Alpine Satellite Development Plan 

Contents 

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

1. Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

2. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

3. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 15 

4. ANILCA Section 810 Summary. . . . . . . . . . 29 

5. Mitigation and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 33 

6. Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 

Appendix A: Modifications and Clarifications . . . . . . 37 

2 Oct. 1, 2004 draft 
Record of Decision

Summary 

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents the Department of the Interior’s decision to 

approve rights-of-way and permits to drill on public lands in response to an application by 

ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. (CPAI). These authorizations will be issued by the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) following completion of the state’s coastal zone consistency 

review and receipt of a certification to that effect from CPAI. The authorizations will 

allow development of federal oil leases on BLM-managed land in the National Petroleum

Reserve-Alaska. These authorizations will adopt the Preferred Alternative, with minor 

modifications (see Appendix A), in the Alpine Satellite Development Plan (ASDP) Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 

The ASDP Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzed CPAI’s proposal to develop 

oil accumulations from five drill pads, two of which are on BLM-managed lands. The 

decisions in this ROD are limited to federal lands. Authorizations for development on 

non-federal lands will be issued by the U.S. Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Coast 

Guard (USCG), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the State of Alaska. 

The decision for BLM-managed land in this ROD is consistent with the ASDP EIS 

Preferred Alternative that will form the basis for decisions by the cooperating agencies, 

including decisions regarding development on non-federal lands. 

The ASDP EIS fulfills the obligation of BLM and its federal cooperating agencies under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321, to analyze the 

environmental impacts of federal authorizations necessary for CPAI to undertake its 

proposed development. Furthermore, authorizing CPAI’s development helps address the 

nation’s energy needs. North Slope oil production, centered at Prudhoe Bay, is central to 

the nation's domestic oil supply. The North Slope contributes about 16 percent of 

America's current domestic production. The oil industry has discovered and developed 

other fields to the east and west of Prudhoe. However, production is in decline from these 

older fields and development of CPAI’s project will help offset this decline. Moreover, the 

authorization of development of leases in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska satisfies 

the purpose of the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 (NPRPA) to explore 

and develop oil and gas resources in the Petroleum Reserve. Specifically, the NPRPA, as 

amended, encourages oil and gas leasing in the Reserve while requiring protection of 

important surface resources and uses. Development of the satellite oil accumulations with 

appropriate environmental protection measures is consistent with the president’s directive 

to his National Energy Policy Development Group to “promote dependable, affordable and 

environmentally sound production of energy for the future” (National Energy Policy 

Development Group 2001). Furthermore, President Bush issued Executive Order 13212 

on May 18, 2001, calling on federal agencies to give priority to energy-related projects: 

“For energy-related projects, agencies shall expedite their review of permits or take other 

actions as necessary to accelerate the completion of such projects, while maintaining 

safety, public health, and environmental protections.” Completion of the ASDP EIS and 

issuance of this ROD fulfills agency responsibilities under this directive. 

1
Alpine Satellite Development Plan

The ASDP FEIS analyzed a full range of alternatives. They include: 

• CPAI’s proposed project, 

• a Preferred Alternative, 

• three other alternatives (two with subalternatives) that would achieve development 

of the oil accumulations targeted by CPAI using different methods and creating 

different footprints and impacts on the land, and 

• a “No Action Alternative.” 

Each action alternative offered a different approach to development while protecting 

surface resources from “unnecessary and undue degradation,” as required by the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). 

The decision emphasizes environmentally responsible development. The decision includes 

protections for physical and biological resources, including subsistence resources, and 

local residents’ ability to continue their subsistence way of life. At the same time, the 

decision enables leaseholders to develop the oil resources they discovered on federal lease 

tracts and deliver that product to serve America’s energy needs. 

The findings in the EIS and the decisions reflected in this ROD were based on an open and 

collaborative planning and environmental analysis process. While the information on 

some aspects of the environment was limited, all available information related to surface 

and subsurface resources and impacts was presented in the EIS. Indeed, in the course of 

the EIS new data was gathered and analyzed. Modeling was done to predict specific 

impacts associated with proposed infrastructure. Some of the additional data, modeling, 

and analysis was conducted to address specific comments on the DEIS. The analysis 

utilized knowledge of impacts of past North Slope oil development occurring in 

environments similar to those to be impacted by the ASDP. The analysis and decision 

have benefited from close coordination among the scientists and other resource and use 

specialists of the contractor, BLM, the cooperating agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries; and the North 

Slope Borough (NSB); and by an ongoing dialogue with North Slope residents, particularly 

those of Nuiqsut (the closest community to the project). The result has been an FEIS that 

provides sufficient detailed analysis to adequately inform the decision maker for purposes 

of this ROD. 

The Preferred Alternative in its entirety contemplates development of one pad on state land 

and two pads on non-federal land owned by Kuukpik Corporation, Nuiqsut’s village 

corporation (surface), and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (subsurface) in addition 

to the two pads on BLM-managed land. Revenues from all development will benefit local 

residents and communities through Native corporation revenues or NSB taxes. Local 

residents and communities will also benefit indirectly from revenues that will accrue to the 

state from development of one pad and associated leases on state lands and from the 

sharing with the state of revenues from development on federal lands. While allowing this 

development, however, the decision has addressed local residents concerns regarding 

protection of their subsistence way of life and the resources on which they depend. 

2 
Record of Decision

1. Decision 

This ROD approves the development of the ASDP on BLM-managed lands and leases as 

described in the Preferred Alternative of the ASDP Final EIS with minor adjustments 

explained in Appendix A. 

This ROD concludes the ASDP EIS process for the BLM. It fulfills the NEPA 

requirements associated with consideration of CPAI’s application to use federal lands to 

develop oil accumulations leased by BLM to CPAI. 

The ROD approves issuance of appropriate BLM rights-of-way, permits to drill, and other 

authorizations necessary for development of the ASDP. This includes: 

• Construction of two gravel drilling and production pads (CD-6 and CD-7; casefiles 

AA-081821 and AA-081800, respectively) 

• Construction of roads, bridges, and pipelines on BLM-managed lands that will link 

these two drilling and production pads with a processing facility located on State 

land at CD-1 (FF-094318) 

• Sale and extraction of gravel from the Clover Gravel Mine 

The location of the pads, roads, bridges, pipelines and gravel mine are described in the 

Preferred Alternative and CPAI’s Alpine Satellite Development Program application 

(January 16, 2004) as revised (revision 1, January 30, 2004; updated description and 

drawings, August 12, 2004). The pads would each cover approximately 9.1 acres. The 

main road accessing CD-7 from Kuukpik Corporation land will cross approximately 15

miles of BLM-managed land; a spur from that road to CD-6 will be approximately 2.2 

miles long. Pipelines mounted on vertical support members (VSMs) parallel the roads. 

The Clover Gravel Mine will be located in Sec. 12, T. 10 N., R. 3 E., U.M. and encompass 

approximately 65 acres. The exact specifications for these facilities may vary slightly from

those shown on the Final EIS and application drawings to meet the requirements of permits 

issued by other federal and state agencies. This ROD authorizes a bridge that is a 

minimum of 120 feet long over the Ublutuoch River; however, other agencies may require 

a longer bridge. 

This ROD grants exceptions to three stipulations included in the Northeast National 

Petroleum Reserve-Alaska Final Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

Record of Decision (IAP/EIS ROD) signed in October 1998. Consistent with the 

exception clause in the IAP/EIS ROD, BLM will grant exceptions to: 

• Stipulation 39(d): to allow permanent oil and gas facilities within a 3-mile setback 

from Fish Creek, based on technical, economic, and environmental factors 

• Stipulation 41: to allow some permanent oil and gas facilities within 500 feet of 

some waterbodies, based on technical factors 

• Stipulation 48: to allow gravel roads between “separate oil fields,” based on 

environmental factors 

3
Alpine Satellite Development Plan

Additional discussion of the rationale for granting these exceptions is included below 

under Management Considerations. All other stipulations attached to leases issued as a 

result of the 1998 IAP/EIS will remain in place. 

This decision also incorporates additional protective measures through adoption of the 

following mitigation measures. These measures were selected from potential mitigation 

measures described in the FEIS and through additional analysis by BLM. 

General 

1. All research and monitoring activities by the permittee will follow protocols 

described by the Authorized Officer that will be designed to minimize 

disturbance and mortality. 

2. CPAI will do the required monitoring and studies, though to enhance 

cooperation among research and monitoring entities and to avoid duplication, 

the Authorized Officer may waive this requirement of CPAI if the monitoring 

or study is being done by another entity. 

Surface Water – Lakes 

3. Prior to lake water withdrawals, lake monitoring studies that evaluate lake 

habitat recharge and actual recharge during break-up will be completed at BLM 

direction.

4. The permittee will submit to the Authorized Officer for approval, a monitoring 

plan for lakes where withdrawals are expected. In order to ensure that lakes 

maintain their natural ability to support the same suite of species as they have in 

the past without water withdrawal, the plan will be for monitoring water 

quantity and quality throughout the period of withdrawal and the rest of the 

year. The monitoring will continue as long as withdrawals take place or until 

BLM determines that further monitoring is unnecessary.

Surface Water Quality 

5. The permittee will implement a monitoring program that is approved by the 

Authorized Officer, which incorporates the collection of samples of suspended 

sediment upstream and downstream of the Ublutuoch River bridge. This 

monitoring program will assist in the analysis of scour and fill processes 

occurring in the vicinity of the bridge and determine future erosion abatement 

measures to be taken. The monitoring will continue until BLM determines that

further monitoring is unnecessary. 

Air Quality 

6. The permittee will implement a plan approved by the Authorized Officer for 

limiting fugitive dust. Methods of dust control could include road watering, 

vehicle washing, covering of stockpiled material, ceasing construction during 

wind events, the use of chemical stabilizers, and chip seal, and could vary for 

the frozen and non-frozen seasons. 

4 
Record of Decision

Terrestrial Vegetation and Wetlands 

7. Where necessary, fill slopes will be stabilized using revetments, soil binders, or 

other methods approved by the Authorized Officer. 

8. Construction, development, and operations actions will be conducted in a 

manner that avoids riparian shrub areas whenever possible. 

Fish 

9. CPAI will perform fish surveys and hydrologic modeling for water bodies at 

proposed bridge and culvert sites. The results of these surveys and modeling 

will be incorporated into the designs of bridges and culverts. Based on the 

surveys and modeling, CPAI will install bridges or culverts in roadbeds in lowlying areas to ensure fish passage during high-water conditions. The fish 

surveys and hydrologic modeling will continue until BLM determines that 

further surveys and modeling are unnecessary. 

