CHAPTER II: ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 2-3

2.2 FORMULATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION MEASURES....................... 2-3

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES................................................................................... 2-7

2.4 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES ......................................... 2-17

2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS........ 2-18

2.6 MONITORING................................................................................................................................ 2-21

2.7 EFFECTIVENESS OF STIPULATIONS AND REQUIRED OPERATING PROCEDURES .. 2-22

2.8 COMPARISON OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF EACH ALTERNATIVE ............................... 2-22

2.9 EFFECTS ON CURRENT AND FUTURE LEASE HOLDERS FROM REVISIONS TO 1998

NORTHEAST IAP/EIS ROD ......................................................................................................... 2-22

2.10 HEALTHY NEIGHBOR POLICY ................................................................................................. 2-22
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-2 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

CHAPTER II: ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter presents the four alternative approaches to achieving the purpose and need of the 

Northeast NPR-A IAP/EIS described in section 1.2. These alternatives present a range of actions 

in terms of the amount of additional lands in the planning area that would be opened to oil and 

gas leasing, and the types of protective measures that would be taken to protect surface resources 

within the planning area from the impacts of oil and gas development. The four alternatives in 

this Supplement are almost entirely unchanged from those presented in the Amended IAP/EIS. 

The limited substantive changes that have been made to the alternatives are noted below in this

chapter. 

2.2 FORMULATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES AND 

MITIGATION MEASURES 

2.2.1 Overview 

The alternatives presented in this Supplement derive primarily from the previous two plans 

conducted by BLM for the planning area. Alternative A is the decision contained in the 1998 ROD 

for the Northeast NPR-A IAP/EIS and was also presented as Alternative A in the Amended

IAP/EIS (Map 2-1). Alternatives B, C and D are, with minor modifications, the same as 

Alternatives B, C and D, respectively, in the Amended IAP/EIS (Maps 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4). 

The range of alternatives presented in the Amended IAP/EIS was developed by an 

interdisciplinary team consisting of BLM staff from the agency’s Alaska State Office and 

Northern Field Office (now termed the Fairbanks District Office). The Amended IAP/EIS process 

greatly benefited from ideas offered by other federal agencies; tribal, state, and local governments; 

and the public through 1) initial scoping of ideas, issues, and concerns; 2) comments on the Draft 

Amended IAP/EIS, with meetings held in key communities within and adjacent to the planning

area, as well as in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Bethel, Alaska, and in Washington D.C.; and 3) 

from public comments received during ANILCA 810 hearings held in key communities within and 

adjacent to the planning area concerning the potential impacts of the various alternatives on 

subsistence resources and activities. In addition, we received comments from the public on the 

Final Amended IAP/EIS. 

BLM initiated the process to supplement the Amended IAP/EIS by publishing a notice of intent to

do so in the Federal Register on December 4, 2006. The notice of intent indicated that a formal 

scoping process would not be undertaken, but did request comments and suggestions from the 

public regarding concerns on issues of interest, particularly recommended mitigation measures. 

Based upon comments received on the Final Amended IAP/EIS, BLM has modified Alternative D 

by modifying some protective stips and ROPs to increase protections of sensitive wildlife and

subsistence resources and to clarify their intent, and has deleted confusing language. These 

modifications are reflected in Appendix A of the 2006 Northeast NPR-A ROD. Additionally, in 

response to the notice of intent for the Supplement and upon internal BLM review, BLM and the 

North Slope Borough (NSB), which is participating in the supplemental planning process as a 

cooperating agency, made minor modifications and clarifications to the language of Alternatives B 

2-3 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

through D. The process resulted in clarifying the language in several stipulations and required

operating procedures (ROPs), removing the redundant exception clause from Alternatives B 

through D, addressing summer overland travel in a ROP rather than in a statement of policy in 

Sec. 2.4 (“Management Actions Common to All Alternatives”; a ROP adopted in a ROD has the 

force and effect of law, while statements of policy do not), and making a number of other editorial 

and clarification modifications elsewhere in this chapter and other sections of the IAP/EIS. 

With the above exceptions, the alternatives in this Supplement remain the same as those 

previously analyzed in the Amended IAP/EIS. As required by 43 CFR § 2361.1, each of the four

alternatives analyzed in this Supplemental IAP/EIS process contains measures to mitigate or 

avoid unnecessary surface damage and minimize ecological disturbance throughout the planning 

area to the extent consistent with the purposes of the NPRPA for the exploration of the planning 

area. Also, as described in section 2.2.2 below, each alternative presents a different approach to

providing maximum protection to surface resources within the two designated Special Areas in 

the planning area―the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area and the Colville River Special Area (Map 1­

4). 

“Mitigation measures,” as the term is used in BLM’s NEPA Handbook (p. V-20), are introduced in 

the environmental consequences analysis in Chapter 4. Such mitigation measures are not part of

the alternatives, unlike lease stipulations and ROPs (for a discussion of stipulations and ROPs, 

see section 2.3.5). Rather they are suggestions of additional means to lessen impacts that are 

identified in the impact analysis in Chapter 4, specifically in sections 4.3.8, 4.4.8, 4.5.8, and 

4.6.8 on Birds and 4.3.19, 4.4.19, 4.5.19, and 4.6.19 on Public Health, given that in this 

case the “mitigation measures” all pertain to birds and public health issues. Some may not be 

within BLM’s authority to implement, and thus would require the involvement of other agencies 

to effectuate them. These mitigation measures, along with a description of their effectiveness to

mitigate impacts as well as any impacts these measures would themselves create, are included

to allow for public consideration and comment. The ROD will identify which mitigation

measures identified in Chapter 4 BLM will adopt. 

The NSB is participating in the supplemental planning process as a cooperating agency in order 

to maximize use of available resources and special expertise and minimize duplication in those 

areas of overlapping responsibilities. In this role as a cooperating agency, the NSB is assisting 

BLM in drafting an IAP/EIS that is in compliance with NEPA. Cooperating agency status does 

not, however, indicate the NSB’s implicit or explicit support for any particular alternative. 

2.2.2 Special Areas and Other Areas with Additional Protections 

The planning area includes portions of two designated Special Areas (see section 3.3.1 and Map 

1-3). The Teshekpuk Lake Special Area was designated primarily to protect important nesting, 

staging, and molting habitat for a large number of waterfowl. The area also provides important 

habitat for caribou and serves as an important area for subsistence resources and uses. The 

Colville River Special Area within the planning area lies along that river and two of its larger 

tributaries, the Kogosukruk and Kikiakrorak rivers. It was designated to protect raptor species

that inhabit bluffs within the Special Area, particularly the peregrine falcon, which was listed 

as an endangered species at the time of designation. 

