__________________________________ 

APPENDIX A 

ANILCA SECTION 810 ANALYSIS OF 

SUBSISTENCE IMPACTS 

A.1 SUBSISTENCE EVALUATION FACTORS .......................................................................... 3

A.2 ANILCA § 810(a) Evaluations and Findings for All Alternatives and the Cumulative 

Case ................................................................................................................................................ 5

A.2.1 Evaluation and Findings for Alternative A (No Action Alternative) .............................. 5

A.2.2 Evaluation and Findings for Alternative B...................................................................... 8

A.2.3 Evaluation and Findings for Alternative C.................................................................... 12

A.2.4 Evaluation and Findings for Alternative D.................................................................... 14

A.2.5 Evaluation and Findings for the Cumulative Case........................................................ 16

A.3 Notice and Hearings.............................................................................................................. 20

A.4 Subsistence Determinations Under the ANILCA § 810(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C) ................... 20
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis A-2
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

APPENDIX A 

ANILCA § 810 ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE IMPACTS 

In 2001, the President created the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG), 

consisting of the Vice-President and other key cabinet members. The primary task of the group

was to “develop a national energy policy designed to help the private sector, and, as necessary

and appropriate, state and local governments, and promote dependable, affordable, and 

environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future” (NEPDG 2001). In 

May 2001, the NEPDG released the National Energy Policy report, a comprehensive list of

findings and key recommendations that were adopted by the President, and that form the basis 

of the President’s National Energy Policy. Specifically, the 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, through further lease sales in the National 

Petroleum Reserve – Alaska,” and that “such consideration should include areas not currently

leased within the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska.” To that end, 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) initiated a process to amend the 1998 Integrated 

Activity Plan for the Northeast Planning Area of the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska 

(NPR-A). The Amended IAP/EIS was issued in January 2005, and was followed by a record of 

decision (ROD) in January 2006. On September 25, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District 

of Alaska found that the Amended IAP/EIS failed to adequately address the cumulative impacts 

increased activities in the Northeast NPR-A planning area will have when combined with 

increased activity in the Northwest NPR-A planning area. The court vacated that ROD and 

enjoined the Secretary of the Interior from further action in the Northeast planning area under

that ROD. This Supplemental IAP/EIS provides additional analysis necessary to fully address 

the deficiencies noted by the court and updates relevant sections of the document with new 

information. 

Chapters 3 (Affected Environment) and 4 (Environmental Consequences) of the Supplemental 

Northeast NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (Supplemental 

IAP/EIS) provide a detailed description of both the affected environment of the planning area 

and the potential adverse effects of the various alternatives to subsistence and to subsistence 

resources. This appendix uses the detailed information presented in the Supplemental IAP/EIS 

to evaluate the potential impacts to subsistence pursuant to Section 810(a) of the Alaska 

National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA). 

A.1 SUBSISTENCE EVALUATION FACTORS 

Section 810(a) of ANILCA, 16 USC § 3120, requires that an evaluation of subsistence uses and 

needs be completed for any federal determination to “withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise 

permit the use, occupancy or disposition of public lands.” As such, an evaluation of potential 

impacts to subsistence under ANILCA § 810(a) must be completed for the Supplemental 

IAP/EIS. ANILCA requires that this evaluation include findings on three specific issues: 

• The effect of use, occupancy, or disposition on subsistence uses and needs; 

• The availability of other lands for the purpose sought to be achieved; and 

A-3 Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

• Other alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the use, occupancy, or disposition of 

public lands needed for subsistence purposes (16 USC § 3120). 

The evaluation and findings required by ANILCA § 810 are set out for each of the four 

alternatives considered in the Supplemental IAP/EIS. 

A finding that the proposed action may significantly restrict subsistence uses imposes 

additional requirements, including provisions for notices to the State of Alaska and appropriate 

regional and local subsistence committees, a hearing in the vicinity of the area involved, and the 

making of the following determinations, as required by Section 810(a)(3): 

• Such a significant restriction of subsistence uses is necessary, and consistent with sound 

management principles for the utilization of the public lands; 

• The proposed activity will involve the minimal amount of public lands necessary to

accomplish the purposes of use, occupancy, or other disposition; and 

• Reasonable steps will be taken to minimize adverse effects upon subsistence uses and 

resources resulting from such actions. 

To determine if a significant restriction of subsistence uses and needs may result from any one 

of the alternatives discussed in the Supplemental IAP/EIS, including their cumulative effects, 

the following three factors in particular are considered: 

• The reduction in the availability of subsistence resources caused by a decline in the 

population or amount of harvestable resources; 

• Reductions in the availability of resources used for subsistence purposes caused by 

alteration of their normal locations and distribution patterns; and 

• Limitations on access to subsistence resources, including from increased competition for 

the resources. 

A significant restriction to subsistence may occur in at least two instances: 1) when an action 

substantially reduces populations or their availability to subsistence users, and 2) when an 

action substantially limits access by subsistence users to resources. Chapter 3 (Affected 

Environment) of the Supplemental IAP/EIS provides information on areas and resources 

important for subsistence use, and the degree of dependence of affected villages on different 

subsistence populations. Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences) provides much of the data on 

levels of reductions and limitations under each alternative, and is used to determine whether 

the action would cause a significant restriction to subsistence. The information contained in the 

Supplemental IAP/EIS is the primary data used in this analysis. 

A subsistence evaluation and findings under ANILCA § 810 must also include a Cumulative 

Impacts analysis. Section A.2, below, begins with evaluations and findings for each of the four

alternatives discussed in the Supplemental IAP/EIS. Finally, the cumulative case, as discussed 

in Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences) of the Supplemental IAP/EIS, is evaluated. This 

approach helps the reader to separate the subsistence restrictions that would potentially be

caused by activities proposed under the four alternatives from those that would potentially be 

caused by past, present, and future activities that could occur, or have already occurred, in the 

surrounding area. 

When analyzing the effects of the four alternatives, particular attention is paid to those 

communities who have the potential to be most directly impacted by the proposed actions— 

Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis A-4 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Wainwright. These communities are located 

within or adjacent to the Northeast Planning Area. The cumulative case expands the analysis to 

include the entire North Slope, including indirect effects to communities located in other areas 

of the state (i.e., the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta), to assess any impacts to subsistence that may 

result because of negative effects to migratory subsistence species. 

In addition to ANILCA, Environmental Justice, as defined in Executive Order 12898, also calls 

for an analysis of the effects of federal actions on minority populations with regard to

subsistence. Specifically, Environmental Justice is: 

The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national 

origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people,

including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of the 

negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial 

operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies. 