10. CPAI will continue fish monitoring studies in the Plan Area to ensure that the 

health of regional and locally important fish stocks is maintained. 

11. On a schedule to be approved by the BLM, CPAI will monitor all culverts to 

ensure that they are properly maintained and are providing access by fish to 

critical summer spawning and rearing grounds. CPAI will promptly repair any 

culverts that are not meeting these intended fish passage goals. 

12. CPAI will develop a mitigation plan that includes remedial measures to be

taken should monitoring detect adverse impacts from the project. 

13. Intake structures specially designed to eliminate the potential for fish being 

impinged, entrained, or entrapped during withdrawal of water shall be used at 

all water sources. These structures must meet the standards developed by 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

Birds 

14. If deemed necessary by BLM, the Authorized Officer may require vehicle 

traffic restrictions during brood rearing of specific species. The Authorized 

Officer will determine the time-frame that the traffic restrictions will be in place 

and what the reduced speed and amount of allowable traffic will be. 

Predation 

15. Permittee shall utilize best available technology to prevent facilities from

providing nesting, denning, or shelter sites for gulls, ravens, raptors, and foxes. 

The permittee shall provide the Authorized Officer with an annual report on the 

use of oil and gas facilities by gulls, ravens, raptors, and foxes as nesting, 

denning, and shelter sites. 

5
Alpine Satellite Development Plan

Terrestrial Mammals 

16. The permittee will develop and implement a monitoring plan for caribou 

movement and vehicle traffic on the roads leading to CD-6 and CD-7. CPAI 

will then develop and apply adaptive management approved by the BLM that is 

aimed at minimizing traffic impacts to caribou based on what is learned. 

Cultural Resources 

17. Before construction of ice roads, CPAI will evaluate and assess possible 

cultural resources in the immediate areas of the proposed ice roads. 

Visual Resources 

18. All permanent painted structures, including emergency spill containers located 

along watercourses, will be painted to blend with the natural environment. All 

colors will be pre-approved by the Authorized Officer. BLM will use computer 

generated colors and on-site testing to determine the color for structures that 

will blend in best with the background colors of the natural landscape. Selfweathering steel, non-specular surfaces, or best management practice, shall be 

used on all metal structures not otherwise painted. 

This decision also adopts reasonable and prudent measures, terms and conditions, and a 

conservation recommendation presented by the FWS in their Biological Opinion and

incorporated below. 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures

The Service believes that the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary 

and appropriate to minimize take of spectacled eiders: 

1. To minimize the likelihood that migrating spectacled eiders will strike drill rigs and 

associated infrastructure within the ASDP Area, BLM and appropriate cooperating 

agencies and the Service will cooperatively develop a lighting/marking protocol

intended to reduce radiation of light outward from structures and to increase the 

visibility of structures to migrating eiders. 

 

2. To avoid and reduce temporary impacts to productivity resulting from disturbance 

within 200 meters of occupied spectacled nests, from June 1 through August 1, ground 

level activity (by vehicle or on foot) within 200 meters of occupied spectacled eider 

nests will be restricted to existing thoroughfares. Construction of permanent/temporary 

facilities, placement of fill, alteration of habitat, and introduction of high noise levels 

within 200 meters of occupied spectacled eider nests is prohibited. The Service does 

not intend this RPM to be interpreted as a potential restriction on aircraft flights to 

areas of existing gravel fill and CD-3’s airstrip. 

6 
Record of Decision

Terms and Conditions

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the Endangered Species 

Act, BLM must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the 

reasonable and prudent measures described above and outline required 

reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary. 

1. To minimize the likelihood that migrating spectacled eiders will strike

structures associated with drilling activities, BLM, cooperating agencies 

and Service will cooperatively develop a lighting/operating protocol to be 

used on all drill rigs and associated production infrastructure. The Service 

and BLM will work together to identify when and where the protocol

should be applied. Any protocol developed will be in compliance with 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. The lighting protocol 

shall ensure that radiation of light outward from all drill rigs and associated 

infrastructure will be minimized. This will be achieved by shading and/or

light fixture placement to direct light inward and downward to living and 

work surfaces while minimizing light radiating upward and outward. 

2. Temporary impacts to spectacled eider productivity due to disturbance and 

direct habitat impacts must be minimized by ensuring protection of females with 

nests. Ground-level activity (by vehicle or on foot) within 200 meters of occupied 

spectacled eider nests, from June 1 through August 1, will be restricted to existing 

thoroughfares. This includes “working” gravel on existing fill (pads and roads). 

Construction of permanent facilities, placement of fill, alteration of habitat, and 

introduction of high noise levels within 200 meters of occupied spectacled eider 

nests will be prohibited. In instances where minimal summer support/construction 

activity must occur off existing thoroughfares, Service-approved nest surveys must 

be conducted during mid-June of each year in which activities take place between 

June 1 and August 1. BLM and cooperating agencies will also work with the 

Service to schedule oil spill response training in riverine, marine and inter-tidal 

areas that occurs within 200 meters of shore, outside sensitive nesting/broodrearing periods or conduct nest surveys. The protocol and timing of nest surveys 

for spectacled eiders will be determined in cooperation with the Service, and must 

be approved by the Service. Surveys should be supervised by biologists who have 

previous experience with spectacled eider nest surveys. 

Conservation Recommendation

To better understand the potential adverse impacts that summer (June 1 to 

September 31) aircraft flights have on spectacled eiders in Northeast National 

Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the Colville River Delta, the Service encourages 

BLM/CPAI to collect and make available data on aircraft flights associated with 

construction, operation, support and abandonment of ASDP facilities. The Service 

is particularly interested in quantifying helicopter flights associated with ASDPrelated research and facility tours. Field research, flight seeing and facility tours in 

North Slope oilfields typically occur during the summer months, but numbers, 

7
Alpine Satellite Development Plan

locations, and type of activities remain speculative. Our experience tells us that on 

an individual basis, these flights probably do not cause take of spectacled eiders. 

However, without a greater understanding of the extent of these activities in 

Petroleum Reserve, it is difficult to determine whether the cumulative effects may 

result in take. It is important to quantify these actions because they could result in: 

1) displacing adults and/or broods from preferred habitats during pre-nesting, 

nesting, brood rearing and migration; 2) displacing females from nests, fragmenting 

broods and exposing eggs or small young to inclement weather or predators; and 3) 

reducing foraging efficiency and feeding time. 

This decision will result in no unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands. Adverse 

impacts to these lands and the uses of these lands are minimized by:

• provisions in leases the BLM issued to CPAI, 

• protections incorporated into the project by the Preferred Alternative, 

• additional mitigation measures developed through the course of the EIS as 

described above, 

• additional protective measures adopted based upon the FWS’s Biological Opinion,

• applicable federal, state, and NSB laws and regulations, and

• permitting decisions to be provided by the cooperating agencies.

In addition, the applicant’s proposed design includes measures that help to minimize 

impacts. 

8 
Record of Decision

2. Alternatives 

The elements of the alternatives presented in the ASDP EIS relevant to federal lands are 

consistent with the purposes of the statutes governing the National Petroleum ReserveAlaska and with BLM’s responsibilities under FLPMA. Each alternative offers a different 

approach to approving CPAI’s applications to produce oil reserves on its leases. The 

alternatives also serve the “total energy needs of the nation”—a goal of the NPRPA—

while protecting surface resources from “unnecessary and undue degradation” as required 

by the FLPMA. The following provides descriptions of the alternatives as they apply to 

both federal and non-federal lands, followed by shorter descriptions that highlight the 

elements on federal lands. 

Alternative A (CPAI’s original proposal): Five production pads, CD-3 through CD-7, 

would be built, and produced fluids would be transported by pipeline for processing at the 

existing Alpine processing facility. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to the

existing Alpine Field road. CD-3 would be constructed with a gravel airstrip but without a 

gravel access road. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be

obtained from the existing ASRC Mine Site and the Clover Gravel Mine. A bridge 

approximately 1,200 feet long across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate 

road traffic and the pipelines. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on VSMs and 

would be at elevations of at least 5 feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported 

by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSMs, except between CD-6 and CD-7, which would 

be on separate power poles. Cable trays would not hang below the pipelines. Industry, 

local residents, and government would use the gravel roads. CD-6 and the road and 

pipelines to it, most of the road and pipelines to CD-7, and the powerline from CD-6 to 

CD-7 would be within a 3-mile no-permanent-oil-and-gas-facilities setback (Stipulation 

39[d] of the IAP/EIS ROD) from Fish Creek, and would require an exception consistent 

with the BLM’s Northeast National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska IAP/EIS ROD. 

Additional exceptions would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of 

some water bodies (Stipulation 41) and to locate roads between separate oilfields 

(Stipulation 48). In addition, although BLM does not interpret the first sentence of 

Stipulation 48 of the IAP/EIS ROD to apply to the applicant’s proposed action (i.e., the 

agency does not consider the road between CD-1 and CD-2 or the additional proposed road 

to CD-4 to constitute a connection to a “road system” outside the Northeast National 

Petroleum Reserve-Alaska planning area), out of an abundance of caution, if it is 

determined that this sentence applies in this case, the BLM would modify Stipulation 48 to 

allow the road from public land connecting to the existing Alpine field road. Finally, the 

USACE would have to determine that the applicant's proposed alternative for a road to 

CD-4 met the intent of Special Condition 10 of its 1998 permit that authorized the 

placement of fill associated with the construction of the existing Alpine facilities. Special 

Condition 10 required roadless development in the Delta, unless an environmentally 

preferable alternative is available or roadless was infeasible, and that any alternative 

dependent on roads must be approved by the USACE as preferable to a roadless 

alternative. 

9
Alpine Satellite Development Plan

On Federal Lands: Two production pads, CD- 6 and CD-7, would be built. They would 

be connected by gravel road and pipeline to the eastern extent of federal lands and beyond 

over non-federal lands to the existing Alpine facility. Gravel would be extracted from the 

proposed Clover Gravel Mine. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on VSMs and 

would be at elevations of at least 5 feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported 

by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSMs, except between CD-6 and CD-7, which would 

be on separate power poles. Cable trays would not hang below the pipelines. Industry, 

local residents, and government would use the gravel roads. Exceptions consistent with 

the IAP/EIS ROD would be required for Stipulations 39[d], 41, and 48 (and potentially a 

modification of Stipulation 48 for this project) as described above. 

