New oil and gas drilling paused on federal land in SLO County. Here’s why

New oil and gas leasing on federal land in San Luis Obispo County and other parts of California is paused while the U.S. Bureau of Land Management re-evaluates the environmental impacts of such activities.

The BLM is required to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement for the proposed new oil and gas drilling leases after it reached a settlement agreement on July 31 with the California Department of Justice and several environmental organizations.

The settlement agreement arose out of a lawsuit filed by the state and environmental organizations after the BLM found in 2019 that its proposed oil and gas drilling leases for its Bakersfield field office area could go forward. That office’s jurisdiction encompasses areas of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Kern, Kings, Ventura, Tulare, Fresno and Madera counties.

The office proposed opening about 400,000 acres of public lands and 1.2 million acres of federal mineral estate to oil and gas leasing.

Areas that were proposed to be opened to oil and gas drilling in San Luis Obispo County include within Hearst Ranch, Montaña de Oro State Park, above Reservoir Canyon in San Luis Obispo, above Whale Rock Reservoir and around Santa Margarita Lake, Lopez Lake and Lake Nacimiento. The oil and gas drilling activities could include fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, which cracks open rocks with water and chemicals to extract oil or gas.

Based on the further environmental analysis required under the settlement agreement, the BLM may amend its management plan that governs where and how oil and gas drilling can occur.

The BLM declined to comment regarding the settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement only pauses the oil and gas leasing activities outlined by the BLM in its management plan. Other leasing activities including mining, cattle grazing and recreation opportunities can continue.

State, environmental groups say settlement is necessary climate action

Environmental groups and California released statements on Aug. 1 celebrating the settlement.

“These agreements require federal officials to disclose the harm that fracking does to the air, water and communities of Central California,” said Liz Jones, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “For decades this region’s people and wildlife have been paying the price of filthy fossil fuel extraction. That has to end, and we’ll do everything possible to make sure these pauses become permanent bans.”

The groups also indicated their hope that the further environmental analysis could result in a management plan for the Bakersfield field office area with more stringent standards to protect the environment and public health.

And the lawsuit and settlement is consistent with Newsom administration efforts to move California away from fossil fuel extraction. The governor last year directed state agencies to ban fracking by 2024 and completely phase out oil drilling by 2045.

“Fracking is dangerous for our communities, damaging to our environment, and out of step with California’s climate goals,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who also commented on behalf of Gov. Newsom, the California Air Resources Board, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Department of Water Resources. “The Trump Administration recklessly opened Central California up to new oil and gas drilling without considering how fracking can hurt communities by causing polluted groundwater, toxic air emissions, minor earthquakes, climate impacts, and more. In keeping with the Bureau of Land Management’s mission to preserve the health of our public lands, it must reassess this Trump-Era mistake.”

Will BLM find different conclusion from previous environmental reviews?

This is the second time the BLM has been required under a settlement agreement to re-evaluate the environmental impacts of its proposed oil and gas leasing.

In 2014, the BLM first approved a massive resource management plan for its Bakersfield field office, which outlined how the agency planned to lease and operate the land and mineral estate under its jurisdiction. That plan indicated the availability of the 400,000 acres of public lands and 1.2 million acres of federal mineral estate to oil and gas leasing.

The Center for Biological Diversity and Los Padres ForestWatch filed a lawsuit in federal court in 2015 disputing the environmental review for that 2014 plan and alleged it violated the National Environmental Policy Act.

The court in 2016 then issued a summary judgment in that case, finding the environmental review at the time failed to take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts of fracking, according to court documents. So, the BLM was required to conduct a supplemental environmental impact statement.

That supplemental environmental impact statement, released in 2019, overall found that the BLM’s originally proposed oil and gas leasing could move forward, which the California Department of Justice and environmental groups disputed in their lawsuit filed in January 2020.

The settlement agreement requiring the BLM to re-evaluate the environmental impacts of its proposed oil and gas leasing was reached on July 31, and the lawsuit dismissed on Aug. 1.

“Fracking on California’s public lands in the midst of our climate crisis and drought was always a pretty dubious idea and was straight-up unacceptable without proper environmental review,” said Ann Alexander, a senior attorney with Natural Resources Defense Council, in a statement on Aug. 1. “It’s crucial that the BLM takes the time to evaluate what opening up these lands to drilling would look like for local communities, who already live with crippling water shortages and some of the worst air in the country.”

Jeff Kuyper, executive director of the Los Padres ForestWatch, said he’s hopeful the BLM this time will “perform a more thorough analysis” that relies on “the best science and listens to the thousands of Central Coast residents who want to see their neighborhoods, schools and open spaces protected from oil development and fracking.”

“That would be consistent with President Biden’s pledge to end federal fossil fuel leasing on public lands, and would underscore the urgency of the climate crisis we are currently facing,” he told The Tribune. “Two separate judges have faulted the environmental analysis of more drilling and fracking on public lands, so maybe the third time will be the charm. If not, we’ll see them back in court to protect our communities and our climate.”