Section 4-4 of Executive Order 12898, regarding the Subsistence Consumption of Fish and 

Wildlife, requires federal agencies to collect, maintain, and analyze information on the 

consumption patterns of populations who principally rely on fish and/or wildlife for subsistence, 

and to communicate to the public any risks associated with the consumption patterns. To this 

end, the subsistence analyses of all alternatives, located in Chapter 4 (Environmental 

Consequences) of the Supplemental IAP/EIS, have been reviewed and found to comply with 

Environmental Justice. 

A.2 ANILCA § 810(a) Evaluations and Findings for All Alternatives and 

the Cumulative Case 

The following evaluations are based on information relating to the environmental and

subsistence consequences of alternatives A through D, and the cumulative case as presented in 

Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences) of the Supplemental IAP/EIS. The stipulations 

discussed in Chapter 2 (Alternatives) of the Supplemental IAP/EIS are also considered for the

alternatives to which they apply. The evaluations and findings focus on potential impacts to the 

subsistence resources themselves, as well as access to resources, and economic and cultural 

issues that relate to subsistence use. 

A.2.1 Evaluation and Findings for Alternative A (No Action Alternative) 

Alternative A of the Supplemental IAP/EIS is the No Action Alternative. Selection of this 

alternative would result in continued management of the Northeast NPR-A as specified in the 

1998 Northeast National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska IAP/EIS Record of Decision (ROD; 1998 

Northeast IAP/EIS ROD). In effect, Alternative A is the preferred alternative from the previous

1998 EIS, and as such, a subsistence evaluation as required by the ANILCA § 810 has already 

been completed. The evaluation and findings presented here reaffirm the previous conclusion 

that impacts to subsistence as a result of this alternative would be minimal. 

A-5 Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

A.2.1.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence 

Uses and Needs 

Under Alternative A, 13% of the planning area would remain unavailable (87% available) for oil 

and gas leasing, including much of the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area, and important waterfowl 

and caribou habitat. All of the special areas and site-specific prohibitions, as well as the 79 

stipulations defined in the ROD, would remain in effect. 

The analysis of Alternative A on subsistence presented in section 4.3.12, No Action 

Alternative, Subsistence, considers the effects of non-oil and gas activities, the effects of oil

and gas activities, the effects of oil spills, and the effectiveness of the stipulations required by 

BLM, as discussed in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD. The analysis concludes that the No 

Action Alternative would have a negligible effect on subsistence species and on access to 

subsistence resources, and that mitigation measures developed by BLM in conjunction with 

local communities would serve to minimize, to the extent possible, impacts to subsistence use by 

the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, Wainwright or Barrow. 

Effects to subsistence resources by non-oil and gas activities consist primarily of those actions

associated with research. Numerous studies are conducted on a year-round basis on the North

Slope, including aerial surveys by fixed-wing aircraft or helicopter, or ground surveys on foot or

by off-highway vehicle (OHV), all of which have the potential to disturb animals. The most 

frequent complaint voiced by local subsistence users is that a large amount of aerial disturbance 

to animals occurs each field season in conjunction with scientific studies (Subsistence Advisory 

Panel [SAP] Minutes, June 6, 2002 meeting; SAP Minutes, August 22, 2002 meeting). Many of 

the scientific studies that currently occur are a result of stipulations imposed on oil and gas 

activities in the planning area; however, these same mandatory stipulations serve to minimize 

the potential effects of conducting research. Based on the analysis presented in Chapter 4 

(Environmental Consequences), the effects of non-oil and gas activities on the species utilized by 

subsistence users is expected to be localized and short-term, and to have no regional population

effects. 

Oil and gas-related activities allowed under the No Action Alternative include seismic 

exploration, exploratory drilling, and development/production. Each of these activities has the 

potential to displace animals, with exploration potentially causing temporary displacement in 

the area of activity, and development/production potentially causing multi-year displacement 

during construction, and until the animal becomes habituated to the resultant infrastructure. 

Access by subsistence users could be impacted if the animals they wish to hunt have been 

displaced to areas much farther from their normal hunting grounds. However, many of the 

stipulations in the 1998 ROD would minimize the effects of oil and gas activities on animal 

populations, their range, and access to hunting areas by subsistence users (see section 

4.3.12.3, Effectiveness of Stipulations). 

Oil spills have the potential to impact subsistence species as well as subsistence harvest 

patterns, depending on the amount and the location of the spill. Small spills are unlikely to 

cause great damage, especially if contained on land. Large spills are unlikely to occur during the 

exploration phase of oil development, but could occur once production infrastructure and

facilities were in place. Several stipulations pertaining to spills and spill response are included 

under the No Action Alternative, which serve to reduce the potential impacts of oil spills to 

subsistence species and use. 

Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis A-6 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

As stated in section 4.3.13.4, Sociocultural Systems, Conclusion, the 1998 Northeast 

IAP/EIS ROD was the result of several years of collaboration between the communities near the

planning area, local governments and agencies, and BLM. The stipulations comprise essential 

protections for subsistence resources, cabins, camps, and river corridors, and also define the 

system of conflict negotiation to be used by permittees, leaseholders, subsistence users, and the 

BLM. Residents living on the North Slope, especially those in the village of Nuiqsut, view the 

1998 stipulations, river setbacks, and designated special areas as a negotiated compromise 

between the Iñupiat people, the federal government, and the oil industry. Retention of the 1998 

Northeast IAP/EIS ROD is favored by many individuals, local agencies, and local governments, 

as the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD is viewed as an effective plan that allows for oil and gas 

activity and the Iñupiat way of life to effectively coexist (ENSR 2004 Public Scoping Summary 

Report for the Amendment to the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska Integrated Activity 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement). 

A.2.1.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for Oil and Gas Exploration 

and Development 

The Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 (NPRPA), as amended, gave the 

Secretary of the Interior the authority to conduct oil and gas leasing in the Northeast NPR-A. 

However, the law prohibited petroleum production from occurring in the NPR-A until 

authorized by Congress. In 1980, Congress granted that authorization and directed the 

Secretary of the Interior to undertake a program of competitive leasing of potential oil and gas 

tracts in the Reserve. 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, through further lease sales in the National Petroleum 

Reserve – Alaska.” BLM is undertaking this Supplemental IAP/EIS to fulfill the mandates of 

the President’s energy policy, as well as BLM’s responsibilities to manage these lands under 

authority of the NPRPA and Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and other

authorities cited elsewhere in this EIS. Alternative A would continue the authorization of oil 

and gas exploration or development activities in the Northeast NPR-A under the 1998 

Northeast IAP/EIS ROD. Other lands managed by BLM are either too remote for economically 

viable oil and gas production, or have a low probability of containing sufficient quantities of oil 

or gas. State and Native Corporation Lands cannot be considered in a BLM plan, and under 

BLM policy other BLM lands outside of Alaska are not considered under ANILCA. 