Alternative B: Except as described below, all activities would be the same as described 

for Alternative A. CD-6 and its associated access road would be moved south, outside the 

3-mile setback for Fish Creek. A gravel road would connect CD-4 with CD-1 and CD-6 

with CD-7, but CD-3 and CD-5 would be roadless. Only CD-4 would be connected by 

road to the existing Alpine facilities. Airstrips would be required at CD-3, CD-5, and CD6. Permanent oil infrastructure would be located at least 500 feet from water bodies to the 

maximum extent possible. Traffic on gravel roads would be open to industry and 

government and closed to local residents. The bridge crossing the Nigliq Channel near 

CD-2 would be for pipelines only. Powerlines would be buried in roads or at the toe of the 

slope of roads everywhere there is a road. Where there are no roads, powerlines would be 

buried in tundra adjacent to the pipelines. Powerlines would be hung off pipeline bridges 

at stream crossings and trenched across minor drainages. Consistent with the BLM’s 

Northeast National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska IAP/EIS ROD, an exception may be 

required to Stipulation 41 in cases in which it is not possible to locate infrastructure at least 

500 feet from water bodies. The USACE would have to determine that the alternative for 

the road to CD-4 met the intent of Special Condition 10 of its 1998 permit that authorized 

the placement of fill associated with the construction of the existing Alpine facilities. 

On Federal Lands: Except as described below, all activities would be the same as 

described for Alternative A. CD-6 and its associated access road and pipeline would be

moved south, outside the 3-mile setback for Fish Creek. A road would connect CD-6 to an 

airstrip that would be built nearby and to CD-7, but there would be no other road 

construction on federal land. Permanent oil infrastructure would be located at least 500 

feet from water bodies to the maximum extent possible. Traffic on gravel roads would be 

open to industry and government and closed to local residents. Powerlines would be 

buried in roads or at the toe of the slope of road everywhere there is a road. Where there 

are no roads, powerlines would be buried in tundra adjacent to the pipelines. Powerlines 

would be hung off pipeline bridges at stream crossings and trenched across minor 

drainages. An exception consistent with the IAP/EIS ROD may be required for Stipulation 

41 as described above. 

Alternative C: Except as described below, all activities would be the same as described 

for Alternative A. All pads would be connected by gravel roads to the existing Alpine

facility. Roads to CD-5, CD-6, and CD-7 would connect to either the existing Alpine 

facility (Sub-Alternative C-1) via a road and pipeline bridge near CD-4 or to existing 

10 
Record of Decision

oilfields east of the Colville River using the state’s proposed Colville River Road (SubAlternative C-2). Both sub-alternatives would provide road access from Nuiqsut to the 

oilfields. To take better advantage of the state road under Sub-Alternative C-2, a bypass of 

Nuiqsut would be constructed from the state road to the satellite road of the applicant’s 

proposed action (and the spur from the latter road to the north end of the village would be 

deleted) and an approximately two-acre pad would be added along the bypass primarily for 

vehicle storage. Powerlines would be hung from power poles. No new airstrips would be 

constructed. Pipelines would be supported on VSMs and would be at elevations of at least 

7 feet above the tundra, as measured at VSM locations. Use of roads on BLM lands would 

be unrestricted; all other roads would be open to industry, local residents, and government 

only. Both sub-alternatives would require the same exceptions to BLM stipulations as 

Alternative A; however, Sub-Alternative C-2 would also require that BLM modify 

Stipulation 48 to allow connection of roads on BLM-managed lands with the state’s 

proposed road. The USACE would have to determine that the roads to CD-3 and CD-4 

meet the intent of Special Condition 10 of its 1998 permit that authorized the placement of 

fill associated with the construction of the existing Alpine facility. 

On Federal Lands: Except as described below, all activities would be the same as 

described for Alternative A. Roads from CD-6 and CD-7 would take a more southerly 

route to connect to either the existing Alpine facility (Sub-Alternative C-1) or to existing 

oilfields east of the Colville River using the state’s proposed Colville River Road (SubAlternative C-2). Under Sub-Alternative C-2, a portion of the Nuiqsut bypass road would 

be on federal lands. Powerlines would be hung from power poles. Pipelines would be 

supported on VSMs and would be at elevations of at least 7 feet above the tundra, as 

measured at VSM locations. Use of roads would be unrestricted. Exceptions consistent 

with the IAP/EIS ROD would be required for Stipulations 39[d], 41, and 48 (and a 

modification of Stipulation 48 under Sub-Alternative C-2 and potentially under SubAlternative C-1). 

Alternative D: Except as described below, all activities would be the same as described 

for Alternative A. In Alternative D all gravel roads are eliminated and the production pads 

would be accessible only by air, ice road, and low-pressure vehicle. Air access would be 

via fixed-wing aircraft (Sub-Alternative D-1) or helicopter (Sub-Alternative D-2). The 

pipeline crossing across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would employ horizontal 

directional drilling in lieu of a pipeline bridge. Aboveground pipelines would be supported 

on VSMs and would be at elevations of at least 7 feet above the tundra as measured at 

VSMs. Powerlines between pads would be in cable trays mounted on the pipeline VSMs. 

Consistent with the IAP/EIS ROD, this alternative would provide for the exceptions to 

Stipulations 39[d] and 41 of that ROD. 

On Federal Lands: Except as described below, all activities would be the same as 

described for Alternative A. Airstrips (Sub-Alternative D-1) or helipads (Sub-Alternative 

D-2) would be constructed near CD-6 and CD-7. In addition to air access, the pads would 

only be accessible by ice roads and low-pressure vehicles. Except for short roads to these 

airstrips or helipads, there would be no roads constructed. Aboveground pipelines would 

be supported on VSMs and would be at elevations of at least 7 feet above the tundra as 

11
Alpine Satellite Development Plan

measured at VSMs. Powerlines would be in cable trays mounted on the pipeline VSMs. 

Consistent with the IAP/EIS ROD, this alternative would provide for the exceptions to 

Stipulations 39[d] and 41 of that ROD. 

Alternative E (No Action): Under this alternative, CPAI would not be authorized to 

develop the five oil accumulations for which it currently seeks authorization. No oil in the 

Plan Area, except that extracted from CD-1 and CD-2, would be produced in the near 

future, and no new roads, airstrips, pipelines, or other oil facilities would be constructed 

beyond what is authorized in connection with CPAI’s current development at CD-1 and 

CD-2. Alternative E is the environmentally preferred alternative both for the entire 

proposal and for that proposed on federal lands. However, that alternative was not chosen 

because it would not authorize CPAI to produce oil from accumulations on its leased lands 

and it would not fulfill legislative direction, the national energy policy, and the purpose 

and objectives for which the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska is managed. 

On Federal Lands: CPAI would not be authorized to develop the two oil accumulations 

for which it currently seeks authorization on federal lands or to extract gravel from the 

Clover Gravel Mine. 

Alternative F (Agency Preferred Alternative): Except as described below, all activities 

would be the same as described for Alternative A. The Preferred Alternative modifies key 

components of the applicant’s proposed action (Alternative A) to minimize, mitigate, or 

avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified by the BLM, the cooperating 

agencies, or the public through the NEPA process while achieving the purpose and need 

described in Section 1 of the EIS. The modified elements of Alternative F–the Preferred 

Alternative—were either adopted directly from alternatives analyzed in detail in the DEIS 

or reflect measures identified through the DEIS comment process or agency review of the 

applicant’s proposal. 

Except as described below, all activities would be the same as described for Alternative A: 

• Substantial infrastructure would be removed from the Fish Creek 3-mile setback. 

(Consistent with the exception clause provision of the IAP/EIS, CD-6 and some

infrastructure would be allowed to be located as requested by CPAI within the 

setback.)

• The elevation of pipelines would be raised from 5 feet to a minimum of 7 feet as 

measured at the VSMs. 

• Powerlines will be placed on cable trays between CD-6 and CD-7 rather than on 

separate power poles. 

• Artificial exterior lighting on structures over 20 feet tall would be controlled. 

Except for required safety lighting as may be required by FAA and OSHA, 

illumination of taller structures would be designed to direct artificial exterior 

lighting inward and downward, rather than upward and outward. 

• The road and pipeline bridge across the Nigliq Channel would extend from bank to 

bank defined as the active flow-way and the frequently active floodplain between 

topographical rises. This would require a bridge approximately 1,650 feet long at 

12 
Record of Decision

the currently proposed location; though, the bridge could be relocated close to the 

proposed crossing where the bank-to-bank span would be less. 

• The road and pipeline bridge across the Ublutuoch River would extend from bank 

to bank defined as the active flow-way and the frequently active floodplain between 

topographical rises. This would require a bridge approximately 350 feet long at the 

currently proposed location; though, the bridge could be relocated close to the 

proposed crossing where the bank-to-bank span would be less. 

• Approaches to both the Nigliq Channel and Ublutuoch River bridges would provide 

for natural water flow. 

• The road to CD-4 would be either relocated around Lake 9323 or engineered to 

provide for natural water flow and fish passage. 

Of the alternatives that would allow development, Alternative F is the environmentally 

preferred alternative. Alternative E, the no action alternative, is the overall 

environmentally preferred alternative. However, that alternative was not chosen because it 

would not adequately fulfill the purpose and objective of the applicant’s proposal and 

would not further the objectives for which the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska is 

managed. 

On Federal Lands: Except as described below, all activities would be the same as 

described for Alternative A: 

• Substantial infrastructure would be removed from the Fish Creek 3-mile setback. 

(Consistent with the exception clause provision of the IAP/EIS, CD-6 and some

infrastructure would be allowed to be located as requested by CPAI within the 

setback.)

• The elevation of pipelines would be raised from 5 feet to a minimum of 7 feet as 

measured at the VSMs. 

• Powerlines will be placed on cable trays between CD-6 and CD-7 rather than on 

separate power poles. 

• Artificial exterior lighting on structures over 20 feet tall would be controlled. 

Except for required safety lighting as may be required by FAA and OSHA, 

illumination of taller structures would be designed to direct artificial exterior 

lighting inward and downward, rather than upward and outward. 

• The road and pipeline bridge across the Ublutuoch River would extend from bank 

to bank defined as the active flow-way and the frequently active floodplain between 

topographical rises. This would require a bridge approximately 350 feet long at the 

currently proposed location; though, the bridge could be relocated close to the 

proposed crossing where the bank-to-bank span would be less. 

• Approaches to the Ublutuoch River bridge would provide for natural water flow. 