Each alternative also identifies other areas with exceptionally important surface resources, many 

of which overlap the two designated Special Areas. These other areas are not in themselves 

administrative or legislative designations, and they carry with them no formal regulatory special 

status. They simply are areas that BLM has identified, through the planning process, where 

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-4 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

resource concerns exist that may require consideration of special protections. Some of these 

spatially defined “protection areas” were first identified in the 1998 Northeast NPR-A IAP/EIS 

and were referred to as Land Use Emphasis Areas, or LUEAs (Maps of LUEAs can be found in

the 1998 Northeast NPR-A Final IAP/EIS. See Figures II.B.1 to II.B.14, pages II-4 to II-17 

therein). In developing the Amended IAP/EIS and this Supplement, the concept of identifying key 

resource or “protection areas” remains, but the term LUEA is no longer used. They are referenced

in stipulations and ROPs and their geographic extent is reflected in maps depicting one or more of 

the alternatives. The “protection areas” used in the Amended IAP/EIS and carried forward in this 

Supplement were also modified to some degree from those presented in the 1998 Northeast NPRA IAP/EIS if a more logical organization was identified. For example, in the 1998 Northeast 

IAP/EIS, the Fish Habitat LUEA included deepwater lakes and some rivers within certain 

geographic bounds. Under the Amendment’s and Supplement’s Alternatives B, C, and D, Rivers 

Area and Deep Water Lakes are identified separately. The “protection areas” defined for 

Alternatives B, C, D in the Amendment and this supplement are the Rivers Area, Deep Water 

Lakes, Teshekpuk Lake, Goose Molting Area, Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area, Coastal 

Area, Colville River Raptor, Passerine, and Moose Area, and Pik Dunes. In addition, three 

additional “protection areas” were developed exclusively for Alternative D in the Final Amended 

IAP/EIS. These are the Caribou Movement Corridor, Southern Caribou Calving Area, and Lease

Tracts areas. These area-specific protections, in conjunction with the general Planning Area-wide 

lease stipulations and ROPs, enhance BLM’s management of the planning area and particularly

ensure that BLM meets the requirements of the NPRPA to provide maximum protection of 

surface values in the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area and the Colville River Special Area consistent 

with the purpose of the NPRPA. 

The following provides additional information about the protection areas: 

2.2.2.1 Rivers Area 

The Rivers Area includes areas on the east side of the Ikpikpuk River; both sides and the bed of

the Miguakiak River; the west side of the Colville River; both sides of the Tingmiaksiqvik River 

(also identified as the Ublutuoch River on USGS quadrangle maps; this river would receive 

special protections only under Alternative B and Alternative D); from the top of the bluff (or bank 

if there is no bluff) on both sides of the Kikiakrorak and Kogosukruk rivers and several of the 

Kogosukruk River tributaries; and both sides of portions of Fish and Judy creeks. 

These rivers and creeks provide important spawning, migration, rearing, and over-wintering 

habitat for both anadromous and resident species of fish. Fishing use includes a substantial 

subsistence harvest by the residents of Barrow and Nuiqsut and a commercial take at the mouth 

of the Colville River. 

2.2.2.2 Deep Water Lakes 

Deep Water Lakes includes numerous waterbodies with a depth greater than 13 feet [4 meters] 

(Mellor 1985). Generally these lakes provide important spawning, migration, rearing, and overwintering habitat for both anadromous and resident species of fish. Some of these lakes also 

provide important habitat for molting waterfowl and loafing and foraging habitat for shorebirds, 

and are important subsistence, cultural, and traditional use areas for NSB residents. The Deep

Water Lakes protection area extends 1⁄4 mile around the perimeter of any deepwater lake within 

the planning area. 

2-5 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

2.2.2.3 Teshekpuk Lake 

Teshekpuk Lake is a dominant geographic feature of the region. Teshekpuk Lake’s range of 

habitat types includes a 20- to 40-foot deep basin and a complex shoreline that features bays, 

spits, lagoons, islands, beaches, and extensive shoal areas. Teshekpuk Lake provides overwintering habitat for fish and breeding habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds and is an important 

resource for subsistence-based cultures in the region. 

2.2.2.4 Goose Molting Area 

The Goose Molting Area includes suitable habitats in and around (including the lakes north and 

northeast of) Teshekpuk Lake. This area is the most important molting habitat for black brant, 

Canada geese, and greater white-fronted geese in the Arctic (see section 3.3.6.3; Waterfowl). Up

to 30% of the Pacific flyway population of brant molt in this area (36,817 were counted in 2001). 

Up to 34,930 molting greater white-fronted geese, and 3,914 snow geese were counted in recent 

years with an increasing trend through time. Approximately 26,680 Canada geese were observed

in 1984, but numbers have declined since that point, with a more recent high of approximately 

18,000 in 2001 (Mallek 2006). Molting geese, which are highly sensitive to human disturbance, 

are present in the area from late June to mid- to late August. This area also provides important 

breeding habitat for several species of shorebirds. 

2.2.2.5 Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area 

The Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area includes suitable habitats in the Teshekpuk Lake 

region that are essential for all season use by caribou, including calving and rearing, insect-relief, 

and migration. Caribou of the Teshekpuk Lake Herd calve from late May to mid-June. Studies 

show that the main areas for calving can shift somewhat within the broad area, with

concentrations occurring in several different locations around the lake from year to year (see 

section 3.3.7.1, Terrestrial Mammals). For the remainder of the summer, areas of shorelines, 

barren dunes, and ridges can provide relief from intense insect harassment, which can affect 

caribou energy budgets and productivity of cows. The land between Teshekpuk Lake and the 

Beaufort Sea from the Ikpikpuk River to the Kogru River is particularly valuable for this purpose. 

2.2.2.6 Coastal Area 

The Coastal Area includes those areas within 3⁄4 miles of the Beaufort Sea, extending from the 

western portion of the planning area just east of Smith Bay, to the Colville River Delta, including 

the Kogru River. The Coastal Area is important for caribou movement within coastal insect-relief 

areas, and for preventing contamination of marine waters, loss of important bird habitat,

alteration or disturbance of shoreline marshes, and impacts to subsistence resources activities. 