A.2.1.3 Evaluation of Other Alternatives that Would Reduce or Eliminate the Use, 

Occupancy, or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence Purposes 

Alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the use of public lands needed for subsistence

include: 1) making more land in the Northeast NPR-A unavailable for oil and gas leasing, or 2)

not allowing oil and gas activity to occur. However, neither of these alternatives would satisfy 

the underlying purpose of the IAP/EIS to make more lands available for leasing. The Secretary

of the Interior has directed BLM to consider additional lands in the Northeast NPR-A to the 

extent it can be done in an environmentally sound manner. Reducing the number of acres

available for energy development would contradict this direction, and would go against the

President’s stated National Energy Policy. Additionally, the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD

allowed the BLM to enter into contracts with several oil companies, by leasing land for oil and 

gas exploration. All of these leases are still in effect. Section 2.5, Alternatives Considered 

but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis of the Supplemental IAP/EIS discusses other 

alternatives that were considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis. 

A-7 Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

A.2.1.4 Findings 

Alternative A would not significantly restrict subsistence uses and needs. The impacts to 

subsistence resources and access discussed above would be minimal, or would be adequately 

mitigated by special area designation and stipulations under which the lessee/permittee must 

operate. This finding applies to Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Wainwright, and Nuiqsut. 

A.2.2 Evaluation and Findings for Alternative B 

Alternative B, as well as the stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) 

accompanying it, takes into consideration all comments and concerns generated during the 

scoping process, as well as the stated direction from the Secretary of the Interior to look at lands 

previously unavailable for leasing in the planning area. Alternative B of the Supplemental 

IAP/EIS makes approximately 95% of all lands within the planning area available for oil and 

gas leasing, which includes approximately 387,000 acres that were formerly off-limits to leasing. 

Management practices would emphasize performance-based stipulations and ROPs on surface 

activities, consultation with local residents, and coordinated scientific studies to protect wildlife 

habitat, subsistence use areas, and other resources. In addition, approximately 213,000 acres 

northeast of Teshekpuk Lake that are currently unavailable for oil and gas leasing would 

remain unavailable for leasing, to provide for protection of wildlife and subsistence resources. 

A.2.2.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence 

Uses and Needs 

The analysis of Alternative B on subsistence is presented in section 4.4.12, Alternative B, 

Subsistence. This analysis considers the effects of non-oil and gas activities, the effects of oil 

and gas activities, the effects of oil spills, and the effectiveness of the associated stipulations 

and ROPs as presented by BLM. The analysis concludes that the effect of Alternative B on 

subsistence would be greater than that of Alternative A, but would remain localized and would 

not significantly affect subsistence species, access to subsistence resources, or subsistence use 

by the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, Wainwright or Barrow. 

At issue in this evaluation are the differences between Alternative A and Alternative B, and 

whether these differences would be significant enough to cause a substantial impact to the 

populations of subsistence species, to displace these species from their current habitat, or to

limit access to current, traditional hunting areas by subsistence users under Alternative B. 

Alternative B primarily differs from the No Action Alternative in the following regards: 

• Performance-based stipulations and ROPs would replace the 79 prescriptive stipulations 

in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD. Stipulations refer to requirements that the 

leaseholder must comply with and are attached to the lease document, whereas ROPs 

are requirements that any operator working in the Northeast NPR-A would be required 

to follow, and would be attached to permits for activity. 

• Some of the 79 stipulations from the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD that are already 

required by existing regulation or law would not have a corresponding stipulation or 

ROP under Alternative B. This does not mean that the lessee or permittee would be able 

to ignore the actions/activities covered by the original stipulations, only that these 

actions/activities would be covered by law or regulation, and, therefore, must be followed 

in order to comply with the law. This approach would actually serve to strengthen the 

Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis A-8 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

intent, in that lessees/permittees would not mistakenly believe that they could be

granted an exception to the stipulation using the BLM exception process. 

• An additional 387,000 acres would be available for oil and gas leasing. However, within 

these additional acres, no permanent oil and gas facilities would be allowed within 1⁄4 

mile of the shore of identified goose-molting lakes, or within 3⁄4 mile of the coast. 

Approximately 213,000 acres located in the goose molting/caribou habitat use area 

northeast of Teshekpuk Lake would remain unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

• Surface activity, including exploratory and delineation wells, would be allowed within 

the former “No Surface Activity” zone south of Teshekpuk Lake. However, the 

construction of permanent facilities would not be allowed until the lessee has conducted 

a study that includes a minimum of 3 years' worth of data on caribou movements. 

• “Sensitive Area Consultation” zones from the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD would be 

replaced by ROP H-1, which requires consultation with the North Slope Borough (NSB), 

the Subsistence Advisory Panel, and affected communities, regardless of where the

activity would take place. 

• Permanent oil and gas facilities would not be allowed within 1⁄4 mile of lakes identified 

as “Deep Water Lakes.” The 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD did not allow permanent 

facilities within 1⁄4 mile of fish-bearing lakes in a large area south of Teshekpuk Lake, 

but each individual lake was not specifically identified. 

Of the differences between alternatives A and B, only two would potentially cause Alternative B

to substantially affect subsistence resources or their use: the availability of additional land for 

oil and gas leasing from within the area north and west of Teshekpuk Lake, and the removal of 

the “No Surface Occupancy” zone south of Teshekpuk Lake. Other changes, such as updating 

the stipulations and adopting ROPs to conform to an adaptive management approach, would not

reduce the level of protection afforded. 

It is expected that impacts to terrestrial mammals and subsistence use in the vicinity of 

Teshekpuk Lake would be greater under Alternative B than under the No Action Alternative, 

particularly with respect to caribou calving and insect-relief habitat, given the additional 

387,000 acres that would be available for oil and gas leasing. However, the 213,000 acres that 

would be unavailable to leasing are important to caribou migrating between calving and insectrelief areas and the wintering grounds. This area, as well as the stipulations that have been 

developed to further protect caribou found near Teshekpuk Lake, would serve to protect the 

resource from substantial decline at the population level (see sections 4.4.9.1, Terrestrial 

Mammals, and 4.4.12.2, Subsistence, Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Activities). 