13
Alpine Satellite Development Plan

14 
Record of Decision

3. Management Considerations 

The ASDP EIS fulfills the obligation of BLM and its federal cooperating agencies under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321, to analyze the 

environmental impacts of federal authorizations necessary for CPAI to undertake its 

proposed development. Furthermore, authorizing CPAI’s development helps address the 

nation’s energy needs. North Slope oil production, centered at Prudhoe Bay, is central to 

the nation's domestic oil supply. The North Slope contributes about 16 percent of 

America's current domestic production. The oil industry has discovered and developed 

other fields to the east and west of Prudhoe. However, production is in decline from these 

older fields and development of CPAI’s project will help offset this decline. Moreover, the 

authorization of development of leases in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska satisfies 

the purpose of the NPRPA to explore and develop oil and gas resources in the Petroleum 

Reserve. Specifically, the NPRPA, as amended, encourages oil and gas leasing in the 

Reserve while requiring protection of important surface resources and uses. Development 

of the satellite oil accumulations with appropriate environmental protection measures is 

consistent with the president’s directive to his National Energy Policy Development Group 

to “promote dependable, affordable and environmentally sound production of energy for 

the future” (National Energy Policy Development Group 2001). Furthermore, President 

Bush issued Executive Order 13212 on May 18, 2001, calling on federal agencies to give 

priority to energy-related projects: “For energy-related projects, agencies shall expedite 

their review of permits or take other actions as necessary to accelerate the completion of 

such projects, while maintaining safety, public health, and environmental protections.” 

Completion of the ASDP EIS and issuance of this ROD fulfills agency responsibilities

under this directive. 

Federal laws, including the NPRPA, FLPMA, Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA), the Endangered Species Act, and NEPA, require BLM to 

protect soil, water, air, vegetation, wildlife, archaeological and paleontological resources 

and subsistence uses while fulfilling the agencies multiple use mission. These resources 

are protected through: 

• provisions in leases the agency issued to CPAI, 

• additional protections incorporated into the project (such as the road and pipeline 

routings, elevation of the pipeline to at least 7 feet, lighting provisions to avoid bird 

strikes, etc.) required in the Preferred Alternative,

• additional mitigation measures as described above in part 1 and adopted in this 

ROD, 

• applicable federal, state, and NSB laws and regulations, and

• permitting decisions to be provided by the cooperating agencies and the NSB.

In addition, the applicant’s proposal included design elements that could reduce impacts, 

such as small pad size and the installation of pipeline valves on either side of larger river 

channels. Implementation of these proposed design elements, except where they are 

inconsistent with the adopted decision, is required of the applicant.

15
Alpine Satellite Development Plan

Consistency with the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska IAP/EIS 

The Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska IAP/EIS ROD issued in 1998 required 

that numerous protections be made through stipulations in oil and gas leases on the federal 

land being developed by CPAI. These protections address measures to deal with potential 

impacts related to waste prevention, handling, and disposal; spills; ice roads and water use; 

overland moves; facility design and construction, ground transportation; air traffic; oil field 

abandonment; subsistence, orientation program; traditional land use sites; and other 

activities. These stipulations are required for CPAI’s development, with the exception of

three stipulations discussed below. 

The IAP/EIS ROD provided flexibility to deal with unique aspects of oil and gas 

development proposals that are impossible to know prior to exploratory drilling. 

Consistent with the requirements of the IAP/EIS, this ROD grants exceptions to three 

stipulations as requested by CPAI in a letter to BLM dated April 8, 2004. Exceptions are 

granted in accordance with the following exception clause: 

In the event that an exception to a lease or permit stipulation is requested and before 

an exception may be granted, the AO [Authorized Officer] shall find that 

implementation of the stipulation is: 

1. a. technically not feasible, or 

b. economically prohibitive, or 

c. an environmentally preferable alternative is available, and 

2. the alternative means proposed by the lessee fully satisfies the objective(s) of 

the stipulation. 

In additional, prior to the consideration or granting of an exception to a lease or permit 

stipulation, all conditions and/or consultation requirements specific to a stipulation 

must be met. The AO shall consult with appropriate federal, state, and NSB regulatory 

and resource agencies before an exception may be granted, except in the case of an 

emergency. The AO’s power to grant stipulation exceptions is limited to those 

subjects, uses, and permits over which the BLM has authority. Exceptions may be 

granted in emergencies involving human health and safety. 

Exceptions are granted for the following three stipulations based upon the above 

requirements. 

Stipulation 39

Stipulation 39 of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska IAP/EIS states: 

Permanent oil and gas facilities, including roads, airstrips, and pipelines, are 

prohibited within and adjacent to the waterbodies listed below at the distances 

identified to protect fish and raptor habitat, cultural and paleontological resources, 

and subsistence and other resource values. Setbacks include the bed of the 

waterbody and are measured from the bank’s highest high water mark. 

16 
Record of Decision

The stipulation designates a 3-mile setback from Fish Creek downstream from Section 

31, T11N, R1E, and a 1⁄2-mile setback farther upstream. The setback from Fish Creek 

was designated for “fish and subsistence resources.” 

This decision removes substantial infrastructure that was included in the applicant’s 

proposed action from within the Fish Creek setback, but retains CD-6 within the 

setback based on technical, economic, and environmental factors. Drilling many wells 

from a single pad entails use of directional drilling. Drilling from outside the setback 

would require directional drilling for long distances through geologically unstable 

shale. This drilling approach is very problematic because shale in this area tends to 

collapse holes. Maintaining drill holes would be difficult and expensive. (CPAI 

estimates the additional directional drilling costs at $35 million to $45 million.) In 

addition, the BLM estimates that 10 to 30 percent of the reserves reachable from CD-6, 

located where proposed by CPAI, would not be recoverable from the south side of the 

setback, further undermining the economic viability of placing the pad outside the 

setback. Placing a second pad on the north side of the Fish Creek setback to attempt to 

reach the 10 to 30 percent of the reserve unreachable from the south side of the setback 

would not only dramatically increase costs (thus undermining the economics of the 

applicant’s proposed action), but would entail increased environmental impacts 

through construction of a second pad, a pipeline crossing of Fish Creek either on BLMmanaged lands in the 3-mile Fish Creek setback or on Kuukpik Corporation lands in 

the Fish Creek delta, and either a road paralleling the pipeline or air access over Fish 

Creek. It is environmentally preferable to keep the project to one drill pad in this 

sensitive area.

This decision relocates substantial portions of the road and pipeline between CD-5 and 

CD-6 and nearly all of the road and pipeline between CD-6 and CD-7 to greatly reduce 

the permanent oilfield infrastructure in the 3-mile setback. However, the decision 

leaves some infrastructure in the setback based on environmental factors. Moist 

tussock tundra and moist sedge-shrub meadow habitats exist between CD-2 and CD-7. 

These habitats are the preferred types for road construction for the Plan Area. These are 

relatively high and dry habitat areas compared to other habitat in the area. They are 

less prone to flooding and the resultant impacts, and they are less important habitat for 

waterbirds. The road proposed under the Preferred Alternative utilizes these habitats to 

the maximum practicable extent. A route utilizing these habitats is available just south 

of the setback for the western portion of the road on BLM-managed lands. Several 

large closely spaced lakes both east and west of the Ublutuoch River constrict road 

building immediately south of the eastern portion of the 3-mile setback. Much of the 

land near these lakes is low and wet. Utilization of moist tussock tundra and moist 

sedge-shrub meadow habitat for roads outside the setback would require relocating the 

road approximately 5 miles south of the Preferred Alternative route. This relocation 

would require approximately 10 more miles of roads and the resultant environmental 

impacts associated with habitat destruction or alteration through gravel mining and 

gravel road construction. The pipeline could be moved just outside the setback without 

incurring the same ground-disturbing impacts to sensitive habitats as placement of 

gravel roads. However, separating the pipeline from the road by 1 to 2 miles (and in 

17
Alpine Satellite Development Plan

some places separating them with a lake) complicates spill response and would likely

incur additional environmental impacts in the event of a spill. Therefore, leaving the 

eastern portion of the road and pipeline on BLM-managed land in the 3-mile setback as 

in this decision is environmentally preferable to moving the road outside the setback. 

The setback for permanent oil and gas facilities from Fish Creek was established to 

minimize impacts to “fish and subsistence resources.” The location of CD-6 and its 

associated road and pipeline approximately 2 miles from Fish Creek are not anticipated 

to have adverse impacts to fish. Although locating the pad farther from Fish Creek 

would further reduce the potential for contaminants to reach the creek, the likelihood of 

contaminants reaching the creek is already small and spills are not likely to have a 

measurable effect on arctic fish populations. No important fish habitat has been 

identified in the immediate area of the pad. Caribou and other subsistence resources 

may incur some disturbance during operations from infrastructure closer to riparian 

areas. However, elevating the pipeline to a minimum of 7 feet as measured at the 

VSMs; maintaining at least a 500-foot distance between the road and pipeline if 

feasible; restricting road use to industry, local residents, and government employees; 

and other design and operation features of the Preferred Alternative will ensure that

impacts to subsistence resources and uses are avoided or minimized and the objectives 

of the stipulations are fully satisfied.

Stipulation 41

Stipulation 41 of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska IAP/EIS states: 

For those waterbodies not listed in stipulation 39, permanent oil and gas facilities, 

including roads, airstrips, and pipelines, are prohibited upon or within 500 feet as 

measured from the highest high water mark of the active floodplain. Essential 

pipeline and road crossings will be permitted on a case-by-case basis. 

The Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska IAP/EIS ROD contains the 

following definitions relevant to Stipulation 41: 

Active Floodplain: The lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and 

coastal waters including flood-prone areas of offshore islands, including at a 

minimum that area subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given 

year (also referred to as the 100-year or base floodplain). 

Body of Water or Waterbody: A lake, river, stream, creek, or pond that holds water 

throughout the summer and supports a minimum of aquatic life. 

This decision allows the essential pipeline and road crossing of the Ublutuoch River. 

As much of the major infrastructure as possible is located on relatively high and dry 

moist tussock tundra and moist sedge-shrub meadow habitats away from lakes and 

streams. However, the Plan Area, including that between CD-5 and CD-7, is 

characterized by many small water bodies. It may not be possible in all instances to 

18 
Record of Decision

avoid encroachment within 500 feet of every water body. Therefore, this decision 

grants an exception to Stipulation 41 based on technical infeasibility. 

