Proposed Land Exchange Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 1. Abstract, Executive Summary, and Chapters 1 through 5
Dates
Year
2010
Citation
2010, Proposed Land Exchange Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge Final Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 1. Abstract, Executive Summary, and Chapters 1 through 5: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Anchorage, Alaska, v. DOI FES 09-36.
Summary
PURPOSE: The exchange of lands between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Doyon, Limited is proposed to enhance the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge of Alaska. Doyon is the largest private landowner in the refuge and an Alaska Native regional corporation that has been interested in acquiring federal oil and gas interests since the refuge was established in 1980. Under the terms of an agreement in principle between the FWS and Doyon, the U.S. government would receive fee title to lease 150,000 acres of Doyon lands, including both surface and subsurface rights, with priority fish and wildlife habitats that can be incorporated into the refuge. Doyon would receive fee title to 110,000 acres of refuge lands, including both [...]
Summary
PURPOSE: The exchange of lands between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Doyon, Limited is proposed to enhance the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge of Alaska. Doyon is the largest private landowner in the refuge and an Alaska Native regional corporation that has been interested in acquiring federal oil and gas interests since the refuge was established in 1980. Under the terms of an agreement in principle between the FWS and Doyon, the U.S. government would receive fee title to lease 150,000 acres of Doyon lands, including both surface and subsurface rights, with priority fish and wildlife habitats that can be incorporated into the refuge. Doyon would receive fee title to 110,000 acres of refuge lands, including both surface and subsurface rights, and oil and gas rights over 97,000 acres of subsurface adjacent to the transferred fee title lands. Doyon would reallocate most of its remaining entitlement of 56,500 under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to areas outside the refuge. If Doyon produces oil and/or gas on the lands acquired from the FWS, Doyon would be obliged to pay the federal government a perpetual production payment of 1.25 percent of the resource value at the wellhead. These payments would increase to 1.5 percent if a transportation corridor were constructed across refuge lands. These funds could be used by the FWS to acquire additional lands within national wildlife refuges in Alaska and/or to construct needed refuge facilities. If the wells began production, Doyon would sell to the federal government an additional 120,000 acres of lands, including surface and subsurface rights, within refuge boundaries. If rights-of-way were granted across the refuge, Doyon would convey to the FWS 640 acres of land for every linear mile of pipeline crossing the FWS lands. Both parties would exchange additional land to consolidate ownerships and facilitate land management. This consolidation exchange would be on an equal-value basis and would include 132,000 acres on the part of each party. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a land exchange alternative with non-development easements, a land exchange alternative excluding the White-Crazy Mountains, and a No Land Exchange alternative. Under the No Land Exchange alternative, which is the preferred alternative, lands within the refuge would continue to be managed as they currently are and there would be no oil or gas development on the lands proposed for exchange. However, exploration and production could still occur on Doyon-owned lands within the refuge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The exchange would increase the total extent of public lands managed in accordance with refuge purposes and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission; add priority wildlife habitat to the refuge, and consolidate landownership patterns in the refuge. Oil and gas developments would create a significant number of jobs and otherwise boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development following the exchange would begin with seismic surveys and exploratory drilling and oil field development would follow if economically viable. Seismic survey lines and roads accessing drill sites would destroy wildlife habitat. Drilling would destroy vegetation and damage wildlife habitat. Oil and gas development would alter the hydrological landscape of Yukon Flats, degrade air quality, increase greenhouse gas emissions, displace soil, increase consumption of water in the area, exacerbate soil erosion and sedimentation of receiving waters, further degrade water quality in the event of oil spills, alter drainage patterns, displace or degrade wetlands and floodplains, damage fish habitat, increase the spread of invasive plant species, and degrade wilderness values. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (P.L. 94-233). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0059D, Volume 32 Number 1. EPA number: 100062, Summary--66 pages, Volume 1--610 pages, Volume 2--591 pages, March 1, 2010