Impacts are also expected to be greater for birds, especially brant, under Alternative B when 

compared to Alternative A (see section 4.4.8, Birds). The communities of Barrow and Nuiqsut 

utilize the planning area for harvesting birds, with birds comprising between 1.8−2.6% of each 

community’s annual harvest (Fuller and George 1997). The species most heavily harvested by 

residents include white-fronted geese, black brant, and king and common eiders. As many as 

30% of the Pacific flyway population of brant may be present in the Teshekpuk Lake goose 

molting area during the molting period, making it one of the single most important areas for

molting brant overall. As a result, impacts to brant in the planning area that would result in 

population level declines have the potential to affect harvesters across the North Slope, in

Northwest Alaska, and in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. However, the primary reason for 

making 213,000 acres unavailable to leasing under Alternative B is to protect important habitat

for caribou and molting geese. In addition, numerous lease stipulations and ROPs were 

developed to protect birds and their habitat within the planning area, including the KA-9 Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

stipulations, which provide for a number of measures designed to reduce the effects of

development on molting geese by establishing setbacks from lake shorelines within which 

construction of permanent oil and gas facilities would not be permitted, regulating water 

extraction from lakes, and minimizing or eliminating disturbance from aircraft during critical 

periods. 

Impacts to vegetation, fish, and other resources used for subsistence purposes are expected to be

minor (see sections 4.4.5, Vegetation; 4.4.7, Fish; and 4.4.9, Mammals). 

Under Alternative B, the greatest potential impact to subsistence use would be the removal of 

the “No Surface Activity” zone, which extends from the west side to the east side of the planning 

area in a band south of Teshekpuk Lake. Comments received during the scoping process for the 

amendment stressed the importance of protecting essential caribou movement/migration 

corridors, located both to the east and the west of Teshekpuk Lake. The construction of 

permanent facilities, such as pipelines, roads, and production pads, within these narrow 

corridors could result in displacement of the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou herd, if the caribou were 

unable to get to their known insect-relief habitat during periods of intense insect harassment. 

Furthermore, removal of the “No Surface Activity” zone, in addition to opening more lands for 

leasing, would allow permanent facilities to be constructed within much of the Teshekpuk Lake 

Herd calving area. While such construction might not affect the population of the herd, it could 

result in a dramatic shift in the current use-area of the caribou, resulting in displacement of the 

herd. Stipulation K-5 would serve to minimize the potential disturbance to caribou by requiring

a 3-year study of caribou movements in the vicinity of the facility, before BLM would authorize 

construction. 

In addition to the potential displacement of subsistence resources under Alternative B, the

elimination of the “No Surface Activity” zone, as well as the additional acres available for 

leasing, could result in future infrastructure such as pipelines, roads, production pads, and 

wells. Oil industry infrastructure on the east side of the Colville River has resulted in the 

nonuse of this area by the residents of Nuiqsut, who do not feel comfortable hunting near or 

around oil developments. If enough economically recoverable oil was discovered to warrant 

additional development in the Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, or Barrow traditional subsistence use areas, 

hunters could avoid the development. The result would be an overall reduction in lands used for 

subsistence purposes. Effective communication and consultation by the oil industry, local 

communities, and the BLM would be essential when, and if, development were to occur in the

NPR-A. Required Operating Procedures H-1 and H-2 would be the primary mitigation 

measures in place to ensure adequate access to traditional hunting areas by the residents of 

Nuiqsut, Barrow, and Atqasuk in the Teshekpuk Lake area. 

As stated in the evaluation for the Alternative A, residents living on the North Slope, especially 

those in the village of Nuiqsut, view the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD as a negotiated 

compromise between the Iñupiat people, the federal government, and the oil industry. 

Considerable changes to the decisions in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD, without the 

consensus of local communities, governments, and agencies, could create an insurmountable rift 

between the people of the North Slope and the Federal government, especially if their Iñupiat 

way of life was threatened. 

Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis A-10 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

A.2.2.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for Oil and Gas Exploration 

and Development 

The NPRPA, as amended, gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority to conduct oil and 

gas leasing in the NPR-A. However, the law prohibited petroleum production from occurring in 

the NPR-A until authorized by Congress. In 1980, Congress granted that authorization and 

directed the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a program of competitive leasing of potential 

oil and gas tracts in the Reserve. 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, through further lease sales in the National 

Petroleum Reserve – Alaska.” BLM is undertaking this Supplemental IAP/EIS to fulfill the 

mandates of the President’s energy policy, as well as BLM’s responsibilities to manage these 

lands under authority of the NPRPA and FLPMA and other authorities cited elsewhere in this 

Supplemental IAP/EIS. Alternative B would continue the authorization of oil and gas 

exploration or development activities in the NPR-A under performance-based stipulations and

ROPs identified in section 2.7, Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures of the 

Supplemental IAP/EIS. Other lands managed by BLM are either too remote for economically 

viable oil and gas production, or have a low probability of containing sufficient quantities of oil 

or gas. State and Native Corporation Lands cannot be considered in a BLM plan, and under 

BLM policy other BLM lands outside of Alaska are not considered under the ANILCA. 

A.2.2.3 Evaluation of Other Alternatives that would Reduce or Eliminate the Use, 

Occupancy, or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence Purposes 

Alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the use of public lands needed for subsistence

include: 1) making more land in the Northeast NPR-A unavailable for oil and gas leasing, or 2)

not allowing oil and gas activity to occur. However, neither of these alternatives would satisfy 

the underlying purpose of the IAP/EIS to make more lands available for leasing. The Secretary

of the Interior has directed BLM to consider additional lands in the Northeast NPR-A to the 

extent it can be done in an environmentally sound manner. Reducing the number of acres 

available for energy development would contradict this direction, and would go against the

President’s stated National Energy Policy. Additionally, the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD 

allowed BLM to enter into contracts with several oil companies, by leasing land for oil and gas 

exploration. All of these leases are still in effect. Section 2.5, Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated from Detailed Analysis of the Supplemental IAP/EIS discusses other

alternatives that were considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis. 

A.2.2.4 Findings 

Alternative B would not significantly restrict subsistence use by communities in or near the 

planning area (Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Wainwright and Nuiqsut). The impacts to 

most subsistence resources and access to resources would be minimal, yet displacement of the 

Teshekpuk Lake Herd caribou could occur, and black brant populations have shown a declining 

trend in recent years. However, adequate stipulations and ROPs have been incorporated in 

Alternative B—including specific procedures for subsistence consultation with directly affected 

subsistence communities, requirements for extensive studies of caribou movement, and setbacks 

or other protective measures specific to birds—to ensure that significant restrictions to 

subsistence uses and needs would not occur. 

