Investigative Report of Management Interference With Lease 193 EIS

OIG investigated allegations of potential scientific integrity misconduct after receiving a complaint about the manipulation of scientific analysis and findings by a non-scientist manager for political purposes regarding the preparation of the second supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), drafted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), for Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193. We also investigated allegations that upper-level management established a timeline for completing the SEIS that ultimately compromised its quality, and that management established this timeline to benefit the oil and gas industry. 

 

In 2007, the Minerals Management Service (currently known as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)) issued a final environmental impact statement (EIS) that examined a proposal for oil and gas leasing in the Chukchi Sea along the northwestern coast of Alaska. In February 2008, MMS held Chukchi Sea Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 (Lease Sale 193), generating $2.6 billion in high bids for 487 leases. The EIS supporting the decision to hold Lease Sale 193 had been the subject of several rounds of litigation, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska remanded the EIS to BOEM several times to prepare an SEIS.

 

On June 20, 2014, BOEM published in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent to prepare a second SEIS. BOEM released its draft SEIS for public comment on October 31, 2014, and the final SEIS on February 12, 2015. On March 31, 2015, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) issued a Record of Decision affirming Lease Sale 193.

 

During our investigation, we compared the final SEIS with several draft versions. We determined that non-scientist managers edited the draft SEIS but did not change the scientific analysis or findings. We also found that upper management did establish an expedited timeline for completing the SEIS, but DOI Chief of Staff Tommy Beaudreau, who established the timeline, informed us he did not do so to benefit industry. During our investigation, several current and former BOEM employees told us that the expedited timeline resulted in departures or retirements of agency employees.