BlogArcticRefuge
- Blog
- BlogArcticRefuge
- BlogBeaverRiver
- BlogDawsonRegion
- BlogMcIntytreCreek
- BlogPeelWatershed
- Campaigns
- Climate Change Campaigns
- Events
- Forest Campaigns
- FrontPageOurWorkSlider
- MDS
- News
- NewsArticles
- our stories
- Protecting our Wilderness
- Protecting our Wildlife
- Publications
- Uncategorized
- Wildlife Campaigns
Why RBC agreed with us on the Arctic Refuge
Why RBC agreed with us on the Arctic Refuge
Written by Malkolm Boothroyd, Campaigns Coordinator
Last December I stepped out of an elevator, and onto the fortieth floor of the Royal Bank Plaza. I’d never dreamed that the campaign to protect the Porcupine caribou herd would take me to the heart of Toronto’s financial district. Corporate campaigning was brand new to me, just as it was to the rest of our team: Cheryl Charlie and Liz Staples with the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, Geraldine Blake representing the Gwich’in Tribal Council and Chris Rider, CPAWS Yukon’s Executive Director.
We were here to convince Canada’s largest banks to withhold finance for oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge—but maybe this was all a hopeless endeavor. After all, could the few of us really sway banks with sixty storey tall buildings, and combined assets totaling five and a half trillion dollars?
Well, we did! A few weeks ago, the Royal Bank of Canada released a new policy, pledging never to fund drilling in the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd. It’s a huge success, and adds to the growing momentum behind the corporate campaign to protect the Arctic Refuge.
I think three factors were critical in RBC making the right decision. Firstly, Cheryl, Geraldine and Liz compellingly described the cultural and human rights implications of Arctic Refuge drilling. Oil development in the calving grounds would be immensely damaging to the Porcupine caribou herd, which in turn could bring serious impacts to the Gwich’in communities across the north that depend on caribou.
Secondly, the financial arguments for drilling in the Arctic Refuge are dubious. The oil industry across Alaska is in decline. The state produces less than a quarter of the oil it did thirty years ago, and oil majors like British Petroleum are pulling out of Alaska. There’s also tremendous uncertainty about how much oil lies beneath the calving grounds. The only test well ever drilled in the Refuge was reportedly dry, and seismic data is over thirty years old. Meanwhile oil prices are tanking and banks are losing tens of millions of dollars as oil companies default on loans.
Finally, the banking industry is under more scrutiny than ever for its involvement in fossil fuel projects. Banks have taken heavy criticism for funding the tar sands, fracking and the Dakota Access Pipeline. The financial industry is under increasing pressure to bolster efforts to tackle the climate crisis by moving money out of fossil fuels.
We outlined these issues in our meeting with RBC, and were encouraged by their attentive listening, notetaking and questions. We left feeling optimistic about the prospects of RBC agreeing to our request. Liz kept in touch with our contacts at RBC following the meeting, and kept them abreast of the latest developments. At the start of September we convened for a video conference with RBC, and learned that our efforts had convinced the bank. We had to keep a lid on the news until RBC published the policy, but we’re thrilled to share it now.
I’m sure RBC was also swayed by the growing list of banks that have acted on the Arctic Refuge. In recent months Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citi, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo have all pledged to withhold finance from Arctic Refuge drilling—after campaigning from the Gwich’in Steering Committee and Sierra Club. A dozen more banks overseas have released similar policies.
Thanks to these policies, the pool of finance available for Arctic Refuge drilling is quickly drying up. RBC’s announcement adds even more momentum to the campaign, and will hopefully spur the rest of Canada’s banks to act. There’s mounting opposition to drilling from all sides, and I’m sure oil companies are taking note.
If you haven’t already, please click here to send a letter to TD, BMO, CIBC and Sociabank, asking them to not to fund Arctic Refuge drilling. One more interesting note: CIBC has responded to these letters by saying “we do not currently, nor do we intend to finance any project or transaction that involves exploration or development related to oil and gas in the [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]. We recognize the unique importance of this refuge from both and (sic) environmental and social perspective.” This is promising, but isn’t a concrete policy. We’ll keep pressuring CIBC and the rest of the Canadian banks on the Arctic Refuge.
I’m hugely grateful to Liz Staples, Caribou Coordinator at VGFN. This campaign couldn’t have happened without her. We also received guidance from many other organizations, but particularly the Sierra Club. A shout out for their support.