A-11 Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

A.2.3 Evaluation and Findings for Alternative C 

Under Alternative C of the Supplemental IAP/EIS, all land under the stewardship of BLM 

within the planning area would be available for oil and gas leasing. All of the stipulations and 

ROPs included in Alternative B would also apply to Alternative C. 

A.2.3.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence 

Uses and Needs 

The analysis of the effects of Alternative C on subsistence, presented in section 4.5.12, 

Alternative C, Subsistence, considers the effects of non-oil and gas activities, oil and gas 

activities, and oil spills, and the effectiveness of the stipulations and ROPs required by BLM. 

The analysis concludes that Alternative C would not significantly affect primary subsistence 

species, access to subsistence resources, or subsistence use by the communities of Anaktuvuk 

Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Wainwright or Nuiqsut. Similarly, while all analysts feel that the 

impact of Alternative C would be greater than that of alternatives A or B, these impacts are still

viewed as being localized, of short duration, and not significant at the population level for most 

species. 

Analyses presented for individual subsistence species (e.g., marine mammals, land mammals,

and fish) also indicate that there would not be significant impacts to these species under 

Alternative C. However, it is expected that impacts to birds in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake 

and throughout the northern portion of the planning area would be greater under Alternative C, 

particularly with respect to molting waterfowl, given the greater overall scale of the assumed

development activities. Impacts to birds from disturbances could be even greater if oil and gas 

activities occurred in areas with high bird concentrations, with high quality habitat, or that are 

used by species of concern. 

For caribou, it is estimated that there would be an increase in the likelihood of impacts to 

calving areas and migration routes leading to insect-relief habitat, as well as an increased 

likelihood of development occurring within insect-relief habitat. If the TLH is partially 

displaced from its calving area, or if caribou are impeded from reaching the calving area, recent 

surveys indicate that calving success would most likely be reduced. While there have been no

experiments conducted with the TLH to determine whether oil development in the calving area 

would displace caribou or affect the productivity of the herd, caribou behavior during 1997 and 

2001 suggest oil development in the TCH calving area could impact caribou. 

Despite the increase in potential impacts to birds or caribou under Alternative C, most analysts 

indicate that the proposed stipulations and ROPs effectively mitigate any potential impacts 

resulting from of oil and gas activity. Therefore, the potential impacts are lessened, and would 

not result in population level declines. 

As discussed for Alternative B, eliminating the “No Surface Activity” zone, as well as making all 

lands available for leasing, could result in future infrastructure such as pipelines, roads, 

production pads, and wells. Oil industry infrastructure on the east side of the Colville River has 

resulted in the nonuse of this area by the residents of Nuiqsut, who do not feel comfortable 

hunting near or around oil developments. If enough economically recoverable oil was discovered 

to warrant additional development in the Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, or Barrow traditional subsistence 

use area, hunters could avoid the development. The result would be an overall reduction in 

lands used for subsistence purposes. Effective communication and consultation by the oil

industry, local communities, and BLM would be essential when and if development were to 

Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis A-12 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

occur in the Northeast NPR-A. Required Operating Procedures H-1 and H-2 would be the 

primary mitigation measures in place to ensure adequate access to traditional hunting areas by 

the residents of Nuiqsut, Barrow, and Atqasuk in the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. 

As stated in the evaluations for alternatives A and B, residents living on the North Slope, 

especially those in the village of Nuiqsut, view the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD as a 

negotiated compromise between the Iñupiat people, the federal government, and the oil 

industry. Considerable changes to the decisions in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD without 

the consensus of local communities, governments, and agencies to create an insurmountable rift 

between the people of the North Slope and the federal government, especially if their Iñupiat 

way of life was threatened. 

A.2.3.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for Oil and Gas Exploration 

and Development 

The NPRPA, as amended, gave the Secretary of the Interior the authority to conduct oil and gas 

leasing in the Northeast NPR-A. However, the law prohibited petroleum production from 

occurring in NPR-A until authorized by Congress. In 1980, Congress granted that 

authorization and directed the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a program of competitive 

leasing of potential oil and gas tracts in the Reserve. 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, through further lease 

sales in the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska.” BLM is undertaking this Supplemental 

IAP/EIS to fulfill the mandates of the President’s energy policy as well as BLM’s responsibilities 

to manage these lands under authority of the NPRPA and FLPMA and other authorities cited 

elsewhere in this EIS. Alternative C would continue the authorization of oil and gas exploration 

or development activities in the Northeast NPR-A under performance-based stipulations 

identified in section 2.7, Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures of the 

Supplemental IAP/EIS. Other lands managed by BLM are either too remote for economically 

viable oil and gas production, or have a low probability of containing sufficient quantities of oil 

or gas. State and Native Corporation Lands cannot be considered in a BLM plan, and other 

BLM lands outside of Alaska are not considered under the ANILCA as per BLM Policy. 

A.2.3.3 Evaluation of Other Alternatives that would Reduce or Eliminate the Use, 

Occupancy, or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence Purposes 

Alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the use of public lands needed for subsistence

include: 1) making more land in the Northeast NPR-A unavailable for oil and gas leasing, or 2)

not allowing oil and gas activity to occur. However, neither of these alternatives would satisfy 

the underlying purpose of the IAP/EIS to make more lands available for leasing. The Secretary

of the Interior has directed BLM to consider additional lands in the Northeast NPR-A to the 

extent it can be done in an environmentally sound manner. Reducing the number of acres 

available for energy development would contradict this direction, and would go against the

President’s stated National Energy Policy. Additionally, the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD 

allowed the BLM to enter into contracts with several oil companies, by leasing land for oil and 

gas exploration. All of these leases are still in effect. Section 2.5, Alternatives Considered 

but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis of the Supplemental IAP/EIS discusses other 

alternatives that were considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis. 

A-13 Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

A.2.3.4 Findings 

Alternative C would not significantly restrict subsistence use by the communities of Anaktuvuk 

Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Wainwright and Nuiqsut. The impacts to subsistence resources and 

access to resources would be minimal, yet displacement of the Teshekpuk Lake Herd could

occur. However, adequate stipulations and ROPs have been incorporated, including specific 

procedures for subsistence consultation with directly affected subsistence communities and 

requirements for extensive studies of caribou movement, to ensure that significant restrictions 

to subsistence uses and needs would not occur. 