2.2.2.7 Colville River Raptor, Passerine, and Moose Area 

The Colville River Raptor, Passerine, and Moose Area extends one mile west or northwest of the 

bluffs of the Colville River, from approximately Ocean Point to the southern end of the Planning 

Area and 2 miles on either side of the Kogosukruk and Kikiakrorak rivers and tributaries of the 

Kogosukruk River. The lower two-thirds of the Colville River support the highest concentrations 

of raptors, passerines, and moose on Alaska’s North Slope. More than half of the known peregrine, 

gyrfalcon, and rough-legged hawk territories along this reach are in the planning area. Overall, 

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-6 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

the population of peregrine falcons has increased since its low in 1973, when it was listed as 

endangered under the ESA. The species has since been de-listed, and population levels should be

maintained if the peregrine is to remain off the list. The raptors nest on bluffs adjacent to the 

river and are sensitive to disturbance. The area is also an important subsistence, cultural, and 

traditional use area for NSB residents, particularly for those of Nuiqsut. 

2.2.2.8 Pik Dunes 

The Pik Dunes are located in the extreme southcentral part of the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. 

This area was added to the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area in 1999 as a result of the 1998 

Northeast IAP/EIS ROD. The dunes complex occupies roughly 15 square miles, with a maximum 

north/south extent of 51⁄2 miles, and a maximum east/west extent of 5 miles. The Pik Dunes, 

which form a basin containing five lakes, are part of a larger dune area that has been stabilized

and or vegetated for at least several thousand years. The Pik Dunes are unique, because they are 

still exposed and active. Beyond their geologic and scenic uniqueness, the dunes provide: 1) insectrelief habitat for caribou, 2) habitat for several uncommon plant species, and 3) data critical to 

understanding major climatic fluctuations over the last 12,000 years. 

2.2.2.9 Caribou Movement Corridor Area 

The Caribou Movement Corridors consists of two locations within the Teshekpuk Lake Special 

Area. One is located east of Teshekpuk Lake and encompasses 45,000 acres. The other is 

located between the northwest shore of Teshekpuk Lake and Smith Bay and encompasses 

approximately 9,700 acres. Lakes and other natural surface features in these areas result in 

relatively narrow passages that restrict caribou movement during both the calving and insectrelief seasons. 

2.2.2.10 Southern Caribou Calving Area 

The Southern Caribou Calving Area is found southeast and southwest of Teshekpuk Lake and 

is entirely within the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. This area of approximately 233,000 acres 

provides important caribou calving, post-calving, and insect-relief habitat. 

2.2.2.11 Lease Tracts Area 

The Lease Tracts Area is found north of Teshekpuk Lake. This area would be delineated into 

seven large lease tracts that would range in size from approximately 46,000 to 59,000 acres. This

area provides important caribou calving, post-calving, insect-relief habitat, and sensitive goose 

molting habitat. 

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

The alternatives presented in the Supplemental IAP/EIS are nearly identical to those presented

in the Northeast NPR-A Final Amended IAP/EIS. The same land would be made available for oil 

and gas leasing under each of the alternatives as provided for in the Amended IAP/EIS. 

Alternative A is the same as Alternative A in the Amended IAP/EIS. There have been some 

minor changes to Alternative D between the Final Amended IAP/EIS and this Supplement 

thereto, most of which were reflected in the ROD for the Amended IAP/EIS. There have been 

some very minor changes in the text of several stipulations and ROPs in Alternatives B, C, and D 

2-7 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

for clarification, but only one substantive ROP added to these alternatives. The Supplement adds 

ROP L-1 to clarify how BLM would regulate summer vehicle tundra travel, an aspect of oil and 

gas operations that the 1998 IAP/EIS and the Amended IAP/EIS had not addressed. 

BLM does not have a preferred alternative at this time. The agency wants to hear from the public 

before selecting a preferred alternative. The preferred alternative identified in the Final 

Supplemental IAP/EIS may be one of the alternatives presented in this document, may be created 

by combining aspects of these four alternatives, or may reflect aspects of one or more alternatives 

proposed in public comments on this document. 

The alternatives presented below differ among themselves in two important areas: 1) the amount 

of land that would be made available for oil and gas leasing, and 2) the types of lease stipulations 

and/or ROPs that would be used to protect surface resources (Table 2-1). It should be understood 

that BLM has discretion to offer for a lease sale all or only a portion of the lands determined in a 

Record of Decision to be made available, thus making possible phased leasing and development 

over multiple lease sales. The following sections discuss these elements in more detail for each 

alternative. In addition, two tables (Table 2-2 and 2-3) found at the end of this chapter are used to 

compare the protective measures and their effectiveness across alternatives and to describe the

likely effects of actions taken under each alternative. 

2.3.1 Alternative A – No Action Alternative 

Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and is comprised of decisions established in the ROD 

for the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS. The decisions described in this alternative constitute the existing

management practices of the Northeast NPR-A. 

Under this alternative, approximately 87% (4 million acres) of the planning area’s approximately 

4.6 million acres would continue to be available for oil and gas leasing (Map 2-1) and

approximately 825,000 acres available for leasing would continue to prohibit all permanent oil 

and gas facilities, with in some cases exceptions for essential pipeline and road crossings. 

Management practices would emphasize prescriptive-based stipulations on surface activities, 

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

subsistence use areas, and other resources. Table 2-2, found after subsection 2.10, compares and 

evaluates the effectiveness of the prescriptive-based stipulations developed for this alternative

with the performance-based stipulations and ROPs developed for alternatives B, C, and D. All the 

stipulations under Alternative A are subject to an exception clause (see Appendix D). 

2.3.2 Alternative B 

Alternative B would make available approximately 95% (4,387,000 acres) of the planning area’s 

approximately 4.6 million acres for oil and gas leasing (Map 2-2), including approximately 387,000

acres that were unavailable in the 1998 ROD. The additional lands made available by Alternative 

B are within areas of high oil and gas potential in the Northeast Planning Area, and are within 

the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. On approximately 977,000 acres available for leasing the 

alternative would prohibit permanent oil and gas facilities, except pipelines and, in some cases, 

roads. 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. 

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-8 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Performance-based stipulations and ROPs (patterned after those developed for the northwest 

portion of the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska) would be used to mitigate the impacts of

BLM-authorized activities, provide flexibility to BLM to adapt management decisions to uncertain 

or changing environmental conditions, and provide more consistent management by BLM across 

the entire northern portion of NPR-A. The stipulations and ROPs for this alternative are 

presented in Table 2-2, as are summaries of their relative effectiveness compared to the 

stipulations and ROPs in the other alternatives. 