The purpose of the 500-foot setback from water bodies is to protect fish, water quality, 

and aquatic habitat from impacts, including oil and fuel spills. On-the-ground 

inspections of the route of the road and pipeline prior to construction will determine 

where it is impossible to locate facilities outside of the 500-foot setback. It is 

anticipated that this inspection, along with existing stream and lake studies, would 

assist in agency determinations on facility design to minimize impacts to water bodies 

in any cases in which facilities cannot be placed 500 feet from water bodies. In 

addition, aspects of the applicant’s proposed action, such as use of containment tanks 

and tank and pipeline inspections, and other Northeast National Petroleum ReserveAlaska IAP/EIS stipulations (e.g., stipulations 13 through 16 dealing with the handling 

of fuel and other pollutants) provide requirements that substantially reduce the 

potential for impacts to water bodies. As a consequence, the objectives of this 

stipulation would be met. 

Stipulation 48

Stipulation 48 of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska IAP/EIS states: 

Permanent roads (i.e. gravel, sand) connecting to a road system or docks outside 

the planning area are prohibited, and no exceptions may be granted. Permanent 

roads necessary to connect pads within independent, remote oil fields are allowed 

but they must be designed and constructed to create minimal environmental 

impacts. Roads connecting production sites between separate oil fields may be 

considered if road-connected operations are environmentally preferable to 

independent, consolidated operations that each include airstrip, housing, 

production, and support facilities. This exception will only be granted following 

consultations with appropriate Federal, State, and NSB regulatory and resources 

agencies, and the appropriate level of NEPA review. 

The oil accumulations at CD-5 are part of the Alpine Field, but those at CD-6 and CD7 are geologically distinct from each other and from the Alpine Field. These 

accumulations may be considered separate “fields.” Consequently, the third sentence 

of Stipulation 48 applies in the case of the applicant’s proposed action. 

This decision would allow roads connecting CD-6 with CD-7 and those two pads to the 

Alpine Field based on environmental factors. Locating an airstrip, housing, and 

support facilities with production facilities at both of these pads would require a large 

gravel footprint for the airstrips, generate additional air traffic, and introduce air, water, 

waste, and other impacts associated with human presence. A road from these pads to 

the existing Alpine facilities allows operation of these pads to be accomplished from

the base at the existing facilities. CD-6 and CD-7 will be unmanned, thus generating 

much less impacts than manned facilities. A gravel road also eliminates the need for 

regular ice road construction to these pads and reduces waste and chemical storage 

19
Alpine Satellite Development Plan

needs at separate pads. In addition, locating a road parallel to the pipeline facilitates 

pipeline leak detection and spill response. Therefore, a decision to grant an exception

to Stipulation 48 is justified because it is environmentally preferable. 

The objective of Stipulation 48 is to protect subsistence use and access to traditional 

subsistence hunting and fishing areas and minimize the impact of oil and gas activities 

on air, land, water, fish, and wildlife resources. Construction of roads is to be limited 

to those cases in which it is environmentally preferable to have roads rather than 

construct separate stand-alone facilities accessible only by air and ice road. 

Construction of the road linking CD-6 and CD-7 to the existing oil infrastructure at 

Alpine would meet the objective of the stipulation by eliminating impacts from

duplicative airstrips, housing, and support facilities and from regular ice road 

construction, by providing better leak detection and spill response, and, because the 

road would be available for use by local residents, thus aiding access to traditional 

subsistence hunting and fishing areas. 

Note: BLM does not interpret the first sentence of this stipulation to be applicable to 

the applicant’s proposed action. The first sentence of the stipulation was intended to 

prohibit any connection from BLM-managed lands in the Petroleum Reserve to a road

network that reaches the rest of Alaska, i.e., the North Slope’s spine road or the Dalton 

Highway that connects the North Slope at Prudhoe Bay with the main Alaskan road 

system. The roads from the different production pads authorized in this ROD connect 

only to the existing Alpine facility at CD-1 and CD-2. The current Alpine facility does 

not connect to any outside road system. Indeed, it is not itself connected to any other 

roads; the nearest gravel road is more than thirty miles away and on the other side of 

the unbridged main channel of the Colville River. However, if it is determined that the 

first sentence of this stipulation applies in the case of the road proposed by CPAI, this 

decision will modify Stipulation 48 to allow the applicant’s proposed road from public 

land to connect to the existing Alpine facility. 

Endangered Species Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries), as appropriate, to ensure that their actions do 

not jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as threatened or endangered under 

ESA, or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat. NOAA Fisheries in a letter 

dated June 25, 2003 determined that there were no federally listed threatened, endangered, 

or candidate species under its jurisdiction that could be affected by CPAI’s proposed 

development. A Biological Assessment was completed by a contractor under the direction 

of the BLM to address species identified by the FWS. This assessment determined that 

actions may have an effect on the threatened spectacled eider. Although a small amount of 

habitat may be disturbed or modified by the development, the planning area has no 

designated critical habitat. 

20 
Record of Decision

The FWS issued its Biological Opinion on September 28, 2004. The opinion addressed the 

Preferred Alternative for all pads proposed by CPAI. The FWS concluded that the 

development described in the Biological Assessment is not likely to jeopardize the species 

or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The BLM adopts the reasonable and 

prudent measures, terms and conditions, and a conservation recommendation presented by 

FWS in the Biological Opinion relevant to CPAI’s development on BLM-managed land, as 

listed above under the Decision section of this ROD, thus ensuring protection for the two 

threatened species. 

Essential Fish Habitat Consultation

Consultation on essential fish habitat (EFH) was undertaken with NOAA Fisheries in 

accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. An 

EFH Assessment was included in the Final EIS as Appendix N after close consultation 

with NOAA Fisheries. It described the project, potential impacts, and proposed mitigation. 

In response to this consultation, NOAA Fisheries determined that no Conservation 

Recommendations were required for EFH and concluded that consultation had been 

satisfactorily completed. 

Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) 

Executive Order 11990 concerning the protection of wetlands requires that BLM consider 

factors relevant to the proposal’s effect on the survival and quality of wetlands. Factors to 

be considered include the following: 

1. Public health, safety, and welfare, including water supply, quality, recharge and 

discharge; pollution; flood and storm hazards; and sediment and erosion;

2. Maintenance of natural systems, including conservation and long term productivity 

of existing flora and fauna, species and habitat diversity and stability, hydrologic 

utility, fish, wildlife, timber, and food and fiber resources; and 

3. Other uses of wetlands in the public interest, including recreation, scientific, and 

cultural uses. 

In furtherance of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331(b)(3) to 

improve and coordinate federal plans, functions, programs and resources to the end that the 

nation may attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without 

degradation and risk to health or safety, the agency, to the extent permitted by law, shall 

avoid undertaking or providing assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless 

the head of the agency finds: 

1. there is no practicable alternative to such construction, and 

21
Alpine Satellite Development Plan

2. the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands 

which may result from such use. In making this finding the head of the agency 

may take into account economic, environmental and other pertinent factors. 

The following discussion summarizes the evaluation of impacts to wetlands for the 

Preferred Alternative and the findings that are a result of that evaluation. In addition, 

specific protective mitigation developed to avoid or lessen impacts to wetlands is 

presented. 

Approximately 95 percent of the 4.6 million acres in the Northeast National Petroleum

Reserve-Alaska (Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska Draft Amended IAP/EIS, 

2004, p. 3-31) and 99 percent of the 890,000 acres in the ASDP plan area can be classified 

as wetlands. The Preferred Alternative would result in gravel pads and roads covering 

about 135 acres of BLM-managed land (approximately 250 acres for the entire Preferred 

Alternative development) and 65 acres of BLM-managed lands would be excavated to 

obtain gravel. Indirect impacts from dust and changes in the moisture and thermal regimes 

may impact an additional 720 acres (approximately 1,200 acres for the entire Preferred 

Alternative development). Thus, direct and indirect impacts from development on BLMmanaged lands could occur on approximately 0.1 percent of the wetlands in the ASDP plan 

area and a much smaller proportion of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska 

plan area. Because virtually the entire area contains wetlands, it would not be possible to 

produce the oil reserves on CPAI’s leases without impacting some wetlands. 

Key wetland habitats identified in the EIS (Table 3.3.1-3) west of the Nigliq Channel 

(which includes all of the BLM-managed land as well as some privately held land that 

would be directly impacted by the Preferred Alternative) include deep open water with 

islands or polygonized margins (0.1 acres), young basin wetland complex (4.6 acres), old 

basin wetland complex (5.2 acres), riverine complex (0.4 acres), and riverine low and tall 

shrub (0.3 acres). In addition, indirect impacts from dust and changes in the moisture and 

thermal regimes may impact the following key wetlands west of the Nigliq Channel: deep 

open water without islands (0.5 acres), young basin wetland complex (15.7 acres), old 

basin wetland complex (38.7 acres), riverine complex (3.5 acres), and riverine low and tall 

shrub (1.6 acres). These represent negligible proportions of these habitats. For example, 

of the 175,153 acres whose habitat types have been mapped west of the Nigliq Channel, 

which includes all lands that would be impacted by the Preferred Alternative west of the 

channel, there are 16,297 acres of young and old basin wetlands. Direct and indirect 

impacts on 64.2 acres of these basin wetlands represent less than 0.4 percent of all such 

habitats mapped. 

Furthermore, these impacts will be mitigated through provisions of the leases on federal 

land and through requirements of the Preferred Alternative (as modified herein) and 

mitigation adopted in this ROD. All leases on federal land include stipulations from the 

IAP/EIS. These include provisions relevant to CPAI’s proposal that protect the function 

and values of wetlands, including provisions to address: 

22 
Record of Decision

• waste prevention, handling, disposal, and spills; ice roads and water use; 

• overland moves; 

• facility design and construction; 

• ground transportation; 

• air traffic; 

• oil field abandonment; 

• subsistence. 

Additional protection of wetlands is provided by the Preferred Alternative and mitigation 

adopted in this ROD. These include, but are not limited to, the following measures. 

• The footprint will be reduced by minimizing pad size and drilling multiple wells 

from a single pad and by minimizing the road footprint while avoiding the most 

important wetlands. 

• Construction of facilities will occur to the greatest extent possible on relatively 

higher elevation and less critical wetlands. Only 6 percent of the gravel footprint 

west of the Nigliq Channel (10.6 acres of 172 acres) would be on key wetlands. 

The overwhelming proportion (80 percent) of the gravel footprint west of the 

Nigliq would occur on relatively dry moist sedge-shrub meadow and moist tussock 

tundra. This habitat also accounts for approximately 90 percent of the land to be 

excavated at the Clover Gravel Mine. 

• Extraction of gravel and construction of gravel roads, pads, and pipelines will occur 

in winter using ice roads, thus minimizing potential impacts to the tundra. 

• Road watering would occur to help control dust. 