Op-Ed: Why we’re taking the U.S. government to court over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Written by Malkolm Boothroyd | Aug 27, 2020
Photo by Ken Madsen, Porcupine caribou migration.
Our lawsuit argues the review of oil and gas development failed to value Indigenous rights and threats to wildlife, as Trump moves forward with lease sales in vital cross-border caribou habitat.
Read the full editorial as published in The Narwhal on August 27th, 2020.
—
Op-Ed: Why we’re taking the U.S. government to court over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Two years ago I sat in a windowless convention hall in Anchorage, Alaska, breathing stale air, waiting my turn to speak about the most vibrant place I’d ever visited, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. High-ranking officials from the U.S. Department of Interior sat at the front of the room, emotionless as speaker after speaker described the importance of the Arctic refuge — for caribou, birds, polar bears, and Indigenous communities across the North that depend on the Porcupine caribou herd.
The Interior Department had just begun its environmental review of oil and gas leasing on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic refuge. But even back then, the outcome seemed to have already been determined. The people in charge of the environmental review were closely tied to the oil industry, and the President of the United States had repeatedly claimed opening the Arctic refuge to drilling as one of his proudest accomplishments. All signs pointed towards a rushed and cursory review.
Last week the Interior Department released its Record of Decision, bringing its environmental review to a close. To nobody’s surprise, the department gave the go-ahead to the most aggressive scenario imaginable: one that would offer up the entire Coastal Plain to oil companies, and place the fewest restrictions on drilling. This week, we responded. Thirteen groups, CPAWS Yukon included, are taking the Department of Interior to court. The lawsuit is led by the Gwich’in Steering Committee, and will be argued by lawyers from Trustees for Alaska, a public interest environmental law group. Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defence Council have filed a second lawsuit.
Our lawsuit challenges the legality of Interior’s environmental review. For example, the environmental review gave little heed to the seven original purposes of the Arctic refuge, like protecting wildlife, wilderness and subsistence. Instead it shaped its environmental review to accommodate an oil and gas leasing program, an eighth purpose that was only added in 2017 when the U.S. Congress opened the refuge to drilling. We allege that the Department of Interior broke the law by disregarding the refuge’s original purposes and failing to safeguard those purposes through the design of its oil and gas leasing program.
We also contend that the Department of Interior broke the law by not adequately considering alternatives, failing to take a hard look at the consequences of drilling and not adequately addressing the threats to Gwich’in subsistence rights. In total, our lawsuit makes eight claims against the Department of Interior for transgressions in its environmental review and associated actions to authorize leasing in the Arctic refuge. If we prevail, we hope the courts will invalidate the Department of Interior’s environmental review, and any decisions that stem from it.
The Department of Interior could have modelled its environmental review after the Berger Commission. It could have taken the time to visit every Gwich’in community, and learn why oil and gas development in the Arctic refuge poses such a grave threat to the Gwich’in way of life. The Department of Interior could have listened to scientists and the public. It could have written an environmental impact statement that acknowledged the magnitude of damage that drilling would bring. But that didn’t suit the U.S. government’s agenda — since a review in good faith would have found that the dangers of drilling far, far outweighed the pros. Instead, the Department of Interior started with a conclusion in mind, and then wrote an environmental review to justify it.
The coming months will be pivotal for the Arctic refuge — with lawsuits, a potential lease sale and the U.S. election all looming. At the same time we’re working on a parallel strategy, pressuring Canadian banks to rule out financing for Arctic refuge drilling. Our allies in the United States are pressuring corporations there to do the same, and five of the six largest U.S. banks have agreed.
Autumn is spreading across the Arctic, and most of the caribou have departed from the Coastal Plain. I hope that by the time the caribou return next spring, the future of the Arctic refuge will be much more secure than it is today.
The U.S. Government wants to drill into the Arctic Refuge. We drilled into its environmental review.
The U.S. Government wants to drill into the Arctic Refuge. We drilled into its environmental review.
Written by Malkolm Boothroyd, Campaigns Coordinator
The U.S. Government is determined to auction the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge away to the oil industry — but must comply with its own environmental protection laws. For the past eighteen months the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has been racing to complete an environmental review, cutting corners, stifling science and limiting public involvement the whole way through. Late last week the Bureau released its Final Environmental Statement (Final EIS) on the impacts of drilling in the Arctic Refuge. There’s one huge question that remains. Is this legal?
