**REPORT TITLE:** Definition of Alaska Petroleum Development Regions.

**STUDY TITLE:** Definition of Alaska Petroleum Development Regions
(TR-01).

CONTRACT NUMBER(S): BLM: CT6-61; MMS: 14-12-0001-29002

SPONSORING OCS REGION: Alaska.

APPLICABLE PLANNING AREA(S): Gulf of Alaska; Kodiak; Cook Inlet;
Shumagin; Aleutian Arc; North Aleutian Basin; St. George Basin; St.
Matthew Hall; Bowers Basin; Aleutian Basin; Navarin Basin; Norton Basin;
Hope Basin; Chukchi Sea; Beaufort Sea.

FISCAL YEAR(S) OF PROJECT FUNDING: 1976.

COMPLETION DATE OF REPORT: August 1978.

COST(S): FY 1976: \$275,945; CUMULATIVE PROJECT COST: \$275,945.

PROJECT MANAGER(S): R. Schmidt.

AFFILIATION: Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company.

ADDRESS: 601 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501.

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S)\*: J. Lindsay.

KEY WORDS: Gulf of Alaska; Kodiak; Cook Inlet; Shumagin; Aleutian Arc;
North Aleutian Basin; St. George Basin; St. Matthew Hall; Bowers Basin;
Aleutian Basin; Navarin Basin; Norton Basin; Hope Basin; Chukchi Sea;
Beaufort Sea; Alaska; socioeconomics; lease sale; exploratory drilling;
development; impacts; human population; scenarios; Alaska Region.

ACCESS NUMBER: 29002

**BACKGROUND:** The Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Socioeconomic
Studies Program (SESP) was designed to project socioeconomic changes
resulting from present and future oil and gas development in identified
OCS lease sale regions. Assessment of these changes requires collection
and evaluation of both newly acquired and currently available data
covering a broad range of topics and drawn from different areas of the
State. In order to better focus upon the immediate efforts of the
Program, it was necessary to define a single set of geographical areas
within which new data were to be collected and currently available data
were to be arranged for comparative purposes. The single consideration
was that the resulting set of spatial boundaries encompass causes and
socioeconomic effects of OCS‑induced change. Areas contained within
these spatial boundaries constituted \"Petroleum Development Regions.\"
In the absence of demarcation of such regions, this study was
implemented as a means of outlining how regions were defined,
summarizing the substance of the data compilation and comparisons, and
identifying the conclusions derived.

**OBJECTIVES:** (1) To define the Alaska OCS petroleum development
regions; and (2) To identify impact areas associated within, but not
adjacent to, the Beaufort Sea and North Gulf of Alaska lease sale
basins.

**DESCRIPTION:** The method used to define Petroleum Development Regions
utilized only readily available data and was based on an analysis of the
relationship of OCS development to existing social and economic systems.
The lack of thoroughly analyzed data early in the study constrained
subsequent discussions and necessitated the formulation of several
assumptions. The discussion began with a characterization of offshore
development and its anticipated onshore activities. The general
character of social and economic systems in Alaska, as well as the
manner in which existing data collection boundaries might represent
these systems, was also outlined. The discussion concluded with a brief
explanation of the regional analysis process and data used to define
individual Regions. In the final chapter, selected boundaries and major
characteristics (e.g., major hydrologic and topographic features,
population characteristics, patterns of community interaction, and
governance boundaries) have been presented for each Region.

**SIGNIFICANT CONCLUSIONS:** While the direct impact of petroleum
development activities may be contained within a 200-mile radius
onshore, the associated impact area may be larger, smaller, or different
than the direct impact area. Associated impacts may involve all or only
some of the socioeconomic system linkages among a given people. The most
logical set of boundaries around such linkages was found to be the
Alaska Native Regional Corporation boundaries, since they blend many
physiographic and cultural factors, and represent the product of a
considerable amount of socioeconomic research. Thus, where offshore
development is expected to affect one or more communities in an onshore
area, the appropriate Native Corporation regional boundary will define
an initial study area. Should communities of two or more adjacent
Regional Corporations be identified, the initial Petroleum Development
Region will be coterminous with all their boundaries. The petroleum
development regions proposed for use by the SESP were as follows: (1)
the Gulf of Alaska Macro‑Region, containing the North Gulf of Alaska
Region, the Lower Cook Inlet Region, and the Kodiak Region; (2) the
Beaufort Sea Region; (3) the Bering-Norton Region; (4) the Bering-St.
George Region; and (5) the Kodiak-Aleutian Region.