• Bridge abutments would be armored, with sheet-pile wing walls. 

• Bridges or culverts would be placed in known drainage locations and, at a 

minimum, culverts, or bridges if water flow justifies it, will be placed at 

approximately every 500 feet along roads. 

• Valves will be placed in the produced fluids pipeline on both sides of the 

Ublutuoch River and spill containment equipment will be installed below each 

valve. 

• The Clover Gravel Mine will be rehabilitated (see the rehabilitation plan in 

Appendix O of the FEIS), including interim reclamation. 

• Incorporation of the findings of fish surveys and hydrologic modeling into the 

design of proposed bridges and culverts and subsequent monitoring of culverts and 

remedial measures based on this monitoring. 

• Monitoring of water withdrawals from lakes. 

• A program to monitor water quality above and below the proposed Ublutuoch 

River bridge and, if necessary, identify additional erosion abatement measures. 

Because of the protections identified in the FEIS, the FEIS determined that development 

and operation of CPAI’s project would be unlikely to significantly impact any wetland 

plant species or community, cause significant soil loss, or result in other than short-term 

and localized loss of water resources or water quality. Therefore, no significant impacts 

are expected that would affect public health, safety, and welfare through changes in the 

23
Alpine Satellite Development Plan

supply, quality, recharge or discharge and pollution of water, or, flood and storm hazards 

or sedimentation and erosion. No impacts will occur that would result in long-term

changes in the natural ecosystem, or, prevent normal uses of wetlands by the public for 

recreational, scientific, or cultural purposes. 

While other alternatives considered in the EIS would disturb marginally fewer acres of key 

wetlands west of the Nigliq Channel (Alternative B—8.3 acres; Alternative D-1—8.5 

acres; Alternative D-2—4.3 acres compared to 10.6 acres for the Preferred Alternative), 

the Preferred Alternative adopted in this decision includes all practicable measures to 

minimize harm to wetlands when considering all economic, environmental, and other 

pertinent factors. These other alternatives’ reduction in impacts to key wetlands habitats 

result from the elimination of a road connection to the existing Alpine facility. While this 

reduces some of the impacts to the surface, it incurs other impacts. These other 

alternatives would rely on air transportation and winter ice road transportation to CD-6 and 

CD-7. Noise from air transportation creates impacts to wildlife and subsistence users; 

Nuiqsut residents have frequently complained about existing air traffic disturbance. 

Regular ice road construction to these pads can result in impacts to the tundra. Without 

gravel road access to the existing Alpine facility there would be a need for increased waste 

and chemical storage at the separate pads, which both enlarges the pad size and creates 

additional spill potential. Moreover, locating a road parallel to the pipeline facilitates

pipeline leak detection and spill response. 

Therefore, BLM finds that there is no practicable alternative to construction of the ASDP 

project in wetlands and that all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands have 

been taken, given the technical, economic, and environmental factors that must be 

weighed. 

Floodplains (Executive Order 11988) 

Executive Order 11988 concerning the protection of floodplains requires an agency to 

provide leadership and to take action to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, 

health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by 

floodplains in carrying out its responsibilities. In carrying out activities required by EO

11988, the agency has a responsibility to: 

1. Evaluate the potential effects of any actions that may take place in a floodplain;

2. Ensure that its planning programs and budget requests reflect consideration of flood 

hazards and floodplain management; and 

3. Prescribe procedures to implement the policies and requirements of EO 11988. 

Additional requirements are as follows: 

4. Before taking an action, each agency shall determine whether the proposed action 

will occur in a floodplain and the evaluation required will be included in any 

24 
Record of Decision

statement prepared under Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (Section 4332(2)(C). 

5. If an agency has determined to, or proposes to, conduct, support, or allow an action 

to be located in a floodplain, the agency shall consider alternatives to avoid adverse 

effects and incompatible development in the floodplains. If the head of the agency 

finds that the only practicable alternative consistent with the law and with the 

policy set forth in this executive order requires siting in a floodplain, the agency 

shall, prior to taking action, 

a. design or modify its action in order to minimize potential harm to or within the 

floodplain, consistent with regulations, and 

b. prepare documentation explaining why the action is proposed to be located in 

the floodplain. 

The long-term effects, both direct and cumulative, on floodplains of CPAI’s development 

on BLM-managed lands as approved in this ROD are expected to be insignificant 

(negligible to minimal), and would be mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. As with 

wetlands, total avoidance of floodplains is impossible because the project area is so flat. 

However, this decision avoids and minimizes impacts to floodplains, including those of 

Fish Creek and the Ublutuoch River, the largest streams near CPAI’s project on BLMmanaged lands. At its nearest point, the project is approximately 2 miles from Fish Creek 

and 1.5 miles from its 100-year floodplain (see FEIS figure 3.2.2.1-9). The trunk road and 

pipeline cross the Ublutuoch River. The road crosses the river on a bridge that spans the 

main channel and lower floodplain and restricts the flow only in high water events or in the 

event of ice jamming. A 100-year flood event would raise the water level less than a foot 

and thus could, in those rare high water circumstances, induce some scouring and 

sedimentation. However, the amount of scour and sedimentation will be reduced by 

armoring and by subsequent engineering based upon the findings of monitoring required 

by the decision. The pipeline is conveyed over the river on VSMs. There will be valves in 

the pipeline as well as spill containment equipment on both sides of the river to minimize 

effects in the unlikely event of a spill. By locating all facilities as much as possible on 

relatively dry moist sedge-shrub meadow and moist tussock tundra and through the 

protections required in stipulations on the federal leases being developed as well as other 

protective measures incorporated in the Preferred Alternative and mitigation adopted in 

this ROD (see discussion above under Wetlands (Executive Order 11990)), the facilities 

authorized in this ROD will avoid impacts to floodplains to the maximum extent 

practicable and will have minimal to negligible impacts on the functions and values of

floodplains. 

Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898)

Executive Order 12898 requires that an agency identify and address “as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” 

The FEIS identified direct and indirect impacts that may affect the residents of Nuiqsut, 

25
Alpine Satellite Development Plan

Barrow, Atqasuk, and Anaktuvuk Pass. These communities all qualify as minority and 

low-income populations and all could potentially be disproportionately impacted by the 

Preferred Alternative in its entirety. Impacts from development on BLM-managed land 

could be potentially high and adverse for residents of Nuiqsut if there is a large spill that 

affects, or is perceived by local residents as affecting, important subsistence resources. 

Spills could contaminate subsistence resources and cause subsistence gatherers to avoid the 

resources. The presence of the pipeline and roads to and between CD-6 and CD-7 could 

also result in a high and adverse impact if they were to disturb, displace, or obstruct the 

movement of caribou in such a way that the animals become substantially more difficult to 

harvest. 

Stipulations on the leases on BLM-managed lands avoid or mitigate these potential high

and adverse impacts. Relevant stipulations include, but are not limited to, those that 

require ready access to spill cleanup materials, spill response training, preparation of a spill 

prevention and response plan, a required separation distance between roads and pipelines 

(reducing the combined facilities’ potential to obstruct caribou movement), and 

consultation with subsistence users. The Preferred Alternative and mitigation measures

avoids or mitigates potentially high and adverse impacts from a large spill on BLMmanaged lands to the maximum extent practicable by design features, including, but not 

limited to: 

• the installation of pipeline valves on either side of the Ublutuoch River and 

placement of spill containment equipment below each valve, 

• a pipeline monitoring and surveillance program, and 

• locating roads near to and parallel the pipelines, thereby facilitating leak detection 

and spill response, 

The Preferred Alternative and mitigation measures avoids or mitigates potentially high and 

adverse impacts from a disturbance, displacement, or obstruction of caribou movement on 

BLM-managed lands to the maximum extent practicable by design features, including, but 

not limited to: 

• elevating pipe a minimum of 7 feet above the tundra, as measured at the VSMs, and 

• use of a non-reflective finish on all pipelines. 

Nuiqsut residents have expressed concern that they will lose access to subsistence areas 

because of the introduction of CPAI’s infrastructure. CPAI’s proposal and the Preferred 

Alternative adopted in this ROD does not preclude access by local residents and the 

Preferred Alternative specifically states that the roads would be available for their use. 

The NSB’s conflict avoidance provisions of its permit for CD-4 also assure access to “the 

Alpine Satellite areas.” 

Colville River Special Area 

The NPRPA authorized the designation of Special Areas within the National Petroleum 

Reserve-Alaska that contain significant resource values. Federal regulations (43 CFR 

26 
Record of Decision

2361.0-5(f)) define Petroleum Reserve’s Special Areas as “areas within the reserve 

identified by the Secretary of the Interior as having significant subsistence, recreational, 

fish and wildlife, or historical or scenic value and therefore, warranting maximum 

protection of such values to the extent consistent with the requirements of the Act for the 

exploration of the Reserve.” The regulations (43 CFR 2361.1(c)) require that “maximum

protection measures shall be taken on all actions” within the special area. These measures 

may include rescheduling activities, use of alternative routes, requirements on types of 

vehicles and loadings, limitations on types of aircraft used and their altitude and distance 

from identified places, and special fuel handling procedures. The regulations go on to state 

(43 CFR 2361.1(e)(1)) that “to the extent consistent with the requirements of the Act, . . . 

the authorized officer may limit, restrict, or prohibit use of and access to lands within the 

Reserve, including special areas.” On June 3, 1977 (Federal Register, pp. 28723-24) the 

Secretary of the Interior designated the Colville River Special Area. In doing so, the 

Secretary stated that the “central Colville River and some of its tributaries provide critical 

nesting habitat for the Arctic peregrine falcon, an endangered species. The bluffs and cliffs 

along the Colville River provide nesting sites with the adjacent areas being utilized as food 

hunting areas.” No other special values were noted in the designation and no other special 

values would be impacted by the ASDP. 

CD-7, approximately 8 miles of road and pipeline, and the proposed Clover Gravel Mine 

are within T. 10 N., Rs. 2-3 E, U.M., which comprise the northern limit of the Colville 

River Special Area. Raptors, including peregrine falcon, are not known to nest within 

approximately 5 or 6 miles of the proposed facilities. (See Figure 3.3.3.5-1 in the FEIS.) 