The Final EIS concludes that Gwich’in communities would not experience significant adverse impacts to subsistence rights — a hugely troubling denial. The Bureau failed to comprehensively address the impacts of drilling in the Arctic Refuge on Gwich’in communities that depend on the Porcupine caribou herd, especially on communities within Canada. In a handful of sentences the Final EIS vaguely acknowledges some of the impacts that communities such as Old Crow could experience, but goes no further. The Bureau’s failure to properly address subsistence impacts to Gwich’in communities within Canada is unacceptable, especially considering the wealth of traditional knowledge and number of concerns raised by Gwich’in that were available for the agency’s consideration.
The Final EIS claims that “the likelihood of large-scale changes in caribou abundance, migration, or distribution are low.” The Bureau largely discounts the findings of a comprehensive study on the Porcupine caribou herd’s vulnerability to oil drilling that Canadian researchers completed this January. The study looked at the impacts of various drilling scenarios on the herd’s population. They found that under the Bureau’s preferred drilling scenario, the Porcupine caribou herd could decline by 17% or 18% over ten years, depending on the starting population size.
The Bureau chooses to dispute these findings. Instead the Final EIS concludes “while the [Porcupine] caribou population size would continue to fluctuate, but based on the hypothetical development scenario, potential impacts to herd size as a result of displacement of maternal caribou are still anticipated to be negligible. Potential impacts to herd size as a result of behavior, feeding, and body condition changes are not anticipated to impact population size.” This is an exceptional claim — that building a spiderweb of oil infrastructure in the heart of the Porcupine caribou herd’s calving grounds would have no impact on the herd’s population. The Bureau arrives at this conclusion without conducting any quantitative analysis of its own.
The Bureau of Land Management deserves some credit. After all they corrected their omission of the ‘L’ in gyrfalcon and peregrine falcon that appeared in their Draft EIS. Unfortunately, the Bureau failed to address the substantive problems with its environmental review.
The Final EIS affirms what has been clear all along, that the Bureau is brushing aside environmental laws in its reckless push to auction the Arctic Refuge to oil companies. But the U.S. Government doesn’t get to ignore its environmental laws. CPAWS Yukon and many other groups are now actively investigating ways to take the Bureau of Land Management to court over this Final Environmental Impact Statement.
What We Heard: Canadian Perspectives on Drilling in the Arctic Refuge
Header Image: Keywords pulled from hearing statements and letters of those opposed to drilling in the Arctic Refuge during the EIS process. Word size is based on the frequency that word was used. Designed by Braden Lamoureux, Photo by Malkolm Boothroyd
Written by: Braden Lamoureux, Conservation and Events Intern
Over 50% of the Porcupine caribou’s migratory habitat lies within Canadian borders. Yet their critical breeding grounds on the coastal plains lie within U.S. borders and are at risk of being drilled for oil and gas. And it’s not just the caribou. Hundreds of migrating bird species, polar bears looking for their winter dens, and Arctic foxes roam freely through their natural habitat ranges with no regard for human-made borders. Conserving these transboundary species involves cooperation and consultation between countries. So far, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been neglecting engagement with Canadians.
“Caribou don’t cross the border with passports, they just walk by the thousands.”
– Paul Davis, Whitehorse
Yukon and Vuntut Gwitchin citizens were both denied the opportunity to voice their concerns for the Arctic Refuge when they requested that the BLM hold hearings in Canada. Public hearings were held in eight U.S. locations during the commenting period of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), but none in Canada. The disturbing effects of drilling in the Arctic Refuge would primarily affect Yukoners, yet the Draft EIS fails to recognize and address many of the impacts this project will have on Canadians.
“The failure of your program [BLM] to consult in the Yukon is a shocking weakness. The Porcupine Caribou herd is Canada’s as much as it is Alaska’s. We have a stake and we should be better involved. “
– David Loeks, Whitehorse
Many powerful and personal stories from the Canadian side of the border were put on the public record during the scoping and EIS commenting periods of the project’s environmental assessment. Since the BLM isn’t doing such a good job of listening, I have compiled some of the key concerns with drilling in the Arctic Refuge. We could call it a mini ‘What We Heard Report’ from the Canadian perspective. It is important to hear these voices from those most affected by this issue to understand the critical subsistence value that comes from such a place like Izhik Gwats’an Gwandaii Goodlit — “the sacred place where life begins”. The Gwich’in name for the coastal plains.