Additional seasonal and spatial restrictions are applied to provide protection of specific 

environmentally sensitive areas. These areas are described in section 2.2.2, Areas with 

Additional Protections, and the restrictions are described in Table 2-2. These stipulations 

would also apply to the approximately 387,000 acres that are unavailable for leasing under 

Alternative A, but would be made available under Alternative B. Environmentally sensitive 

areas and their applicable stipulations are listed below. 

• Rivers Area (see Lease Stipulation K-1) 

• Deep Water Lakes (see Lease Stipulation K-2) 

• Teshekpuk Lake Shoreline (see Stipulation K-3) 

• Goose Molting Area (see Lease Stipulation K-4) 

• Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area (see Lease Stipulation K-5) 

• Coastal Area (see Stipulation K-6) 

• Colville River Special Area (see Lease Stipulation K-7) 

• Pik Dunes (see Lease Stipulation K-8) 

2.3.3 Alternative C 

Alternative C would make 100% of the planning area’s 4.6 million acres available for oil and gas 

leasing (Map 2-3). On approximately 1,113,000 acres available for leasing the alternative would

prohibit permanent oil and gas facilities, except pipelines and, in some cases, roads. It would 

utilize the same performance-based stipulations and ROPs developed for Alternative B (except for

a setback on the Tingmiaksiqvik River; see Stipulation K-1g, which only applies to Alternative B) 

to mitigate the impacts of energy development and other land uses on resources in the planning 

area. These protective measures would mitigate the impacts of energy development and other 

land uses, provide flexibility to BLM to adapt management decisions to uncertain or changing 

environmental conditions, and provide more consistent management by BLM across the entire 

northern portion of NPR-A. These restrictions are presented in Table 2-2 and pertain to the same 

activities and include the same seasonal and spatial restrictions as Alternative B. 

2.3.4 Alternative D 

Alternative D would make available approximately 95% (approximately 4,389,000 acres) of the 

planning area’s 4.6 million acres for oil and gas leasing (Map 2-4). On approximately 1,451,000

acres available for leasing the alternative would prohibit permanent oil and gas facilities, except 

pipelines and, in some cases, roads. Management practices would emphasize performance-based 

stipulations and ROPs on surface activities, consultation with local residents, and coordinated 

2-9 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

scientific studies to protect wildlife habitat, subsistence use areas, and other resources. Under 

Alternative D, Teshekpuk Lake (approximately 211,000 acres) would be indefinitely deferred from

leasing. This deferral would preclude exploratory drilling and pipeline construction. Current 

leases would not be affected by the deferral. 

Alternative D makes available approximately 389,000 acres that were unavailable in the 1998

ROD. The additional lands made available by Alternative D are within the area of highest oil and

gas potential in the Northeast Planning Area, and are within the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area 

(TLSA). Several major protective measures have been developed as requirements/standards to 

protect important resources and subsistence activities in the TLSA: 

• Areas in and around identified lakes north of Teshekpuk Lake within the GMA, that are 

important for molting brant and other sensitive waterfowl would be protected with a

restricted surface occupancy lease stipulation (approximately 240,000 acres) (Map 2-4).

(Note: The Amended IAP/EIS referred to this and similar restrictions that would 

prohibit all permanent oil and gas facilities with the exception of pipelines and in some 

cases roads as No Surface Occupancy, or NSO, restrictions. The Supplemental IAP/EIS 

uses the phrase restricted surface occupancy, or RSO, to refer to the same level of 

restriction. Readers should examine the wording of specific stipulations or ROPs to 

clarify what facilities would be prohibited). Lakes and adjacent lands identified as 

important habitat for molting geese and other waterfowl are included in the RSO area. 

Because many of these lakes are in very close proximity, the buffer areas around the 

lakes often overlap resulting in the RSO area depicted on Map 2-4. In addition to 

providing protection to molting geese and other waterfowl, this restriction would also

provide protection for caribou calving and insect-relief habitats. While providing 

important protections to key resources, this lease stipulation would allow for exploration 

of the region. Within the RSO area(s), permanent oil and gas facilities would be 

prohibited, but a pipeline(s) would be allowed on conditions determined during a 

workshop to be convened to identify the best area for pipeline construction in efforts to 

minimize impacts to wildlife and subsistence resources and users. Exploration activities 

would be allowed within the RSO, including seismic acquisition and exploratory drilling. 

Exploratory drilling would not be allowed within the GMA between June 15 and August 

20. Within the GMA, BLM, after conferring with appropriate federal, state, and NSB 

agencies, would develop a research study of the effects of disturbance on molting brant 

and other geese that utilize the lakes north of Teshekpuk Lake. The study would be 

completed prior to any authorization of construction of permanent facilities within the 

GMA. The study would include at least 3 years of data collection and would focus on 1.) 

providing baseline data for detection and/or measurement of disturbance, 2.) identifying 

significant development-related disturbance factors, 3.) evaluating consequences to 

geese from disturbance with the GMA considering relevant stipulations and ROPs, 4.) 

identifying additional mitigation measures to protect molting geese that may be 

considered necessary as a result of the study, including recommendations for 

appropriate placement of permanent facilities based on the study’s identification of 

development-related disturbance factors. In addition, the study results would be used to 

identify specific location of facility(s) within the approximately 5,000 acre parcel of land 

(as depicted on Map 2-5) available within the GMA Lease Tracts F and G. See Lease 

Stipulations K-4, K-5, and K-11. 

• Two Caribou Movement Corridors would receive additional protection. The area 

extending from the eastern shore of Teshekpuk Lake eastward towards the Kogru Inlet 

would be protected with a RSO stipulation (approximately 45,000 acres). This area is 

currently identified as important for caribou movement during the calving and insectChapter II: Alternatives 2-10 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

relief seasons. The area encompasses a relatively narrow passage between Teshekpuk 

Lake and Kogru Inlet that is inundated with many smaller lakes, and is currently 

identified as a “bottleneck” to caribou north/south movement. The area adjacent to the 

northwest corner of Teshekpuk Lake would be protected with a RSO lease stipulation 

(approximately 9,700 acres). This area is currently identified as important for caribou 

movement during the calving and insect-relief seasons. Within the RSO areas, 

permanent oil and gas facilities other than pipelines would be prohibited. Pipelines

would be allowed on conditions determined during a workshop to be convened to identify 

the best area for pipeline construction in efforts to minimize impacts to wildlife and 

subsistence resources. Exploration activities, such as seismic acquisition and exploratory 

drilling, would be allowed within these RSO areas during the winter season only. See 

Lease Stipulation K-9 and Map 2-4. 