A.2.4 Evaluation and Findings for Alternative D 

Alternative D of the Supplemental IAP/EIS makes approximately 4,389,000 acres or 95% of the 

planning area available for oil and gas leasing (approximately 389,000 more acres than under 

the No Action Alternative; Map 2-4). Under the Alternative D, Teshekpuk Lake (approximately 

211,000 acres) would be indefinitely deferred from leasing; this deferral would prevent 

exploratory drilling and pipeline construction, but current leases would not be affected by the 

deferral. Alternative D utilizes the same performance-based stipulations and ROPs developed 

for alternatives B and C. In addition, four new stipulations are proposed. Three stipulations 

would prohibit permanent oil and gas facilities (Restricted Surface Occupancy; RSO), excluding 

major rights-of-way (i.e., pipelines and major roads), on approximately 373,000 acres. 

Exploration activities would be allowed within this RSO, including seismic exploration and 

exploratory drilling. Three of the new stipulations were created to protect calving, post-calving, 

insect-relief, and migration habitat for caribou and molting habitat for geese. The fourth 

stipulation establishes a maximum limit of 300 acres of permanent surface disturbance from oil 

and gas activities within each of seven lease tracts identified north of Teshekpuk Lake, in an 

attempt to minimize the amount of land disturbed by oil and gas facilities. 

A.2.4.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence 

Uses and Needs 

The analysis of Alternative D on subsistence is presented in section 4.6.12, Alternative D, 

Subsistence. This analysis considers the effects of non-oil and gas activities, the effects of oil 

and gas activities, the effects of oil spills, and the effectiveness of the associated stipulations 

and ROPs as presented by BLM. The analysis concludes that the effect of the Alternative D 

would be greater than that of Alternative A, and would remain localized and not significantly 

affect subsistence species as long as activity occurred outside of key habitat areas or migratory 

zones when animals were present. However, access to subsistence resources and an alteration 

in subsistence use patterns by the communities of Nuiqsut, Barrow, and possibly Atqasuk 

would likely result from future development occurring in currently used traditional harvest 

areas. 

It is expected that impacts to terrestrial mammals and subsistence use in the vicinity of 

Teshekpuk Lake would be greater under Alternative D than under the No Action Alternative, 

particularly with respect to caribou calving and insect-relief habitat, given the additional 

389,000 acres that would be available for oil and gas leasing. However, limiting the amount of 

acreage available to permanent oil and gas activities in the seven new lease tract areas north of 

Teshekpuk Lake, as well as the two no surface occupancy areas located southeast and east of 

Teshekpuk Lake, serve to minimize potential impacts. Additionally, the stipulations and ROPs 

that have been developed to protect caribou near Teshekpuk Lake, would serve to protect the 

resource from substantial decline at the population level (see sections 4.6.9.1, Terrestrial 

Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis A-14 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Mammals, and 4.6.12.2, Subsistence, Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Activities), and Stipulation K-5 would serve to minimize the potential displacement of caribou 

by requiring a 3-year study of caribou movements in the vicinity of any facility before BLM will 

authorize construction. Similarly, impacts to birds, especially black brant and other primary 

subsistence species, would be lessened by the additional stipulations proposed under

Alternative D. Impacts to vegetation, fish, and other resources used for subsistence purposes 

are expected to be minor (see sections 4.6.5, Vegetation; 4.6.7, Fish; and 4.6.9, Mammals). 

The primary impact to subsistence use as a result of Alternative D is the impact to the 

subsistence user, and not necessarily the resource. Oil industry infrastructure on the east side 

of the Colville River has resulted in the nonuse of this area by the residents of Nuiqsut, who do 

not feel comfortable hunting near or around oil developments. If enough economically 

recoverable oil was discovered to warrant additional development in the Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, or

Barrow traditional subsistence use areas, history has shown that hunters would avoid the 

development. The result would be an overall reduction in lands used for subsistence purposes.

Effective communication and consultation by the oil industry, local communities, and the BLM 

would be essential when, and if, development were to occur in the NPR-A. Having two no

surface occupancy areas, as well as limiting the number of acres available for permanent 

facilities north of Teshekpuk Lake helps to reduce this impact. Additionally, Required

Operating Procedures H-1 and H-2, which call for additional consultation and notification by 

the oil companies to local communities, would help to alleviate access issues with regard to 

traditional hunting areas by the residents of Nuiqsut, Barrow, and Atqasuk in the Teshekpuk 

Lake Special Area. 

A.2.4.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for Oil and Gas Exploration 

and Development 

The NPRPA, as amended, gave the Secretary of the Interior the authority to conduct oil and gas 

leasing in the Northeast NPR-A. However, the law prohibited petroleum production from 

occurring in NPR-A until authorized by Congress. In 1980, Congress granted that authorization 

and directed the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a program of competitive leasing of 

potential oil and gas tracts in the Reserve. 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, through further lease sales in the National 

Petroleum Reserve – Alaska.” 

BLM is undertaking this Supplemental IAP/EIS to fulfill the mandates of the President’s 

energy policy as well as BLM’s responsibilities to manage these lands under authority of the 

NPRPA and FLPMA and other authorities cited elsewhere in this EIS. Alternative D would 

continue the authorization of oil and gas exploration or development activities in the Northeast 

NPR-A under performance-based stipulations and ROPs identified in section 2.7, 

Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures of the Supplemental IAP/EIS. Other

lands managed by the BLM are either too remote for economically viable oil and gas production, 

or have a low probability of containing sufficient quantities of oil or gas. State and Native 

Corporation Lands cannot be considered in a BLM plan, and other BLM lands outside of Alaska 

are not considered under ANILCA as per BLM Policy. 

A-15 Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

A.2.4.3 Evaluation of Other Alternatives that would Reduce or Eliminate the Use, 

Occupancy, or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence Purposes 

Alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the use of public lands needed for subsistence

include: 1) making more land in the Northeast NPR-A unavailable for oil and gas leasing, or 2)

not allowing oil and gas activity to occur. However, neither of these alternatives would satisfy 

the underlying purpose of the IAP/EIS to make more lands available for leasing. The Secretary

of the Interior has directed BLM to consider additional lands in the Northeast NPR-A to the 

extent it can be done in an environmentally sound manner. Reducing the number of acres 

available for energy development would contradict this direction, and would go against the

President’s stated National Energy Policy. Additionally, the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD 

allowed the BLM to enter into contracts with several oil companies, by leasing land for oil and 

gas exploration. All of these leases are still in effect. Section 2.5, Alternatives Considered 

but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis of the Supplemental IAP/EIS discusses other 

alternatives that were considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis. 