**STUDY RESULTS:** Each of the four stages of OCS development (i.e.,
exploration, development, production, and phase-out) has characteristics
that influence offshore and onshore activities. The exploration stage,
by definition, includes the pre-lease sale and post-lease sale
exploratory activities which seek to discover and assess the specific
location, quantity, recoverability, and perimeters of oil and gas
resource fields. This stage may require onshore support facilities to
assist in the transportation and housing of men and equipment associated
with offshore activities. It may also affect the offshore commercial,
recreational, or subsistence activities of nearby communities. The
development stage may require the acquisition of considerable onshore
land area, construction of support facilities, stockpiling of natural
resources, and development of labor resources. Inland communities,
unless situated on navigable rivers or bays, are not likely to be
directly affected by offshore support activities. The production stage
involves the production and transportation of oil and gas resources. It
may require long-term storage facilities to support offshore activities
and support services for workers and their families. It may also result
in employment opportunities for local communities as well as
considerable revenue for both regional and state governments. The
phase-out stage occurs when the mineral resource ceases to be
economically or technically recoverable. Depending on the various uses
to which onshore facilities and equipment may be put and arrangements
made between the petroleum industry and others for their use, phase-out
may or may not result in local economic and labor market declines. The
definition of a petroleum development region was based on socioeconomic
systems criteria implicit in the concept of \"direct\" or \"associated\"
impact areas. These two general types of onshore impact (direct and
associated) defined the Petroleum Development Region boundary. Direct
impacts result from the location of onshore support facilities or
resources in or near a community or site. Associated impacts are those
on a community, site, area, or population that result from a direct
impact on another community, site, area, or population. Identification
of associated impact areas occurs after the direct impact areas are
identified and after external socioeconomic linkages of directly
impacted areas are better understood. Linkages among various
socioeconomic systems will often transcend the boundary of the direct
impact area. While the direct impact of petroleum development activities
may be contained within a 200-mi radius of shore, the associated impact
area may be larger, smaller, or different than the direct impact area.
Associated impacts may involve all or only some of the socioeconomic
system linkages among a given people. The boundaries around such
linkages require consideration of several definitional criteria
simultaneously, (e.g., \"direct\" impacts; \"associated\" impacts;
location of OCS basins in relation to adjacent coastal communities and
important natural resources; geographic bounds of current or evolving
known socioeconomic and cultural linkages; established political or
related units; and current data collection and analysis units).
Boundaries resulting from such consideration are a compromise product
which also represent compromises based upon their perceived utility to
the SESP. Socioeconomic systems necessary for the maintenance of human
societies include those which provide food, protection from the
environment, social integration, and the perpetuation of society. Since
most of Alaska is occupied by groups of persons who are in the process
of social, economic, and cultural change, it was important to consider
both the \"traditional\" and the \"modern\" systems developed to carry
out the functions necessary for the survival of human groups. The
analysis of available data revealed that the most stable and uniform
data existing within Alaska was organized into three categories:
population and labor statistics; topographic and hydrologic features;
and governance. Analysis of the relationships among these three
categories revealed that governance boundaries most often subsumed the
boundaries based on the remaining categories. Similarly, regional
corporations have been taking on increasing significance as each becomes
more involved in such functions as land use planning, service delivery,
local village planning and technical assistance, and socioeconomic data
collection. The most logical set of boundaries in Alaska with which to
begin investigation was found to be the Alaska Native Regional
Corporation boundaries, since they blend many physiographic and cultural
factors and represent the product of a considerable amount of
socioeconomic research. However, the Regional Corporation boundaries
represent traditional socioeconomic systems. Boundaries do not
necessarily include shifts in culture, demography, and economy toward
more modern systems. To the extent that existing data and knowledge
allowed, the regional boundaries have already been adjusted to account
for perceived modern social systems and economies. Initial definition of
boundaries was premised on the argument that impacts would not exceed
these limits. However, as petroleum development scenarios provide a more
detailed picture of direct impacts and socioeconomic investigation
provides a more detailed picture of associated impacts, it was
anticipated that the boundary for much of the impact analysis will be
considerably smaller, in the main, than the initial boundary. For
example, it is conceivable that, in some remote localities, effects of
certain kinds of development will not intercept major socioeconomic
linkages. Thus, where offshore development is expected to affect one or
more communities in an onshore area, the appropriate Native Corporation
regional boundary will define an initial study area. Should communities
of two or more adjacent Regional Corporations be identified, the initial
petroleum development region will be coterminous with all their
boundaries. The resulting seven petroleum development regions have been
identified: (1) the Gulf of Alaska Macro-Region, containing the northern
Gulf of Alaska Region, the Lower Cook Inlet Region, and the Kodiak
Region; (2) the Beaufort Sea Region; (3) the Bering-Norton Region; (4)
the Bering-St. George Region; and (5) the Kodiak-Aleutian Region.

**STUDY PRODUCT(S):** Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company, URSA,
Crittenden, Cassetta, Cannon/Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc., and
Dames & Moore. 1978. Definition of Alaska Petroleum Development Regions.
A final report for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management Alaska OCS Office, Anchorage, AK. NTIS No. PB‑291915/AS.
Social and Economic Studies Program Technical Report No. 1. Contract No.
14-12-0001-29002. xii + 69 pp.

\*P.I.\'s affiliation may be different than that listed for Project
Manager(s).