• The Southern Caribou Calving Area southwest and southeast of Teshekpuk Lake would 

be protected with a RSO stipulation (approximately 233,000 acres). This area has been 

identified as important for caribou calving and post-calving, and providing insect relief. 

Within this RSO area, permanent oil and gas facilities would be prohibited, but pipelines 

would be allowed on conditions determined during a workshop convened to identify the 

best area for pipeline construction in efforts to minimize impacts to wildlife and 

subsistence resources and users. Exploration activities would be allowed within each 

RSO, such as seismic acquisition and exploratory drilling during the winter season only. 

See Lease Stipulation K-10 and Map 2-4. 

• The area north of Teshekpuk Lake is delineated into seven large lease tracts. These 

tracts range from 45,900 to 58,000 acres. A maximum limit of 300 acres of permanent 

surface disturbance resulting from new oil and gas activities is established for each

tract. This further reduces the potential impacts of oil and gas development by limiting 

impacts to a defined amount of surface disturbance. See Lease Stipulation K-11 and Map 

2-4. 

As with Alternatives B and C, performance-based stipulations and ROPs (patterned after those 

developed for the northwest portion of the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska) would be used to

mitigate the impacts of BLM-authorized activities, provide flexibility to BLM to adapt 

management decisions to uncertain or changing environmental conditions, and provide more 

consistent management by BLM across the entire northern portion of NPR-A. The stipulations

and ROPs for this alternative are presented in Table 2-2, as are summaries of their relative 

effectiveness compared to the stipulations and ROPs in the other alternatives. 

2-11 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

Table 2-1. Alternative Summary Comparison Table 

Alternative Lands 

Available for 

Use 

Protective 

Measure 

Leasing and Occupancy 

Restrictions 

No Action Alternative 

(Alternative A; 1998

Northeast IAP/EIS 

ROD) 

Approximately

4,000,000 acres 

(87%) available 

for leasing 

79 prescriptive 

stipulations as

described in the 

1998 Northeast 

NPR-A IAP/EIS 

ROD and listed in 

Table 2-2 and 

Appendix D 

Areas north and east of Teshekpuk Lake

unavailable for leasing (approximately 

600,000 acres) 

No Surface Activity Restriction 

(approximately 250,000 acres southwest, 

south, and southeast of Teshekpuk Lake) 

Restricted Surface Occupancy near streams

and lakes (approximately 825,000 acres) 

Alternative B Approximately

4,387,000 acres 

(95%) available 

for leasing 

Performance-based 

stipulations and 

ROPs as listed in 

Table 2-2 and 

Appendix E 

Goose molting/caribou habitat use area north 

of Teshekpuk Lake unavailable for leasing 

(approximately 213,000 acres) 

Restricted Surface Occupancy near streams,

lakes, and coast (approximately 977,000

acres) 

Alternative C 4,600,000 acres 

(100%) available 

for leasing 

(entire Planning 

Area) 

Performance-based 

stipulations and 

ROPs (same as

Alternative B, 

except Stipulation 

K-1g) 

All areas available for leasing 

Restricted Surface Occupancy near

streams, lakes, and coast (approximately

1,113,000 acres) 

Alternative D Approximately 

4,389,000 acres 

(95%) available for 

leasing 

Performance-based 

stipulations and 

ROPs, similar to 

those identified for 

Alternatives B and 

C, but including 3 

additional site 

specific stipulations. 

These stipulations 

and ROPs are listed 

in Table 2-2 and 

Appendix F 

Teshekpuk Lake (211, 000 acres) lease 

indefinitely deferred from leasing 

Restricted Surface Occupancy total 1,451,000 

acres 

• 240,000 acres north of Teshekpuk Lake

within the Goose Molting Area restricted 

to no permanent oil and gas development 

other than pipelines. (No alternative 

procedures will be approved.) 

• 288,000 acres within Caribou Movement 

Corridors and Southern Caribou Calving

Areas restricted to no permanent oil and 

gas development other than pipelines 

• 7 Lease Tracts north of Teshekpuk Lake; 

permanent surface disturbance resulting

from oil and gas activities other than

pipelines is limited to 300 acres within

each lease tract 

• No permanent oil and gas facilities

within a 1⁄4 mile of the ordinary high 

water mark of Teshekpuk Lake 

Additional seasonal and spatial restrictions are applied to provide protection of specific 

environmentally sensitive areas. These areas are described in section 2.2.2, Areas with 

Additional Protections, and the restrictions are described in Table 2-2. Some of these 

stipulations would apply in part or in whole to the approximately 389,000 acres that are 

unavailable for leasing under Alternative A, but would be made available under Alternative D. 

Environmentally sensitive areas and their applicable stipulations are listed below. The last three 

areas listed are unique to Alternative D. 

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-12 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

• Rivers Area (see Lease Stipulation K-1) 

• Deep Water Lakes (see Lease Stipulation K-2) 

• Teshekpuk Lake Shoreline (see Stipulation K-3) 

• Goose Molting Area (see Lease Stipulation K-4) 

• Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area (see Lease Stipulation K-5) 

• Coastal Area (see Stipulation K-6) 

• Colville River Special Area (see Lease Stipulation K-7) 

• Pik Dunes (see Lease Stipulation K-8) 

• Caribou Movement Corridor Area (see Lease Stipulation K-9) 

• Southern Caribou Calving Area (see Lease Stipulation K-10) 

• Lease Tracts Area (see Lease Stipulation K-11) 

2.3.5 Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures 

In addition to the land allocation decisions regarding what portions of the planning area would be 

made available to oil and gas leasing, the alternatives differ in the protective measures that 

would be imposed on oil and gas activities and non-oil and gas activities. The protective measures 

in Alternative A are those adopted in the 1998 Northeast NPR-A ROD. Pursuant to the purpose 

of this IAP/EIS, BLM developed two sets of performance-based protective measures analogous to 

those developed in the Northwest NPR-A IAP/EIS. 

The performance-based protective measures are of two types—stipulations and required operating 

procedures. Most requirements identified here as stipulations represent a legal “taking” in that 

they could take from the value of an oil and gas lease. For example, a stipulation that does not 

allow permanent facilities within a large area could result in a well being located far enough from 

the lessee’s optimum site for a well that it would prevent an oil reservoir from being fully 

developed. To legally take such value from a lease, the requirement is attached to the lease. 

Thus, the lessee knows that the lease being purchased comes with this impediment to full

development. As part of a lease contract, lease stipulations are specific to the lessee. All oil and 

gas activity permits issued to a lessee will comply with the lease stipulations appropriate to the 

activity under review. 