A.2.4.4 Findings 

Alternative D would not significantly restrict subsistence use by the communities of Anaktuvuk 

Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Wainwright and Nuiqsut. The impacts to subsistence resources would 

be minimal, even though displacement of the Teshekpuk Lake Herd could occur. Impacts to the 

subsistence user, including access, comprise the greatest potential impact, however, adequate 

stipulations and ROPs have been incorporated, including the designation of RSO zones south

and east of Teshekpuk Lake, the limited amount of acres available for leasing in the seven new 

lease tracks north of Teshekpuk Lake, specific procedures for subsistence consultation with 

directly affected subsistence communities, and requirements for extensive studies of caribou 

movement, to ensure that significant restrictions to subsistence uses and needs would not occur.

While the subsistence user may be impacted by development within the planning area as a 

result of hunter avoidance of facilities and infrastructure, the proposed allowable use under 

Alternative D does not restrict or otherwise limit in any way subsistence harvesting near 

infrastructure or facilities. 

A.2.5 Evaluation and Findings for the Cumulative Case 

The goal of the cumulative analysis is to evaluate the incremental impact of the current action 

in conjunction with all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in or near the 

planning area. The cumulative analysis considers in greatest detail activities that are more 

certain to happen, and activities that were identified as being of great concern during scoping. 

Oil and gas activities considered in the analysis include past development and production, 

present development, reasonably foreseeable future development, and speculative development.

Activities not associated with oil and gas are also considered. All reasonably foreseeable future

activities that may contribute to cumulative effects are considered in this analysis. 

Actions included in the cumulative analysis include, but are not limited to the following: 

• Offshore exploration and development in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas; 

• Currently-producing fields/developments (Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk, Alpine, Meltwater); 

• Possible future developments, including the increased likelihood of development in

Northwest NPR-A; 

• Additional lease sales both on State of Alaska lands and in the Northwest NPR-A; 

Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis A-16 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

• The continuation of exploration on current leases in the Northeast NPR-A and

additional lease sales in this same area; and 

• Gas Development on the North Slope. 

Moreover, these actions are considered in light of the shifting environmental conditions 

presented by climate change. 

A.2.5.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Such Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on 

Subsistence Uses and Needs 

Section 4.7, Effects of the Cumulative Case of the Supplemental IAP/EIS contains a detailed 

description of the cumulative-case scenario, including past effects, present effects, and the 

future possible oil field and infrastructure development that this evaluation uses. This 

assessment and finding assumes that all future development in the NPR-A would be subject to 

the stipulations and ROPs proposed in the Supplemental IAP/EIS. The cumulative analysis 

expands the area of potential impact beyond the planning area, to the entire North Slope 

Borough. Additionally, the impacts to subsistence use of migratory species, such as waterfowl, 

are also discussed. 

The analysis of the effects of the cumulative case on subsistence presented in section 4.7.7.12, 

Analysis of Cumulative Effects by Resources, Subsistence indicates that cumulative 

activity on the North Slope has the potential to significantly restrict subsistence use for the 

communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Wainwright and, especially, Nuiqsut. 

Foreseeable development in the Northeast NPR-A could extend from the Colville River Delta 

north of Nuiqsut to an area southwest of the village, which would effectively encircle the 

community, making it necessary for subsistence hunters traveling in nearly every direction to 

pass through some kind of development on the way to subsistence harvest areas. Because 

Iñupiat hunters are reluctant to use firearms near oil production facilities and pipelines, there 

would be a perceived barrier to harvest in these areas. Subsistence users currently avoid the 

Kuparuk and Meltwater areas because of the physical barriers pipelines and elevated gravel 

roads pose to winter snowmachine travel, and have expressed concerns about hunting close to 

oil production and processing facilities because of perceived regulatory barriers (ENSR 2004). 

Additionally, many community members fear contamination of their subsistence resources by 

oil production facilities. 

Subsistence resources also have the potential to be impacted under the cumulative case. As

stated in section 4.7.7.9: 

Cumulative effects on caribou distribution and abundance are likely to be long-term, lasting as 

long as the life of the oil fields. Any reduction in the calving and summer habitat use by cows 

and calves from future onshore leasing would represent a functional loss of habitat that could

result in long-term effects on the caribou herds’ productivity and abundance. 

The effects of oil and gas activities in the NPR-A would be greatest on those herds that use the

planning area, specifically the Teshekpuk Lake and the Western Arctic herds. Currently, the 

Teshekpuk Lake Herd is the primary source of caribou for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass,

Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Wainwright. Any substantial decrease in the population 

numbers of this herd would have a substantial impact on all five communities. If the decrease 

occurred during times of unsuccessful bowhead whaling, the effects would be devastating for 

Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Wainwright. The additional development pressure envisioned 

A-17 Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

by the cumulative-case scenario could exacerbate changes in abundance and productivity of 

caribou, and these changes could, in turn, adversely affect subsistence harvests. 

Impacts to migratory waterfowl, especially brant, have the potential to negatively affect 

subsistence hunters in the Southwest Region of Alaska, especially in the Yukon-Kuskokwim 

Delta (Y-K Delta). According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Community Profile

Database, communities in this area are some of the largest users of migratory waterfowl, 

especially during the springtime, with this resource comprising between 1.6% to as much as 

6.2% of their annual yearly harvest, depending on the community. The analysis of impacts to 

migratory waterfowl indicate that while there is the potential for there to be negative effects as 

a result of both non-oil and gas and oil and gas activity, these effects are primarily dependent 

upon loss of habitat as a result of construction activity. Given the fact that brant are the 

primary species of concern for the Y-K Delta and comprise only one portion of their migratory 

bird harvest (at most 3% of total bird harvest, according to ADF&G), potential impacts as a 

result of this plan do not constitute a significant restriction of subsistence use for residents in 

that area of the state. 

If a large discovery is made in the northwest or northern part of the planning area, it could 

make additional developments in the Northwest NPR-A or adjacent offshore areas more

economically feasible, resulting in additional habitat and disturbance related impacts in the 

Northwest and Northeast NPR-A and in offshore areas adjacent to the Northeast and 

Northwest NPR-A. As development or disturbance increases, so does the potential for negative 

impacts to subsistence species and users. The offshore development and transport that is 

possible under the cumulative case could result in oil spills in the marine environment. Any oil

spill that tainted, or was perceived to taint, whales or other marine mammals of importance to

subsistence users would have a significant negative effect on those users. If such a spill affected 

migration patterns or distributions of any marine mammal used for subsistence, it would also 

have significant negative effect on subsistence users. 