The top 10 keywords that appeared most frequently in scoping and commenting responses opposed to drilling in the Arctic Refuge are: Life, Generations, Impact, Culture, Traditions, Environment, Food, Thousands, Subsistence, and Agreements.
A recurring theme that appeared over and over again was the tremendous value that is placed in the Porcupine caribou herd. Hunting caribou was described not only as a way of life, but the source of life itself. In northern Canada, equitable food access is a huge issue due to the challenge of growing or importing food to fly-in communities. One such example is the community of Old Crow, Yukon, where the weekly cost of groceries for a family of four is over $500. For the Gwich’in, the Porcupine caribou are their food security. If oil and gas drilling causes a decline in the caribou population, then the quality of affordable food, housing, and health benefits also dwindles with them.
Letters from Canadian environmental organizations and biologists highlighted the ecological importance of the coastal plains to migratory shore birds, marine fish, sensitive Arctic flora, and of course, breeding caribou. Canadian scientists that have been monitoring the Arctic Refuge for decades recognize its crucial role as an area of resilience…and quite literally a refuge for wildlife.
But even more powerful of a testimony, is the cultural importance that the caribou holds in Gwich’in and Northern Canadian identity. For thousands of years, the Gwich’in have harvested caribou responsibly from the land. This relationship is a history of intimacy and kinship, as Maureen Charlie from Old Crow said; ‘The herd’s hardship is a trait us Gwitchin value, the herd’s survival is as important to us as our own’. When the caribou suffer, so do the Gwich’in citizens that are still healing as a culture from colonization. Some suggested that drilling in the Arctic Refuge is a direct continuation of this cultural genocide.
Some of the comments reminded us of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) which was endorsed by the U.S. in 2010. This declaration sets an international standard that aboriginal people have the right to the conservation of their traditional medicinal plants, animals and minerals (Article 24), as well as the maintenance of their spiritual relationship to their traditional territories and resources for future generations (Article 25). Others are concerned for the loss of language, education, and traditional knowledge that is passed down through generations of oral history. The children and grandchildren of Gwich’in elders, who have been eating caribou since childhood, now face an uncertain future on the land if the caribou disappear. Just as we try to see every environmental and economic issue through the lens of climate change, the Gwich’in must also approach issues from this additional angle. The caribou are linked to many of the same topics – health, housing, economic growth, education, food security, jobs, culture, and more.
All of these things will surely depreciate with the health of the Porcupine caribou herd if drilling occurs in the Arctic Refuge.
Op-Ed: The return of the caribou
Written by Malkolm Boothroyd | July 18, 2019
Photo by Malkolm Boothroyd, Caribou Days celebrations in Old Crow, Yukon.
The community of Old Crow, Yukon, is ecstatic at the sight of the Porcupine caribou herd — one of the last large, healthy, migratory caribou herds on the planet. But these caribou are threatened by oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge.
Read the full editorial as published in The Narwhal on July 18th, 2019.
—
Op-Ed: The return of the caribou
A bull caribou walking through the fog on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Photo: Malkolm Boothroyd
“Caribou!” somebody shouts.
Dozens of people spring from their seats and hurry for the doors of Old Crow’s community hall, sweeping me along. The caribou stew I’d just ladled into my bowl sloshes dangerously around as I stumble out into the sunlight. The Porcupine River is swollen with snowmelt from the Richardson and Nahoni mountains. Chunks of ice wash downstream. Fifteen caribou struggle against the current, the ripples in their wake catching the sun.
After five minutes of swimming they reach the far bank. The caribou scramble out from the river and vanish into the spindly spruce trees. People are beaming. The caribou have finally returned.
Visits to Old Crow, Yukon, are the best part of my job campaigning against oil drilling in the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd with the Yukon chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. I’d come to the Gwich’in community in the Yukon’s northern corner for “Caribou Days.” Locals and visitors compete to fry the best bannock, skin a caribou leg the fastest or toss the most rings onto a set of antlers. In the evenings we feast on fresh caribou then jig and waltz to fiddle music.
Caribou Days is meant to celebrate the return of the herd, as caribou flood north toward their calving grounds in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Except lately, caribou have been hard to come by. People here have been starving for caribou meat.