Required Operating Procedures, or ROPs, are requirements to achieve specified objectives 

through best management practices (referred to in this Supplemental IAP/EIS as 

requirements/standards) that BLM will impose as necessary through the permitting process. As 

used in this Supplemental IAP/EIS, they refer both to oil and gas activities and non-oil and gas 

activities. An oil and gas lease does not in itself authorize any on-the-ground activity. Seismic 

operations, drilling, pipeline and gravel road and pad construction, etc. require additional land 

use authorizations. Any applicant requesting such authorization will have to address the 

required operating procedures either before submitting the application (e.g., subsistence 

consultation, surveys), as part of the application proposal (i.e., including in the proposal 

statements that the applicant will meet the objective of the ROP and describe how the applicant 

intends to achieve that objective), or as a term imposed by BLM in a permit. Requirements that 

are met prior to submission of the application, as well as procedures, practices, and design 

2-13 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

features that are an integral part of a proposal, would not need to be required as a term of a 

permit. Note that at the permitting stage, BLM’s Authorized Officer (AO) would not include those

ROPs that, because their geographic or other inapplicability, are not relevant to a specific permit

application. Note also that at the permit stage the AO may establish additional requirements 

that would be warranted to protect the land and resources pursuant to the BLM’s responsibility 

under relevant laws and regulations. 

The stipulations and ROPs of all the alternatives are presented in Table 2-2. The table provides 

the easiest means to compare the stipulations and ROPs among the alternatives. A stand-alone 

description of the stipulations for Alternative A are provided in Appendix D. Similar stand-alone 

descriptions of the stipulations and ROPs for Alternatives B and C are provided in Appendix E, 

and for Alternative D in Appendix F, respectively. 

The performance-based stipulations and ROPs in Alternatives B through D differ from the 

prescriptive-based stipulations of Alternative A in three general ways: 

• The stipulations and ROPs in Alternatives B through D do not include actions that 

already exist in the form of law and regulation. Some stipulations in Alternative A 

replicate requirements in law and regulation. 

• In developing the Amended IAP/EIS and this Supplement thereto, BLM has reexamined

the utility and effectiveness of requirements of the 1998 stipulations and analyzed 

substantive changes in the types of protection to be provided in the action alternatives in 

the performance-based stipulations and ROPS in Alternatives B through D. Examples in 

the action alternatives include allowing refueling and permanent oil and gas facilities a 

minimum of 100 feet of non-fish-bearing lakes (instead of requiring that such activities be 

at least 500 feet away from such lakes as was done in the 1998 Northeast NPR-A ROD), 

allowing for water withdrawals from lakes less than 7 feet deep with non-sensitive fish 

(instead of forbidding water withdrawal from all fish-bearing lakes under 7 feet deep), and 

requiring that aboveground pipelines be elevated 7 feet above the ground at each vertical 

support member (instead of 5 feet above the ground along its entire length). The action 

alternatives also analyzed stipulations and ROPs that specifically addressed protections 

from oil and gas activities for lands that Alternative A would not make available for oil 

and gas leasing or would have restricted use with no surface activity restrictions. 

• A fundamental difference between performance-based and prescriptive protective 

measures is their approach to, and procedures for, protecting resources and uses. The 

prescriptive stipulations require that certain actions be taken (or not taken) by a 

lessee/permittee to protect resources and uses of the planning area, while the performance 

stipulations and ROPs require that certain objectives for protecting resources and uses be 

achieved. For example, Stipulation K-5 is a performance-based stipulation designed to

“Minimize disturbance and hindrance of caribou, or alteration of caribou movements 

through portions of the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area that are essential for all 

season use, including calving and rearing, insect-relief, and migration.” One of its 

requirements/standards states that major construction would be suspended from May 20 

to August 20 unless approved by the AO. To achieve the objective, on the one hand, it may 

be satisfactory to allow construction in a part of the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat 

Area during at least a part of the period if caribou are absent from that portion of the area 

during a portion of the three-month period. On the other hand, the AO may extend the

period for suspended construction if calving or insect relief activities extend beyond the

dates provided in the requirement/standard. By focusing on the results or performance to 

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-14 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

achieve an objective for a stipulation or ROP, the performance-based protective measures 

provide BLM’s land managers and industry with greater flexibility in how to achieve 

resource protection objectives and, BLM believes, efficacy in protecting surface resources. 

There is a high degree of natural variation and inherent complexity associated with the 

North Slope environment. Performance-based stipulations and ROPs provide BLM with 

the flexibility to adapt management by tightening or relaxing restrictions on development 

in order to meet surface protection goals as the agency benefits from emerging information 

from study and experience. 

During scoping for the Amended IAP/EIS, several respondents expressed concern that the 

protective measures developed for the Northwest IAP/EIS (and, analogously, for Alternatives B. 

C, and D for the Amended IAP/EIS and this Supplemental thereto) would not be as effective, or 

provide similar levels of protection, as the stipulations developed for the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS.

It should not be assumed, however, that increased flexibility would result in no, inadequate, or 

even weakened protection of the resources and uses of the planning area. This is so for several 

reasons. 

First, BLM is required by law to protect surface resources. BLM cannot abrogate its regulatory 

responsibility to take such action as deemed necessary to mitigate or avoid unnecessary surface 

damage and to minimize ecological disturbance throughout the National Petroleum Reserve – 

Alaska, consistent with the requirements of the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, 42 

USC § 6501, et seq., and its implementing regulations at 43 CFR 2360 and to take whatever

action is required to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands under the

Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 USC § 1732. 

Second, as demonstrated by Table 2-2, in some instances the prescriptive stipulations of

Alternative A may provide more protection than the performance stipulations of the other 

alternatives, but in other instances greater protection is provided by the performance stipulations 

and ROPs. The evaluation in the table is not based upon the prescriptive rather than 

performance approach and procedures, but on the substantive level of protection incorporated into 

the requirements/standards versus the prescriptive stipulations. For example, the performance 

ROP E-7 in the performance-based alternatives is adjudged to provide greater protection to 

caribou movement than Stipulation 37 in Alternative A because it has a standard for pipeline 

height of 7 feet at VSMs, while Stipulation 37 only mandates a height of 5 feet, not because of the 

approach and procedures associated with performance-based protective measures. Similarly,

while Alternatives A and C do not require any setback of permanent oil and gas facilities from the 

Tingmiaksiqvik River, Alternatives B and D would require protection for the resources of that 

river at a standard equal to that of prohibiting permanent oil and gas surface facilities, except 

essential transportation crossings, within a 1⁄2 mile of the stream. Consequently, Alternatives B 

and D would be more effective than Alternatives A and C in protecting water quality and other 

resources associated with the Tingmiaksiqvik River if oil development were to occur in the general 

area of that stream. 