Effects on subsistence harvest patterns from natural gas development and production could

occur from natural gas blowouts, noise and traffic disturbance, and construction activities under

any of the alternatives. Subsistence hunters, who already tend to avoid oil field infrastructure, 

may be even more likely to avoid aboveground gas pipelines for fear of a blowout. Noise and

disturbance activities due to the development of a gas field, especially to caribou, would be local 

(within 3-4 km of the pipeline corridor) but would persist for the life of the field. 

From 1990 to 1997, the North Slope’s permanent population grew at an annual rate of 2.7%, 

and Nuiqsut was the fastest growing village. For analysis purposes, however, the Supplement 

assumes that the population would grow for approximately the next 40 years at a rate of 

approximately 2% per year and then level off, with or without the development envisioned in 

the cumulative scenario discussed. The effects of such growth on competition for subsistence

resources are difficult to predict, but it is possible that over time there would be increased

competition among local subsistence users. It is unlikely that the transient workers associated

with oil and gas development would add to the competition, because they are ineligible for the 

subsistence priority under existing Federal regulations. 

The effects of global climate change on marine mammals are unclear, but may result in more 

ship traffic in the Beaufort over a longer ice-free season, commercial fisheries in the Chukchi 

and Beaufort, and displacement and distributional changes if not population changes among 

marine mammals. Climate change is likely to have the greatest influence on marine mammal 

populations in and adjacent to the planning area; however, species resilience and resilience as 

Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis A-18 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

well as feedback and interactions remain highly uncertain. Estimating how the incremental 

addition of direct human activities (disturbance, hunting and habitat alteration) remains 

speculative but climate change by itself is likely to have significant effects on the marine 

mammal community of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. 

A.2.5.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for Oil and Gas Exploration 

and Development 

The NPRPA, as amended, gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority to conduct oil and 

gas leasing in the NPR-A. However, the law prohibited petroleum production from occurring in 

the NPR-A until authorized by Congress. In 1980, Congress granted that authorization and 

directed the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a program of competitive leasing of potential 

oil and gas tracts in the Reserve. 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, through further lease sales in the National 

Petroleum Reserve – Alaska.” BLM is undertaking this Supplemental IAP/EIS to fulfill the 

mandates of the President’s energy policy as well as BLM’s responsibilities to manage these 

lands under authority of the NPRPA and FLPMA and other authorities cited elsewhere in this 

Supplemental IAP/EIS. Other lands managed by BLM are either too remote for economically 

viable oil and gas production, or have a low probability of containing sufficient quantities of oil 

or gas. State and Native Corporation Lands cannot be considered in a BLM plan, and other 

BLM lands outside of Alaska are not considered under the ANILCA as per BLM Policy. 

A.2.5.3 Evaluation of Other Alternatives that would Reduce or Eliminate the Use, 

Occupancy, or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence Purposes 

Alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the use of public lands needed for subsistence

include: 1) making more land in the Northeast NPR-A unavailable for oil and gas leasing, or 2)

not allowing oil and gas activity to occur. However, neither of these alternatives would satisfy 

the underlying purpose of the IAP/EIS to make more lands available for leasing. The Secretary

of the Interior has directed BLM to consider additional lands in the Northeast NPR-A to the 

extent it can be done in an environmentally sound manner. Reducing the number of acres 

available for energy development would contradict this direction, and would go against the

President’s stated National Energy Policy. Additionally, the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD 

allowed the BLM to enter into contracts with several oil companies, by leasing land for oil and 

gas exploration. All of these leases are still in effect. Section 2.5, Alternatives Considered 

but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis of the Supplemental IAP/EIS discusses other 

alternatives that were considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis. 

A.2.5.4 Findings 

The cumulative case as presented in this analysis, when taken in conjunction with all action 

alternatives, would result in a reasonably foreseeable and significant restriction of subsistence 

use for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, and Nuiqsut, due to a decrease 

in resource abundance, significant alteration in the distribution of resources, and a significant 

restriction on the access of subsistence users. This finding requires a positive determination 

pursuant to the ANILCA § 810. 

The distribution of caribou populations on the North Slope has been affected by Prudhoe Bay 

development, and access to subsistence resources has been compromised there. Although 

procedures will be in place to ensure that future development affects access as little as possible, 

A-19 Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

it is still probable the total area available for subsistence purposes will be reduced. If a major 

marine oil spill were to occur in the future, it could significantly affect both populations and 

distributions of fish, and whales and other marine animals, causing significant restrictions to

subsistence resources. Oil and gas infrastructure located in core caribou calving or insect-relief 

areas would result in the displacement, and possible reduction, of the herd. Population growth 

would result in a greater number of residents relying on local resources to meet their needs. 

These restrictions have the potential to affect Anaktuvuk Pass, Barrow, Atqasuk, and Nuiqsut. 

A.3 Notice and Hearings 

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 ANILCA § 810(a)(1) and (2). BLM will provide notice in the Federal Register 

that it has made positive findings pursuant to ANILCA § 810 that the cumulative case 

presented in the Supplemental IAP/EIS, when taken in conjunction with all action alternatives, 

meets the “may significantly restrict” threshold. As a result, public hearings will be held in the 

potentially affected communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Nuiqsut, Wainwright and 

Barrow. Notice of these hearings will be in the Federal Register and by way of the local media, 

including the Arctic Sounder newspaper, and KBRW, the local Barrow radio station with 

coverage to all villages on the North Slope. 

A.4 Subsistence Determinations Under the ANILCA § 810(a)(3)(A), (B), 

and (C) 

The 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 the ANILCA §810(a)(1) and (2), and makes the three determinations required 

by the ANILCA § 810(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C). The three determinations that must be made are: 1) 

that such a significant restriction of subsistence use is necessary, consistent with sound 

management principles for the utilization of the public lands; 2) that the proposed activity will 

involve the minimal amount of public lands necessary to accomplish the purposes of such use, 

occupancy, or other such disposition; and 3) that reasonable steps will be taken to minimize 

adverse impacts to subsistence uses and resources resulting from such actions [16 U.S.C. § 

3120(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C)]. 

BLM has found in this preliminary subsistence evaluation that the cumulative case considered

in this Draft Supplemental IAP/EIS may significantly restrict subsistence uses. Therefore, 

BLM will undertake the notice and hearing procedures required by the ANILCA § 810 (a)(1) 

and (2) in conjunction with release of the Draft Supplemental IAP/EIS in order to solicit public 

comment from the potentially affected communities and subsistence users. 

The determination that the requirements of the ANILCA § 810(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C) have been 

met will be analyzed in the Final ANILCA § 810 Evaluation, using input from the communities 

in which subsistence hearings will be held. 

Appendix A: Section 810 Analysis A-20