Last spring was a poor time for caribou around Old Crow and during recent autumn migrations the herd hasn’t lingered around the community. Caribou are critical to the culture and subsistence way of life of the Vuntut Gwitchin and essential to food security in Old Crow, where a bag of apples can cost $17 and two litres of milk costs $9.99.
Nobody is certain why the caribou have been sparse of late. I’ve heard people suggest low-flying cargo planes are disturbing caribou, while others wonder if changes in the climate and increasing shrub growth could be factors. The scarcity of caribou around Old Crow is a paradox, because the herd is at a record high. However, the recent meat shortages the Vuntut Gwitchin have experienced foreshadow what could happen should the health of the Porcupine caribou herd take a turn for the worse, like many other caribou herds across the North.
In 2017, the U.S. government opened the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge — the heart of the herd’s calving grounds — to oil drilling. Now the administration is fast-tracking an environmental review that would auction away the birthplace of the herd to the fossil fuel industry.
For decades the Gwich’in have led the movement to protect the calving grounds — efforts that have ramped up since 2017. Lorraine Netro, Norma Kassi, Chief Dana Tizya-Tramm and countless other Gwich’in advocates have made journey after gruelling journey to Washington, D.C., to call for protecting the Arctic Refuge. In March, Chief Tizya-Tramm testified before the U.S. House of Representatives, telling lawmakers “development on the coastal plain amounts to the cultural genocide of the entire Gwich’in Nation.”
It’s in large part thanks to the work of the Gwich’in that the Arctic Refuge stayed off-limits to oil and gas for as long as it did. Once again, the Gwich’in and environmental groups are working to keep drilling out of the refuge by scrutinizing the U.S. Government’s environmental review process, building support for wilderness legislation on Capitol Hill and campaigning for banks to withhold financing for drilling.
The Porcupine caribou herd is one of the last large, healthy, migratory caribou herds on the planet. Farther east in the Arctic, the Bathurst and Baffin herds have declined 96 per cent and 98 per cent over the past 30 years. Collectively the two herds have lost close to 700,000 caribou.
The Fortymile caribou of the central Yukon and Alaska are a shadow of their former selves — once so plentiful the herd could take ten days to cross the Yukon River, bringing the steamships that plied back and forth to the Klondike goldfields to a halt. The fate of many caribou herds is reflected in the alarming loss of biodiversity around the planet. That makes the Porcupine caribou herd’s vitality all the more incredible, and protecting the herd even more critical.
The late-evening sun, still high above the horizon, gleams through one of the windows in the community centre and casts a square of dazzling light in the centre of the hall. Lorraine Netro lays out caribou antlers, a hide and spruce boughs on the hardwood floor. Many of the people filtering in are dressed in vests and mocassins made from caribou or moose hide and decorated with hand-beaded flowers. There’s a fashion show tonight, then a talent show and another dance.
The return of the caribou have lit up the weekend’s festivities and are a reminder of why the Porcupine caribou herd is so important to life in Old Crow. Still, it’s hard to forget the danger that lies ahead. Keeping oil drilling out of the Arctic Refuge calls for monumental efforts from the Gwich’in, and groups like ours that support them in this campaign. Securing permanent protection for the calving grounds could take years, maybe even decades. That’s a long time. But for tonight, it is time for more jigging and fiddle music.
A History of Collaboration and its Role in Protecting the Arctic Refuge
Header Image: Porcupine caribou, Peter Mather
Written by: Braden Lamoureux, Conservation and Events Intern
For over 30 years, efforts by the Gwich’in Steering Committee, conservation groups, and the public have been preventing the Arctic Refuge from drilling. This past March, hundreds of Aboriginal Peoples, Yukoners, and First Nation, Territorial and Federal Government came together and wrote comments to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd. Oil and gas extraction in the Arctic Refuge could have devastating impacts on the species and ecosystems within it. We are awaiting the release of the ‘Final Environmental Impact Statement’ (Final EIS) which the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is planning to deliver in August or September. It’s nearly impossible to address all of the issues raised in the scoping and commenting periods in such a short time. A hard look at the evidence should take many years of research and the BLM has time and time again cut corners.
Canada and the U.S. have worked in partnership to conserve key wilderness areas for over 70 years. Through legislation and agreements (old and new), the two countries have emphasized their partnership in the decision making process for conserved lands. We have hope that this partnership will play a large role in keeping oil and gas drilling out of the Arctic Refuge. Comments submitted by experts and lawyers highlighted how the Draft EIS fails to comply with current laws. If the Final EIS still falls short, it is inevitable that this issue will end up in court.