Third, the performance-based stipulations and ROPs will provide the BLM enhanced ability to 

mitigate impacts when a lessee or would-be permittee applies to BLM for approval of on-theground activity. On-the-ground oil and gas activity, including, but not limited to, seismic surveys,

exploratory drilling, ice or gravel road and pad construction, and facility construction and 

abandonment require BLM’s approval, as does non-oil and gas activity. Prior to issuing such an 

approval, BLM would conduct appropriate additional NEPA. The prescriptive stipulations require 

that certain actions be taken (or not taken) by a lessee/permittee to protect resources and uses of 

2-15 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

the planning area. These prescriptions remain unchanging in the leases, regardless of whether 

new science or updated technology suggests that better protection can be achieved through other 

means. In contrast, the performance stipulations and ROPs require that certain protections of 

resources and uses be achieved. Requirements and standards listed with the performance-based

stipulations and ROPs (see Table 2-2) represent BLM’s current understanding of how 

lessees/permittees would achieve the objectives of the stipulation or ROP. Performance-based 

stipulations and ROPs, however, allow BLM at the permitting stage to better utilize 1.) the latest

and best understanding of the North Slope environment and possible impacts to it, 2.) the latest 

advances in technology and techniques relevant to North Slope oil and gas activities, and 3.) the 

more site- and project-specific information that is available at the permit stage. If BLM finds 

through monitoring or as a result of other studies that a prescribed action is not effective or if new 

technology or techniques have been shown to lessen impacts, the prescriptive stipulations of

Alternative A do not give the agency the ability to require the lessee/permittee to undertake other 

measures instead of those required by the stipulations. Under Alternatives B through D if, after 

experience or additional study, BLM concludes that a requirement/standard is not achieving or is 

unlikely to achieve a the protective objective when applied to a specific future on-the-ground 

action or would not do so as well as the use of recently proven technology or techniques, BLM 

could, under the terms of the performance-based stipulation or ROP, impose other restrictions to 

meet the objective. 

The procedures that would allow a deviation from the requirements of the stipulations of 

Alternative A differ from those that would allow a deviation from the requirements/standards 

associated with the resource/use objectives of the other alternatives. Under all alternatives, a 

deviation could occur if the Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS ROD was itself modified. If 

this were a significant change it would require that BLM conduct a public NEPA process in which 

such a modification would be subject to public review and comment. Under Alternative A, 

deviations from the stipulations could also be allowed through the exception process. Exceptions 

could be granted if 1.) the objectives of the stipulation could be fully satisfied by the alternative 

process proposed by the lessee/permittee and 2.) to comply with the stipulation would be either 

“technically not feasible,” or “economically prohibitive,” or if the alternative offered by the 

lessee/permittee is “environmentally preferable.” Under the other alternatives, a lessee/permittee 

may propose a deviation from the requirements/standards of stipulations and ROPs and BLM 

could grant such a deviation if it determines that the alternative procedure proposed by the 

applicant would meet the objective. (Note: The Amended IAP/EIS included the exception clause 

for Alternatives B and D. It has been deleted in the Supplemental IAP/EIS for those alternatives 

because it would be redundant. Under the three action alternatives, an applicant for a BLM 

authorization could obtain a deviation from requirements/standards if the BLM determines that 

the alternative procedure will meet the objective(s) of the stipulation or ROP. If the applicant’s

proposed deviation does not meet the objective through this process, it is not going to meet the 

first prong of the exception clause listed above, i.e., that the “objectives of the stipulations . . . be 

fully satisfied by the alternative process.”) For more information on the exception process in 

Alternative A, see Appendix D; for a similar discussion on how deviations from the 

requirements/standards can be achieved under the other alternatives, see Appendix E (for 

Alternatives B and C) and Appendix F (for Alternative D). 

Fundamental to the concept of performance-based management is learning and adaptation to new

information. The stipulations and ROPs currently represent BLM’s best understanding of the 

protective measures necessary to achieve the desired outcome. However, our knowledge is not 

perfect, individual stipulations and ROPs may be adequate, inadequate, or overly restrictive. 

Indeed, a single stipulation or ROP may be all of those things depending on where it is applied. 

By accepting this uncertainty, defining the stipulations and ROPs as desired outcomes 

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-16 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

(performance), and incorporating a mechanism to adapt to new information as exploration and 

development proceed and our understanding of the components of the arctic ecosystem and its 

response to exploration and development, BLM strives to provide the necessary protection to 

surface resources while minimizing restrictions to oil and gas development. 

While not the “Adaptive Management” of Walters (Walters, 1986), this approach can be seen as a 

form of adaptive management as limited by the nature of oil and gas exploration and development 

on the North Slope. In most other types of land management where adaptive management is

proposed, the amount, quality, quantity, and location of the resource to be managed is known. 

Management actions can be treated as experiments to further knowledge. Scale (temporal and

spatial), magnitude and variation can all be manipulated with relatively limited cost compared to 

conventional management actions. Oil and gas, however, are not visible, not randomly

distributed, and difficult and expensive to extract. Manipulation of the basic components (e.g. 

pads, pad location. and the types of structures and activities) cannot be done easily and certainly 

not inexpensively; quite the opposite in fact. Construction of a pad in a location necessary to test

a hypothesis where there is not oil or in a sub-optimal location is a financial impractability. The 

adaptive management envisioned here incorporates learning through time and flexibility. 

BLM expects that development will occur on a linear trend. As noted above, BLM may choose a 

phased approach whereby only some of the lands designated as available are offered for lease in a 

given lease sale. Moreover, oil and gas are expected to be discovered over many years and not all 

development will be constructed at once. This could result in enhanced protection of surface 

resources by giving BLM the opportunity to learn from the previous exploratory drilling and

development activities, to modify the standards and requirements of the stipulations and ROPs 

and to adopt additional permit requirements. Further, this approach is an incentive to industry

to develop and implement new technology and operating procedures; adapting their management 

practices to achieve the goals of the stipulations and ROPs while allowing them to optimize the 

placement of infrastructure and their operations. 

BLM will ultimately be responsible for determining how the objectives of the stipulations and

ROPs will be achieved. In undertaking this responsibility, BLM may confer with other federal, 

state, and local agencies with expertise and/or authority to manage certain resources or activities.

