Activity Plan as it applies to the Special Areas.
We are looking to incorporate these maps in the Final Rule to be more efficient
in terms of including the land use allocations,
Restrictions, and stipulations that are already in place in
the Record of Decision without of reprinting all of that text.
We are specifically asking, does our approach accomplish
that goal? Do the maps convey enough information?
Should we be including additional definitions like essential infrastructure?
And if not, we're not accomplishing that goal
Are there are better ways we can accomplish
of codifying the kind of baseline
of current allocations, restrictions, and stipulations into the regulation?
So again, we're going to take another five-minute break to prepare for question
and answer on Management of Oil and Gas Activities in Special Areas
in the Proposed Rule.
All right.
A number of questions on this section related to Management
of Oil and Gas Activities in Special Areas.
I believe we're going to start with those that were pre-submitted
and then we'll get to as many of the ones that have just come in as we can.
And then finish out the presentation.
If we don't get to all of them now, we can circle back to the rest
after the presentation concludes.
So over to you, Nada and Steve.
Okay Steve, do you want to ask the first one? Yep.
Okay.
Can you speak to how the new Rule would affect
President Biden's proposed changes to petroleum extraction?
So, the proposed changes in this Rule
implement the direction in the Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act.
There is a separate effort underway,
a Proposed Rule that BLM has underway that addresses oil and gas
leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act,
but that is a separate process
and doesn't make substantive changes to the regulation or process
we're discussing today.
So Steve, next question.
The Proposed Rule leaves ongoing monitoring,
monitoring to project proponents.
How does the BLM oversee this?
This is part of the BLM’s
day to day oversight of oil and gas operations,
as well as our interaction with operators. For any required monitoring identified
in operation’s conditions of approval,
the monitoring reports are submitted to the BLM and reviewed by agency
specialists.
BLM Arctic District staff and partners conduct various
resource monitoring annually across the NPR-A, which will continue.
Okay.
The next question. Nada, this one is for you.
The Proposed Rule-
The Proposed Rule states in 2361.10 Part three: in assessing
effects of a decision concerning proposed activity in the Reserve,
the Bureau will identify and evaluate
any reasonably foreseeable effects of its decision, including effects
that are later in time or farther removed in distance, and effects
that result from the incremental effects of the proposed activities when added
to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions.
What are limits and definitions
for the later in time and farther removed in distance
that BLM is to consider?
So overall,
the language here is mirroring the approach to evaluating direct, indirect,
and cumulative effects that are set out in the National Environmental Policy Act
and related regulations, as well as BLM guidance.
In general, the specific time frame and distance, for example,
that the BLM evaluates would be based mainly
on the location and the type of activities that are proposed.
However, if you have suggestions on how we could be more specific,
we certainly appreciate your comments in this regard.
Okay.
Here's another question. Yeah.
So how is one supposed to plan for projects
with a section 2361.30,
Section five
In effect?
How will leaseholders and operators be notified or involved in the process?
What happens to any approved permits and projects when the authorized
officer makes that determination?
And just to reiterate,
that is the section that talks about with Special Areas,
if during the evaluation process the authorized officer determines
interim measures are required
to assure maximum protection of significant resource values,
then the authorized officer may implement such measures
during the period for which the lands are under consideration.
So first of all, an existing operation would remain subject
to the terms and conditions of the original authorization.
It would not be affected by these interim measures.
However, I think our intent is that
there would be disclosure and engagement with existing leaseholders and operators.
But we
would certainly appreciate proposals on how to address this concern.
Thanks for raising it, because it's definitely not set out
what the process would be right now.
Okay.
One more question for you, Steve.
Are reclamation plans required at the time
the oil or gas exploration permit is approved?
Also, what safeguards such as bonds, are required in the case
where an oil or gas developer goes bankrupt and abandons the project?
So, bonding for any development
project is a standard requirement on BLM lands,
and reclamation plans are generally included in plans of development,
although they are finalized at the time that operations are ending.
So, I know we have one more question here.
It's a long one,
so we're going to come back to that one at the end so we can get through the last
bit of this
section, if that works for everybody.
Let us address that.
So, two additional sections we wanted to highlight
is starting with Management of Subsistence Use in Special Areas.
The BLM recognizes the overriding importance of subsistence
resources to communities in and around the NPR-A.
There are over 40 communities that use the NPR-A
or the resources it supports for subsistence purposes.
All of these communities rely on subsistence resources.
Many of these resources, such as caribou, fish, and waterfowl,
are concentrated in the Special Areas in the Reserve.
So, the intent of this section is to ensure both protection
of these resources and access for subsistence activities.
The Proposed Rule would add a new section that would require the BLM to manage
Special Areas to protect and support fish and wildlife and their habitats
and the associated subsistence use of those areas by rural residents
as defined in the Department of the Interior subsistence management
regulations for public lands in Alaska,
and to provide appropriate access to and within
Special Areas for subsistence purposes, while still assuring
maximum protection of the significant resource values of the Areas.