Here’s a summary of the legislation and agreements that we found particularly important:
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA)
NEPA is the cornerstone of environmental protection in the United States. NEPA states that any major federal project must include an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Since the project will have potentially significant impacts, this statement must make informed decisions from research and public involvement.
The Draft EIS to lease the Arctic Refuge falls short of multiple NEPA requirements such as considering long-term environmental effects, impact reduction efforts, project alternatives, and the livelihood of residents. Over one-million people voiced their support for protecting the Arctic Refuge in the commenting period of the Draft EIS this past December.
The Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA)
This act recognizes the importance of collaboration between the U.S. and Canada in evaluating the impacts of oil and gas development in Alaska. It also re-iterates the purpose for which the Arctic Refuge was created such as conservation of wildlife populations and habitat, fulfillment of treaty obligations for migratory wildlife, and the continuation of subsistence uses.
The Porcupine Caribou Herd Conservation Agreement of 1987 (PCHCA)
This agreement between Canada and the U.S. aims to ensure international cooperation and coordination on the conservation of the Porcupine Caribou herd and it’s transboundary habitat. It also enables users of the Porcupine Caribou herd to be involved in international conservation effort through initiatives like the Porcupine Caribou Management Board.
Multiple species protection acts
The Draft EIS does a poor job of addressing how it will comply with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, and National Wildlife Refuge mandates.
Inconsistencies with the Tax Act
The Draft EIS is unclear on how the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will administer and manage the oil and gas leasing program, how much actual land will be impacted in total, and how it will implement the components of oil and gas development across the landscape; such as roads and pipelines. The BLM gave short notice for public hearings that occurred in the U.S. and failed to provide public engagement opportunities for numerous regions across Canada as requested by the Vuntut Gwitchin, the Government of Yukon, and the Government of Northwest Territories.
A long history of Arctic Refuge protection
The U.S. and Canada created the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 1960 and they share a long history of collaboration on cross-border conservation priorities. Since the Yukon and Alaska are impacted by developments within each other’s respective territories, consultation is extremely critical as well as addressing the strong history of public support for protecting the Arctic refuge.
New U.S. Bill – Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act
On May 1, 2019 the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources approved a new bill presented by over 100 lawmakers that would prohibit the BLM from leasing to oil and gas extraction companies in the Arctic refuge. The bill is headed to the House of Representatives next, and if passed, will face a tough battle in the Senate.
Braden Lamoureux is an environmental science student from Halifax, NS and is joining CPAWS Yukon for the summer as the Conservation and Events Intern. Stay tuned for more updates on his research about the transboundary conservation issues in the Arctic Refuge. Click here to learn more about Braden
I read the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on drilling in the Arctic Refuge, so you don’t have to.
Header Image: Ken Madsen
Written by: Malkolm Boothroyd, Campaigns Coordinator
Just before the Christmas holidays began, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) on oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. While the rest of my family was decorating trees I was reading about pipelines and processing facilities on the fragile Arctic tundra. While my nieces and nephew put out goodies for reindeer, I was thinking about the Porcupine caribou herd — and how they would suffer if drilling was ever allowed in their calving grounds.
I’ve read (most of) the 756 page statement, so that you don’t have to. The U.S. Government is rushing to authorize oil and gas drilling, and it shows in the shoddiness of its environmental review. Now it’s time for everyone to comment on how terrible the Draft EIS is. CPAWS Yukon has made it easy — you can add your name to our open letter and send it to the Bureau of Land Management with a single click.
Our platform also makes it easy to personalize your letter. If you have time, I’d love for you to add some specifics about why the Draft EIS is so inadequate. As a pointer here are my five biggest problems with the Draft EIS.
- The Draft EIS doesn’t acknowledge Gwich’in communities within Canada when determining which communities would be “appreciably affected” by changes to Porcupine caribou populations or movements. The U.S. Government needs to comprehensively evaluate the social, cultural and health impacts on all Gwich’in communities that rely on the Porcupine caribou herd.
