External threats

Communication breakdown over drilling near Lechuguilla Cave

ast summer, Yates Energy Corporation drilled an explorative well on federal land just north of Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico. The location was in a canyon tucked out of sight from all but a few backcountry park visitors. The operator failed to find indications of petroleum, plugged the well, and quietly moved along. So, why did this seemingly innocuous act culminate five years of environmental and technical scrutiny, a strange mix of industry posturing and partnership, intense public involvement, a new federal law, and a lawsuit?

The controversy centered around drilling oil and gas wells into the same karst system that houses the Lechuguilla Cave, a world-renowned cave with exceptional formations unknown anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. To many, the proposal seemed to trivialize the very resources Carlsbad Caverns was created to preserve. Concerns focused on the operator's inability to ensure that drilling fluids, brine, hydrocarbons, or poisonous gases would not contaminate the cave-forming strata.

The National Park Service had no permitting authority for the well, but cooperated with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to develop the Dark Canyon Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Three years in the making, the EIS exemplified cooperation among government agencies, the environmental community, and the oil and gas industry. The record of decision was touted as one based on sound science. It established a no drilling "cave protection zone" and set strict drilling and production criteria aimed at cave protection where drilling would be permitted. Additionally, strong public involvement moved Congress to pass the Lechuguilla Cave Protection Act of 1993. The law withdraws lands in the cave protection zone from future mineral leasing and prohibits new drilling on existing leases. Lechuguilla was safe . . . or so it seemed.

After the law was passed, Yates Energy Corporation promptly sued the Bureau of Land Management claiming the cave protection zone and drilling restrictions amounted to a takings of their minerals, but the case never got to court. The bureau, independent of the National Park Service, agreed to settle. Settlement terms allowed drilling the well just outside the protection zone under standard lease terms. The special cave protection measures developed in the Dark Canyon EIS seemed to have been lost in the shuffle. The National Park Service again drew on its cave resource management and oil and gas expertise, and urged the strictest "standard" drilling stipulations to be reinstituted as cave protection measures. Though less restrictive than the EIS requirements, the measures provided the bulk of the intended EIS protections.

We did not expect that a breakdown in communication would occur so near the end of a project that was showcased for its collaborative efforts. Since BLM personnel were advised not to discuss the suit with outside parties, it may have been better if the National Park Service had been named in the lawsuit. Interagency cooperation would likely have been maintained, removing the need for last minute solutions.

When resources are threatened by activities outside a park, and even thousands of feet underground, effective communication with neighbors and supporters is paramount. In many instances, we will have to invite ourselves in the door.

Other articles in the "Threats" chapter:

Threats and information

Demographics and resource preservation

Lake trout threaten native Yellowstone cutthroat

The perennial push of exotic plants

Historic water rights settlement averts threats at Zion

Return to Front Page

This material is from Natural Resource Year in Review--1996, published by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, in May 1997 (publication D-1182) http://www2./YearInReview/yir/yr_rvw96/chapter1/comm_brk.htm
Last update:8/20/2002