Gravel mining will have little impact on peregrine falcon partly because mining extraction 

will occur during winter when the birds have migrated out of the area. In addition, 

stipulations on CPAI’s leases and design and construction measures and other protective 

measures incorporated into the Preferred Alternative and approved by this ROD reduce the 

potential adverse impacts to the Special Area. For example, all access to the gravel mine 

will be by ice roads and interim rehabilitation of the site will proceed as gravel extraction 

is completed, thus reducing potential impacts on natural resources in the area. Moreover, 

placing CD-7 outside of the Special Area would make it impossible to extract the oil in 

that location, an outcome inconsistent with the purposes of the NPRPA. Prohibiting 

extraction of gravel from the Clover Gravel Mine would eliminate the only known source 

of gravel on the west side of the Nigliq Channel, effectively making development of the 

western oil satellites infeasible. Reducing the road and pipeline in the Special Area would 

be possible, but only at the expense of additional intrusion into the Fish Creek setback. 

Placing infrastructure in the Special Area rather than in the Fish Creek setback is 

consistent with the IAP/EIS, which included provisions to restrict infrastructure in the 

setback, but not in this part of the Special Area. This judgment is consistent with the fact 

that the most important habitat in the Special Area for raptors is the bluffs immediately 

adjacent to the Colville River (and approximately 8 miles from the nearest proposed 

infrastructure), for which the IAP/EIS ROD did provide surface restrictions, and that the 

Arctic peregrine falcon was removed from the Endangered Species list in 1994. Therefore, 

placement of a portion of the Preferred Alternative infrastructure within this northern 

portion of the Special Area is consistent with the NPRPA and provides maximum

27
Alpine Satellite Development Plan

protection for the Special Area and specifically for the resources for which the Special 

Area was designated.

Management Decisions by Other Agencies 

CPAI’s proposal is subject to approval by the federal and state cooperating agencies and 

the North Slope Borough. The authorities of these agencies are described in Section 1 of 

the FEIS. To date, these agencies have not issued decisions related to CPAI’s proposal on 

BLM-managed land. If a decision of another authorizing agency is inconsistent with the 

decision in this ROD, BLM will revisit this ROD’s decision and make modifications as

necessary. BLM will not issue permits or rights-of-way until the state has completed its 

review of the applicant’s coastal zone consistency certification and issued its concurrence 

for development on BLM-managed lands. 

The other agencies’ decision may provide mitigation in addition to that provided by BLM. 

Provisions of a permit issued by the NSB for a satellite outside BLM-managed lands have 

provided mitigation relevant to development on BLM-managed lands. The NSB permit for 

CD-4 requires annual funding from CPAI over ten years to evaluate impacts to the 

movement and distribution of caribou, the number and distribution of subsistence fish 

species, and the subsistence of Nuiqsut residents. These studies cover all of the proposed 

Alpine satellites, including those on BLM-managed lands. The NSB permit for CD-4

requires CPAI to contribute $50,000 annually to a Mitigation Fund to be administered by a 

committee composed of NSB government, tribal, and Kuukpik representatives. The fund 

is to be used to offset costs related to mitigation of impacts on subsistence harvests 

associated with the construction and operation of all of the satellites. The permit also 

states that there will be no restriction on access by Nuiqsut residents of Alpine satellite 

facilities, except within 1,000 or certain exploration, production, and transportation 

facilities and requires CPAI to conduct an inventory of archaeological and historical sites 

prior to construction and report and make efforts to preserve and protect any prehistoric, 

historic, and archaeological object discovered during operations. 

28 
Record of Decision

4. ANILCA: Section 810 Summary

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act § Section 810(a) requires that a 

subsistence evaluation be completed for any federal determination to “withdraw, reserve, 

lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy or disposition of public lands.” CPAI’s 

proposed project encompasses lands that are owned or managed by three entities: the 

Kuukpik Corporation (private lands); the State of Alaska (state lands), and the BLM 

(federal or public lands). Because ANILCA requires an evaluation of potential impacts to 

subsistence on public lands, an ANILCA § 810 evaluation must be completed for the 

ASDP EIS. The evaluations of the subsistence effects of each alternative only apply to 

those lands that are administered by the BLM. The impacts of the entire project, together 

with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in the surrounding region, are 

evaluated in the cumulative impacts section of this § 810 Analysis. 

The ANILCA also requires that this evaluation include findings on three specific issues: 

1. the effect of such use, occupancy, or disposition on subsistence uses and 

needs; 

2. the availability of other lands for the purpose sought to be achieved; and 

3. other alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the use, occupancy, or 

disposition of public lands needed for subsistence purposes (16 U.S.C. 

§3120). 

The following discussion summarizes the ANILCA §810 evaluation for the “Preferred 

Alternative” as set out in greater detail in Appendix B of the FEIS. 

The effects of Preferred Alternative fall above the level of significantly restricting 

subsistence use for the community of Nuiqsut. While access to key subsistence 

harvest areas near Fish Creek is enhanced by 7’ tall pipelines, the potential impacts 

to subsistence resources by displacement, and impacts to current subsistence 

patterns of use exceed the non-significant level; therefore, a positive determination 

pursuant to ANILCA § 810 is required. 

The positive finding for the Preferred Alternative of a significant restriction to 

subsistence for the village of Nuiqsut is based on the following: 

z Displacement of caribou, wolf and wolverine from the Fish Creek 

traditional hunting area during the winter construction phase is expected to 

last for two years; two years is considered greater than “occasional 

redistribution.” 

z The presence of oil and gas infrastructure in the Fish Creek traditional 

hunting area is considered more than a “slight inconvenience” to the 

subsistence users in Nuiqsut, who have historically altered their traditional 

hunting patterns to avoid oil and gas development (See the FEIS at Section 

4F.4.3.1 Operation Period) 

29
Alpine Satellite Development Plan

z The Fish Creek area is proportionately the area with the highest use for 

Nuiqsut’s winter harvest of caribou (FEIS Figure 3.4.3.2-6), and 25 percent 

of Nuiqsut’s caribou harvest for 1993, 1994–1995, 2001, and 2002 come

from the Fish and Judy creeks area (FEIS Figure 3.4.3.2-7). Fish Creek is 

also an important Nuiqsut harvest area for geese (more than 45 percent) 

(FEIS Figure 3.4.3.2-15), and more than half of wolves harvested by 

Nuiqsut hunters come from the Fish and Judy Creek areas (FEIS Figure 

3.4.3.2-21). Infrastructure, traffic, and industrial effects such as noise and 

emissions in this area have the potential to reduce the abundance of 

harvestable resources, alter the distribution of these resources, and result in 

the non-use of traditional harvest areas. 

Depending on the resulting migration patterns for the Teshekpuk Lake Herd, and 

the areas of relocation for other subsistence species, the communities of Barrow, 

Atqasuk, and Anaktuvuk Pass may also be affected. However, existing data 

summarized in the FEIS does not warrant a positive finding under ANILCA § 810 

for these three communities. 

The cumulative effects of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

which are presented in Section 4G of the FEIS, exceed the “may significantly restrict” 

threshold for the communities of Barrow, Atqasuk, Nuiqsut, and Anaktuvuk Pass, and thus 

a positive ANILCA § 810 determination must be made for the cumulative case. 

ANILCA § 810(a) provides that no “withdrawal, reservation, lease, permit, or other use, 

occupancy or disposition of the public lands which would significantly restrict subsistence 

uses shall be effected” until the Federal Agency gives the required notice and holds a 

hearing in accordance with §810(a)(1) and (2) and makes the three determinations required 

by § 810(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C). The BLM has found in this subsistence evaluation that all 

of the alternatives considered in this EIS (including the no-action alternative), when 

considered together with all the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future cumulative 

effects discussed in the EIS, may significantly restrict subsistence uses. Therefore, BLM 

undertook the notice and hearing procedures required by ANILCA §810(a)(1) and (2), as 

described above, and now must make the three determinations required by §810(a)(3)(A), 

(B), and (C). 16 U.S.C. §3120(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C). 

The BLM has determined that the plan meets the following requirements (16 U.S.C. 

§3120(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C)) for Federal actions that may result in a significant restriction 

on subsistence uses: 

1. The significant restriction of subsistence uses is necessary, consistent with sound 

management principles for the utilization of the public lands. 

The BLM has prepared this EIS to address CPAI’s applications to produce certain 

oil accumulations on its leased lands. The EIS fulfills the mandates of the

President’s energy policy and BLM’s responsibility to manage the National 

Petroleum Reserve-Alaska under the authority of two laws passed in 1976—the 

30 
Record of Decision

Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act as amended, and the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act. The President’s energy policy directs the Secretary 

of the Interior to “consider additional environmentally responsible oil and gas 

development, based on sound science and the best available technology.” The 

NPRPA authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to “further explore, 

develop and operate” the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (10 U.S.C. § 7421). 

At the same time, the statute also requires that all oil and gas activities “undertaken 

pursuant to this section shall include or provide for such conditions, restrictions, 

and prohibitions as the Secretary deems necessary or appropriate to mitigate 

reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects on the surface resources” 

of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (42 U.S.C. § 6508). 

It was in furtherance of these objectives, together with other management guidance 

found in the NPRPA, FLPMA, NEPA, and ANILCA that this EIS was undertaken. 

After considering a broad range of alternatives, a Preferred Alternative was 

developed that provides for the applicant’s proposed action while minimizing 

impacts to important subsistence resources and subsistence-use areas. The 

resulting Preferred Alternative considers the necessity for economically feasible 

development of the oil discoveries on CPAI’s leases while providing effective 

protections to minimize any impacts on subsistence resources and uses. Under the 

Preferred Alternative, the stipulations that currently exist in the 1998 Northeast 

National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska Record of Decision serve as additional 

mitigation measures to be used to reduce the impact of the proposed activity on 

subsistence resources. 

As described elsewhere in this ROD, the BLM has considered and balanced a 

variety of factors with regard to the proposed activity on public lands, including, 

most prominently, the limitations to effective oil recovery imposed by the 

subsurface geology at the CD-6 pad and the comments received from residents and 

subsistence users of the planning area. The BLM has determined that the 

significant restriction that may occur under the Preferred Alternative, when 

considered together with all the possible impacts of the cumulative case, is

necessary, consistent with sound management principles for the use of these public 

lands, and for BLM to fulfill the management goals for the Planning Area as guided

by the statutory directives in the NPRPA, FLPMA, and other applicable laws. 

2. The proposed activity will involve the minimal amount of public lands necessary to 

accomplish the purposes of such use, occupancy, or other disposition. 

The BLM has determined that the Preferred Alternative involves the minimal 

amount of public lands necessary to accomplish the purposes of the ASDP. A total 

of two oil production pads and approximately 17.2 miles of road and pipeline will 

result in surface activity on approximately 130 acres in the 4.6 million acre 

Northeast Planning Area. Advances in oil field technology over the past two 

decades have made it possible to reduce the size of drilling pads significantly and 

rely on directional drilling to reach accumulations of oil throughout the fields. It 

31
Alpine Satellite Development Plan

would not be practicable to further reduce the amount of land needed for CPAI’s 

project and still produce the oil accumulations from these lands. 