- The Draft EIS downplays how important the Arctic Refuge is for the Porcupine caribou herd, and doesn’t properly address the importance of the Coastal Plain for caribou after they calve. The Draft EIS states that the Porcupine caribou herd would not experience major impacts from drilling, but provides almost no evidence to back up this claim. The Draft EIS fails to provide a quantitative analysis of what could happen to the herd if drilling occurs. Tell the U.S. Government that 100% of the Coastal Plain is critical calving and post-calving habitat for the Porcupine caribou. The U.S. Government must undertake a robust, cautionary and evidence-based approach to studying the impacts of drilling on the Porcupine caribou herd.
- The Porcupine caribou herd is critical for ecosystems, communities and economies across northern Canada. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge could have serious transboundary (cross-border) impacts on Canada. The Draft EIS fails to consider transboundary impacts of oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Refuge. The term ‘transboundary’ doesn’t even show up. Canadians need to tell the U.S. Government to comprehensively evaluate the transboundary impacts of drilling in the Arctic Refuge.
- The Draft EIS fails to adequately address cumulative impacts. The cumulative effects assessment on the Porcupine caribou herd is a mere five sentences long, while the polar bear assessment devotes a single sentence to climate change. Tell the U.S. Government that such superficial assessments of cumulative impacts are unacceptable.
- The scenarios offered by the Draft EIS are development, development, or development. Each scenario offered by the U.S. Government opens more of the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas leasing than the minimum required under the tax bill that originally opened the Refuge to drilling. Two scenarios open virtually the entirety of the Coastal Plain to leasing, while the third scenario offers over 1 million acres. The Arctic Refuge is too important for oil drilling, anywhere.
It’s critical that Canadians tell the U.S. Government just how flawed the Draft EIS is. Putting our concerns on the public record will help hold the U.S. accountable to its environmental laws.
Take action here: https://action.cpaws.org/page/35106/action/1
P.S. once you write your comment, you get to see a gallery of adorable baby Arctic animals called “Puffy and Fluffy”
To learn about the Porcupine caribou herd and their journey, click here.
Encouraged in Anchorage
Header Image: Anonymous Security Guard
Written by: Malkolm Boothroyd, Campaigns Coordinator
The US Government must of worked really hard to find such an unappealing photo of the Arctic Refuge. #savethegravel
The fingerprints of the fossil fuel industry cover Anchorage, Alaska. BP logos decorate the airport and Exxon Mobil’s name is carved on the plaques beside commemorative trees. The city’s convention centre sits in the shadow of the ConocoPhillips skyscraper. That’s why I was shocked that nobody from any of the oil companies showed up to the convention centre to testify in favour of oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the heart of the Porcupine caribou herd’s calving grounds.
Indigenous leaders and environmental campaigners have so successfully illustrated the importance of the Arctic Refuge for human rights and the Porcupine caribou, that some of the most powerful oil companies are wary of associating themselves with the issue. Instead contractors and industry lobbyist groups spoke in their place, reiterating talking points of “responsible oil and gas development,” “world class industrial safety” and “I’m a third-generation Alaskan” with such predictability that I wished I’d drawn up bingo cards. Still, we outnumbered the oil and gas advocates almost two-to-one at the hearing.
Indigenous people travelled from as far away as Kaktovik, St. Paul Island and Old Crow to speak for Indigenous rights and protection of the Arctic Refuge. Chris Rider and I made the trip from Whitehorse, to urge the US Government to include transboundary issues be included in the scope of the review. (Add your voice here, it will be super helpful!) Chris spoke about the vulnerability of caribou to industrial development in their calving grounds. I described childhood experiences travelling in the Refuge, and about how caribou, bears, whales and migratory birds do not recognize the Alaska-Canada border.
I left Anchorage empowered. Hearing the powerful words of so many Indigenous leaders, and meeting with the Alaska Wilderness League, The Wilderness Society, Trustees for Alaska and Earthjustice reminded me about how strong our movement is. If I was an oil company I’d be worried too.
It’s time to speak out about drilling in the arctic refuge
Late last year U.S. Congress passed legislation to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. It was hugely disappointing news. Any industrial development could have devastating impacts on the health of the Porcupine caribou herd, who migrate to the Arctic Refuge every year to calve.
Want to have your voice heard, but don’t know how? This is your chance. A public consultation period is about to open through the United States Department of the Interior. Since this is a transboundary issue both Americans and Canadians can submit comments.
