Even after the submission of thousands of additional documents at the end of last year, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission still doesn’t have the information it needs to make any decisions about the AK LNG Project. That’s according to the state Historic Preservation Office.
In a January 13th letter to FERC, Alaska’s State Historic Preservation Officer Judith Bittner told regulators she had concerns with how the agency is handling, or not handling, its obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act. Specifically, Section 106 of the act, which requires the government to consider what the project could mean for historic properties and cultural sites. Bittner says this is more than just an opportunity for public comment.
“Section 106 is consultation, so you have to engage in conversation and kind of work out a common ground. If you’re dealing with properties that are eligible for the national register that are impacted by the project, and if there’s an adverse impact on it, then through consultation on it, you come up with mitigation.”
Given the proposed pipeline’s 800 mile path from the North Slope to Cook Inlet, there could be a lot of conversations to have. Bittner says that often includes government to government work with tribes. Identifying some sites is easy, particularly up north, because of work done decades ago on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
“There are some very important, significant archaeology sites that are known about. And pipeline and related construction, roads and construction camps and all that goes with a pipeline, are going to adversely affect it and are probably going to hit some of those archaeology sites.”
In the letter, Bittner says the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, the applicant in the case, is still conducting public meetings and community engagement, but it hasn’t yet been given the authority to work through the Section 106 process. And even if it is granted that authority, there’s not really enough time to complete it before FERC signs off on the application. That decision is expected in June, and Bittner says her office isn’t the only group with concerns about how quickly this is coming together, as it crosses an alphabet soup of properties, like the Bureau of Land Management, among others.
“Park Service is concerned because it’s going to be impacting a landmark site, and if there’s a landmark, Park Service is part of that consultation.”
And, she says, if any field work needs to be done, that’s a major consideration given the short work season in the Arctic.
“If they wait too late and they have an investor or they just want to start construction, all of the mitigation should have been completed before construction starts. So one of the issues with AK LNG and ASAP is the timing, in that the project proponents need to factor in the timing of going through the consultation, figuring out what the mitigation is and then giving time for the mitigation, particularly if it’s on the ground, if it’s excavation.”
Despite the apparent rush to complete an environmental review, the work it would allow for is unlikely to begin any time soon. The state continues to back away from more investment in the project, and it has yet to find support in the private sector or a market for the gas it hopes to produce.