3. Reasonable steps will be taken to minimize adverse impacts upon subsistence uses 

and resources resulting from such actions. 

When BLM began its NEPA scoping process for this EIS, it identified subsistence 

as one of the major issues to be addressed. In order to assure that the best and most 

up-to-date and reliable information was available, a subsistence specialist (Stephen 

Braund and Associates) was contracted to conduct interviews with the residents of 

Nuiqsut, the village with the most potential to be impacted by the proposed 

development. This information, as well as the results of public scoping meetings in 

the villages of the North Slope, meetings with the National Petroleum ReserveAlaska Subsistence Advisory Panel, and through consultation with tribal and local 

governments, was used to analyze and evaluate the range of impacts to subsistence 

use as a result of the proposed activity. 

When crafting the final preferred alternative, the BLM took into consideration 

comments from the villages and individuals of the North Slope during the ANILCA 

Subsistence Hearings conducted in conjunction with the draft EIS public meetings. 

This information resulted in several modifications to the Applicant’s Proposed 

Action, and resulted in Alternative F, the Agencies Preferred Alternative. Those 

modifications that apply to public lands under the stewardship of the BLM include: 

• Removing substantial infrastructure from the Fish Creek 3-mile setback 

• Increasing the elevation of pipelines to 7 feet minimum at vertical support 

members (VSMs) 

Given these steps, as well as the requirement to follow the existing 1998 Northeast 

ROD stipulations, and others discussed in detail above and in Section II of the EIS 

that have been or will be taken during the life of the ASDP, BLM has determined 

that the Preferred Alternative includes all reasonable steps to minimize adverse 

impacts on subsistence uses and resources. 

32 
Record of Decision

5. Mitigation and Monitoring 

Stipulations designed to protect the resources and uses on BLM-managed land were 

described in the IAP/EIS ROD and are listed in the ASDP EIS in Appendix D. They are 

part of the leases CPAI purchased and CPAI’s development is subject to them. These 

stipulations include restrictions and guidelines on waste and spill prevention, handling, and 

disposal; ice roads and water use; overland moves; oil and gas facility design and 

construction; ground and air transportation; and field abandonment. The IAP/EIS ROD 

also contains additional stipulations to protect subsistence resources and activities and 

traditional land use sites. Exceptions to a small number of the stipulations in the IAP/EIS 

have been approved in instances in which implementation of a stipulation is technically not 

feasible, economically prohibitive, or an environmentally preferable option is available, 

and where the objectives of the stipulations can still be satisfied. In addition, the ASDP 

ROD adopts mitigation measures and measures proposed by FWS as described above 

under Decision. It has been determined that all practical means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm from the project on BLM-managed lands have been adopted in this 

ROD. 

Monitoring will be undertaken to determine the status of the various resources in the 

planning area, to ensure compliance with and enforcement of lease stipulations and 

decisions in this ROD, and to measure the effectiveness of protective measures. Mitigation 

measures adopted by this decision and described above in the Decision section of this 

ROD include requirements for monitoring water, water quality, fish, and caribou and 

monitoring is also called for under the terms and conditions proposed by the FWS. 

The BLM will work with CPAI to further refine monitoring plans. These plans will 

address how both entities will proceed to determine the effectiveness of stipulations and 

other mitigation measures. At the same time, the BLM is working with its Research and 

Monitoring Team (RMT) created pursuant to the Northeast National Petroleum ReserveAlaska IAP/EIS ROD on a monitoring plan for all of the National Petroleum ReserveAlaska. The more specific monitoring plans for the Alpine Satellite Development will 

have to be consistent with the broader goals and objectives of the National Petroleum

Reserve-Alaska plan, so the Alpine satellite monitoring plans may be reviewed by the 

RMT prior to implementation. 

33
Alpine Satellite Development Plan

34 
Record of Decision

6. Public Involvement 

Public and government agencies provided valuable assistance and comments throughout 

the development of the ASDP EIS. Public outreach is described in Section 5 of the FEIS. 

It consisted of the following. 

Scoping. Formal scoping began when BLM published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare 

the ASDP EIS in the Federal Register on February 18, 2003. Publication of the NOI 

initiated the 45-day public scoping period, which ended on March 31, 2003. One hundred 

twelve individuals signed-in at the four scoping meetings. Thirty-five written comments 

and one phone message were received during the scoping period. 

Draft EIS Comments. The EPA’s Notice of Availability of the ASDP Draft EIS was 

published in the Federal Register on January 16, 2004. Comments on the Draft EIS were 

received via letters, e-mail, fax, website, and formal public meetings. Public meetings were 

held in Anaktuvuk Pass (February 17, 2004), Anchorage (February 23, 2004), Atqasuk 

(February 24, 2004), Barrow (February 9, 2004), Fairbanks (February 18, 2004), and 

Nuiqsut (February 10, 2004). The meetings at Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, and 

Nuiqsut also served as ANILCA 810 subsistence hearings. At the request of the NSB, the 

comment period was extended by one week and closed March 8, 2004. 

Approximately 40,000 individual comment media were received via letter, e-mail, fax, 

website, and formal public meetings. Of these, approximately 39,700 comments arrived in 

response to solicitations from advocacy groups. Many of the comments prompted by 

campaigns organized by environmental organizations were identical statements. More 

than 70 people made statements at the comment meetings/ANILCA 810 hearings held in 

Anaktuvuk Pass, Anchorage, Atqasuk, Barrow, Fairbanks, and Nuiqsut. 

Development of the Preferred Alternative. After the public meetings and closing of the 

public comment period, BLM and the cooperating agencies reviewed the comments, 

engaged with the contractor in revising the EIS, and jointly developed the Preferred 

Alternative. BLM consulted directly with leaders of Nuiqsut in developing the 

components of the Preferred Alternative on BLM-managed lands. All comments were 

considered in the development of the Preferred Alternative. 

Consultation with Federally Recognized Tribes. Federally recognized tribes have a 

special, unique legal and political relationship with the government of the United States as 

defined by the U.S. Constitution, treaties, statutes, court decisions, and executive orders. 

These definitive authorities are also the basis for the federal government's obligation to 

acknowledge the status of federally recognized tribes in Alaska. 

The BLM consults with federally recognized tribes consistent with the Presidential 

Executive Memorandum on Government-to-Government Relations with Native American 

Tribal Governments, dated April 29, 1994; Executive Order 13175 on Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, dated November 6, 2000; and the January 

35
Alpine Satellite Development Plan

18, 2001, Department of the Interior-Alaska Policy on Government-to-Government 

Relations with Alaska Native Tribes. The BLM together with the federal cooperating 

agencies formally consults with federally recognized tribes in Alaska before undertaking 

activities that will have a substantial, direct effect on federally recognized tribes, their 

assets, rights, services, or programs. To this end, government-to-government meetings and 

consultation with three federally recognized trives—the Native Village of Barrow (NVB), 

the Native Village of Nuiqsut, and the Iñupiat Community of the Arctic Slope (ICAS)—

occurred in the course of developing the ASDP EIS. The FEIS provides additional detail 

on specific government-to-government meetings with federally recognized tribes and state 

and local governments. 

Throughout the planning process, comments and issues brought forward through formal 

government-to-government consultation with Native tribal governments consistently 

focused on a few topics. These issues included concerns about the proposed 

development’s potential impacts on subsistence resources and local residents’ subsistence 

way of life. Both the NVB and the ICAS expressed interest that the federal government be 

especially sensitive to the concerns of Nuiqsut residents who are closer to the proposed 

development. Specific concerns expressed included: deflection/avoidance by caribou of 

roads and pipelines, impediments to caribou and human travel presented by pipelines, 

particularly by pipelines only 5 feet high, location of oil infrastructure within the 3-mile 

setback established in the 1998 IAP/EIS, the introduction of additional infrastructure 

which local residents avoid during subsistence activities, the introduction of infrastructure 

into the Colville Delta which experiences severe flooding events, and limitations on local 

employment opportunities. All comments and recommendations from tribes were 

considered. 

Final ASDP EIS Comments. The BLM has received thirteen letters commenting on the 

FEIS. Most letters stated opposition to the project and/or restated arguments made during 

the comment period on the DEIS. 

36 
Record of Decision

APPENDIX A: Modifications and Clarifications 

The following list highlights clarifications and minor modifications that BLM has made to 

the Preferred Alternative presented in the ASDP FEIS for adoption here as the 

Department’s decision. 

Ublutuoch River Bridge: The BLM has determined not to require that the bridge over the 

Ublutuoch River span the active channel and primary floodplain terraces, i.e., reach from

bank to bank, or that the approaches to the bridge provide for natural water flow as 

described in the FEIS’s Preferred Alternative. These design features were incorporated 

into the Preferred Alternative at the request of some of the cooperating agencies to assure 

that the alternative included aspects important for them to fulfill their regulatory 

responsibilities. CPAI’s proposed bridge and approach design is acceptable to BLM. The 

impacts of CPAI’s design proposal for the Ublutuoch River bridge were disclosed and 

evaluated in the FEIS, particularly Sections 4A.2.2 and 4A.3.2. Although the higher west 

floodplain is flooded under high water flows and spring breakup, it does not convey a 

significant part of the total flow of the Ublutuoch River. Rather, most flow is conveyed 

along the lower west floodplain and the main channel, both of which are spanned by the 

bridge proposed by CPAI. Even at the 100-year flood level, it is estimated that the bridge 

proposed by CPAI will elevate water levels less than a foot. This ROD incorporates a 

mitigation measure requiring a program to monitor sedimentation upstream and 

downstream of the bridge. This program will assist in the analysis of scour and fill 

processes and assist BLM to determine if and what erosion mitigation measures may be 

required in addition to those incorporated into CPAI’s design. BLM acknowledges that 

cooperating agencies may require a longer bridge or minor relocation and special design 

features for the bridge approaches as part of their decisions. BLM approves of such 

modifications provided they are at least as protective of the environment as the bridge and 

approach design approved in this ROD. 

Mitigation measures: The BLM reviewed the potential mitigation measures contained in 

the FEIS and has determined to adopt the measures described above under Decision. In 

addition, this ROD also adopts the terms and conditions and one of the conservation 

recommendations provided by the FWS in its Endangered Species Act Biological Opinion. 

These are also described in the Decision section of this ROD.

37