This going to be a rare and powerful opportunity for Yukoners and Canadians to speak directly to the American government. Stay tuned to our website, Facebook and Twitter, as we’ll be providing a simple way to submit comments as soon as the consultation period begins, which should happen sometime in March.
CPAWS Yukon is stepping up our focus to protect the Porcupine caribou herd. This work is in partnership with American environmental organizations like The Wilderness Society and the Alaska Wilderness League, and Gwich’in nations, both in the U.S. and Canada, who have been fighting to keep industry out of the Arctic Refuge for decades.
We spoke to Mike Anderson from The Wilderness Society about the upcoming consultation period, how it will work and why it’s so important for Canadians to participate.
Mike has been with The Wilderness Society since 1985. His main focus is national forest management and policy. He also helps coordinate all of the society’s litigation activities. In his own words: “This will be our first truly “transboundary” case, so we’re thrilled to be working in partnership with CPAWS Yukon to protect the Refuge and the caribou.”
CPAWS Yukon: In December, U.S. Congress passed legislation to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. How close are they to actually opening up the refuge?
Mike: The Trump Administration’s Department of the Interior wants to begin selling oil and gas drilling leases in the Arctic Refuge as soon as next year. This assumes they will be able to complete all of the necessary environmental analysis and public involvement within approximately one year, which is a much faster timeline than normal.
CPAWS Yukon: Through a requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act, the U.S. government has to develop an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in order to sell leases for oil and gas development. What does this process involve, and what sort of impact could it have on whether or not drilling occurs in the Arctic Refuge?
Mike: The first major step in developing an EIS is called “scoping,” in which the Interior Department requests public comment on the issues that should be addressed in the EIS. The second step is the preparation of a draft EIS, which will analyze the environmental effects of the proposed oil and gas leasing and examine a range of alternatives to the proposal. The public will have an opportunity to comment on the draft EIS. The third and final step will be to modify the draft EIS based on public comments and complete a final EIS and issue a Record of Decision.
If the Interior Department’s EIS does not complete a legally adequate analysis of environmental effects and alternatives, the drilling program might be delayed through litigation in U.S. courts. For example, a successful lawsuit filed by the government of Manitoba against the U.S. Interior Department over a water development project near its southern border has resulted in a 12-year delay in the project.
CPAWS Yukon: Canadians will have a chance to submit their comments through the scoping period, which is set to open very soon. What exactly is this scoping period, and why is it so important?
Mike: The scoping period allows the public to comment on the issues that the Interior Department should consider in the EIS, such as what impact the oil leasing and drilling would have on the Porcupine caribou, migratory birds, and other wildlife. The scoping period sets the stage for the remainder of the EIS and decision-making process, indicating what issues are of greatest concern to the public and need to be carefully examined in the EIS.
CPAWS Yukon: What will the process look like for Canadians to submit their comments?
Mike: Canadians will be able to send scoping comments to the Interior Department as members of the public, just like people in the United States. Once the scoping process begins, the Department will provide email and mailing addresses to which the public can send their comments. The scoping comment period is likely to last for 60 days.
CPAWS Yukon: This is a transboundary issue. Yukoners and Canadians are incredibly concerned about potential drilling because the Arctic Refuge is where the Porcupine caribou calve every year. Any development in this sensitive ecosystem could have a devastating impact on the health of the herd. Do our voices matter in this consultation process? How can our submissions make a difference?
Mike: The National Environmental Policy Act requires the Interior Department to consider “transboundary effects” that have been identified during the scoping process. The threat that oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge poses to the migratory Porcupine caribou herd in Canada is a perfect example of transboundary effects.
Concerned Canadian citizens and their elected representatives, including First Nations, are best qualified to point out the transboundary effects and insist that they be addressed in the EIS. Scoping comments should also discuss the harmful impacts of oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge to the cultural and economic well-being of the Gwich’in who rely upon the Porcupine caribou.
CPAWS Yukon: What happens after the scoping period closes?
Mike: The Interior Department will prepare a draft EIS on the proposed oil and gas leasing and release it for public comment. That will be a second important opportunity for Canadians to express their views on the importance of protecting the Porcupine caribou from oil drilling, as well as other transboundary issues. The Interior Department may also undertake other pre-leasing activities, such as seismic exploration, for which there could be additional public involvement.
Top photo: The Porcupine caribou herd in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (photo by Peter Mather)
Bottom photo: Mike Anderson of The Wilderness Society (photo provided)