The next new section we want to highlight,
next slide, please, relates to co-stewardship.
The Proposed Rule would add another new section
to encourage the BLM to explore co-stewardship
opportunities for Special Areas, including co-management,
collaborative and cooperative management, and Tribally-led stewardship.
This provision would advance the Federal Government's commitment
to strengthening the role of Tribal governments in federal land management,
which is emphasized in a presidential memorandum.
a secretarial order and BLM policy.
Okay, so we're going to take a minute here
and look at the questions we might have on these two sections,
and perhaps we can also answer the other outlier question
that we had from before.
Turn now to responses from the team
on questions related to subsistence
use in Special Areas and co-stewardship opportunities.
Okay.
I can ask the first question.
I'm an enrolled Tribal member of one of the affected villages.
Will the Bureau of Land Management give our affected communities
proper and adequate time to respond to this proposal?
Thanks.
So right now we have extended the comment period.
It now closes on November 17th.
After that time will be able to continue to consult
with affected Native villages and Alaska Native Corporations.
And we can also discuss comments received
during that time.
That’s all on that topic.
So, we just have a couple next steps to go over
and then we can take the remaining questions.
Okay.
I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to go over those Meg. Once again.
The comment period ends on November 17th.
We have additional information on how to comment on our website.
We have an NPR-A Rule page, so.
And then just a final
reminder on how to comment.
As mentioned previously, you can comment online using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at regulations.gov or via this direct link
which I posted in chat earlier, or by US
mail.
All right, so thanks everyone for all the good questions throughout.
And we do have a couple that came in earlier
that I think we are just now about ready to share responses on.
So, I’ll turn it back to Nada and Steve for those. Okay
Did you want to ask or answer the first one?
Lost track of where we are.
Oh, I can answer the first one.
Okay.
Section 2361.31
at least provides that at least once every five years
the Bureau must evaluate and determine whether to designate new Special Areas,
expand existing Special Areas,
recognize the presence of additional significant resource values
in existing Special Areas, or require additional measures to assure maximum
protection of significant resource values within existing Special Areas.
The question is, why isn't the de-designation process included
in this evaluation and determination, and why does the section that addresses
it not include a timeline for the de-designation process?
Okay.
So, Section 2361.30 includes
both the designation and amendment process for Special Areas.
The significant resource values in the Utukok River Uplands and Teshekpuk Lakes
Special Areas were identified by Congress for protection and the BLM cannot
remove lands from those Special Areas without new legislation.
Though, the boundary and management could be adjusted
based on changed circumstances or new information.
The Proposed Rule section 2361
30 (b) would allow the BLM
to remove lands from Special Area designation
only when the significant resource values are no longer present.
Before removing lands from a Special Area designation
the BLM must provide the public with the opportunity to review and comment
on its proposed decision and consult with federally
recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations.
The BLM must document and make publicly
available its consideration of comments on the de-designation process.
Regarding
this question, if
you believe that the de-designation process should follow a set timeline,
we would certainly appreciate comments on that concept.
And then I'll just go ahead and ask the next question.
2361.40(d)3
This section the Bureau may approve new permanent infrastructure
related to existing oil and gas leases only if such infrastructure is essential
for exploration or development activities and no practicable alternatives exist
which would have less adverse impact on significant
resource values of the Special Area,
but only if necessary to comport
with the terms of a valid existing lease.
What is the difference in the Bureau's definitions of permanent
and non-permanent infrastructure?
Make sure I'm off mute.
Permanent infrastructure is defined in the 2022 Record
of Decision for the Integrated Activity Plan on page A3.
It includes exploration and production
facilities, roads, airstrips, pads, other structures necessary
for oil and gas operations that would last for more than one winter season.
So, for example,
a nonpermanent road, ice road, for example, would not be permanent.
However, if again, for the commenter, if you think we should be more specific
in discussing this approach, we would appreciate your comments.
All right.
Alright, I think that does it for questions today.
Really appreciate all the thoughtful questions.
And thanks to the BLM team for responses.
So, I'll just turn it back to you, Nada.
If you want to say any closing remarks.
Sure, I think we have one last slide for that.
We appreciate your interest and your being here and your good questions,
which also give us good ideas on what might need to be clarified
as we assess comments and continue our work on this Rule.
We really appreciate this ongoing conversation with partners
and stakeholders and the public and we appreciate your interest.
And so, I think that's all we have today.
We look forward to your comments and appreciate your attendance today.
So can you take us out, Meg? And we'll be done. Thanks.
Thanks.
It looks like we did just get one more question in.
So, I don’t know if you want to take that now or.
Okay.
I think we'll just close that down and appreciate the questions.
Thanks. Okay.
All right. Thanks, everyone.
Really appreciate your attention and participation today.
And with that, we are adjourned.
Thanks so much.