Indeed, a number of stipulations and ROPs specifically state that BLM’s Authorized Officer (AO) 

will consult with other agencies. It should be emphasized, however, that any statement in a 

stipulation or ROP that BLM will discuss a specific matter with another agency does not in any 

way diminish BLM’s authority and responsibility to make a land management decision. 

2.4 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

Before considering the various management strategies put forward for consideration in these 

alternatives, readers should be aware that some management actions will occur under all 

alternatives. These actions include fulfilling BLM’s responsibility to convey land to individual

Alaskan Natives and to Native corporations under the Native Allotment Act and the Alaska

Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), respectively. In cooperation with other federal, state, and

NSB resource management agencies, BLM also will conduct studies, such as the inventory and 

monitoring of resource populations and conditions under all alternatives. These studies will 

assess the health of biological resources, the location and significance of other resources, and the 

effectiveness of management practices in protecting these resources. The scope of these studies 

2-17 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

will reflect the level of impacting actions allowed and the protective measures imposed under the

plan adopted through this Supplemental IAP/EIS. 

BLM is required to consult with the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service on any action that 

could impact threatened and endangered species in the planning area. The bowhead whale, 

spectacled eider, and Steller’s eider may occur near areas that could be affected by oil and gas 

development in the planning area. The polar bear has been proposed to be listed as threatened.

BLM is required to Conference on any activity that could jeopardize the continued existence of 

polar bear or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat. The bowhead whale is listed 

as an endangered species under the ESA, while the two eider species are listed as threatened. 

Appendix J contains a list of species that BLM has identified as species of special status in 

Alaska. Most of the species listed in Appendix J are not found in the NPR-A. Only those species 

likely to be found in or near the planning area are discussed in the Supplemental IAP/EIS. The 

BLM will manage all permitted activities, pursuant to BLM Manual Section 6840 (Special Status 

Species Management), to ensure that actions requiring authorization or approval by BLM are 

consistent with the conservation needs of special status species and do not contribute to the need 

to “list” any of them under the provisions of the ESA of 1973, as amended. 

2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM 

DETAILED ANALYSIS 

2.5.1 Making Less Land Available for Leasing 

Neither the Amendment nor this Supplement thereto considers alternatives that would make less 

land available for oil and gas leasing than the 1998 Northeast NPR-A IAP/EIS. 

As described in section 1.2, the underlying purpose of the IAP/EIS is to evaluate additional lands 

to be made available for leasing in order to address the Nation’s need for additional energy 

sources. 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 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 states that “such consideration should include areas not currently leased within the northeast 

corner of the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska.” The Amended IAP/EIS and this Supplement

thereto are part of the process by which the Secretary carries out that policy direction. 

Accordingly, considering not leasing lands that were available for leasing in earlier lease sales 

would be contrary to the purpose and need of the IAP/EIS, and is therefore outside the scope of 

the IAP/EIS. 

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-18 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

2.5.2 Analyzing a Different Mix of Prescriptive and Performance 

Measures and Land Allocation Decisions 

Alternative A considers prescriptive stipulations and makes no new lands available for oil and gas 

leasing. Alternatives B, C, and D consider somewhat different versions of performance

stipulations and ROPs and each would make a different set of additional lands available for oil

and gas leasing. BLM considered analyzing one or more other alternatives that would mix 

performance stipulations with making no more lands available for leasing or making more lands 

available for leasing, but with prescriptive stipulations. BLM has rejected such additional 

alternatives. 

These additional alternatives would be substantially the same as other alternatives already 

analyzed in this Supplemental IAP/EIS and would result in environmental impacts that are 

substantially the same as those presented in this document. An alternative that made the same 

amount of land available for leasing as Alternative A, but proposed use of performance-based

stipulations and ROPs, and alternatives that made the same amount of land available for leasing 

as Alternatives B, C, and D, but proposed prescriptive stipulations, would still make the same 

amount of land available for leasing and the same amount of oil and gas susceptible to discovery 

and development, with generally the same resultant environmental consequences. Nor would 

such a mix of decisions on lands to lease and the type of stipulation and ROP package result in 

notably different impacts because neither package of protective measures would provide clearly 

superior environmental benefits. As demonstrated in the analysis in Chapter 4 and more 

specifically in Table 2-2, in a great many cases the prescriptive stipulations of Alternative A and

the corresponding performance-based stipulations and ROPs in the other alternatives have been 

adjudged to offer the same or essentially the same protection for resources and uses. In some 

cases this is the result of using identical or similar wording in the stipulations of Alternative A 

and the requirements/standards to meet the objectives of the performance-based stipulations of 

Alternatives B, C, and D. For example, the requirement/standard for ROP A-1 for Alternatives B, 

C, and D and Stipulation 6 of Alternative A both read, “Areas of operation shall be left clean of all 

debris.” In other cases, while the wording of the prescriptive and performance-based measures is 

different, their effectiveness in protecting resources and uses is not. Also, as discussed in Section 

2.3.5, while the substantive requirements of some prescriptive stipulations in Alternative A are 

more protective than those included in the requirements/standards of the performance-based

stipulations and ROPs in the other alternatives, there also are some performance-based 

stipulations that offer more protection than the prescriptive stipulations. On the balance, the 

protective effectiveness of the substantive requirements of performance-based stipulations and

ROPs is roughly the same as that of the prescriptive stipulations. Therefore, analyzing an 

alternative that would make the same lands available for oil and gas leasing as Alternative A, but 

propose performance-based protective measures, or analyzing an alternative that makes the same 

lands available of leasing as Alternative B, C, or D, but proposes prescriptive stipulations would

not add substantively to the impact analysis. 

2.5.3 Considering Wilderness Designation 

Wilderness designation within the planning area is not being considered in any alternative for 

two reasons. First, the underlying purpose of the IAP/EIS relates to oil and gas leasing, 

exploration, and development, including making more lands available for leasing. (See section 

1.2). Because creating new wilderness designations is inconsistent with this management 

objective, alternatives proposing such an action are outside the scope of the Amended IAP/EIS 

and this Supplement thereto. Second, wilderness designation is not being considered in 

2-19 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

accordance with Secretarial direction and ANILCA. Alaska lands were exhaustively inventoried, 

reviewed, and studied for eight years during the 1970s to evaluate their wilderness values 

under the Wilderness Act criteria. In 1980 Congress passed ANILCA, which preserved more 

than 150 million acres in conservation units, including 57 million acres of designated 

wilderness. Alaska has a higher amount and proportion of land in wilderness designation than 

any other state. ANILCA also removed the requirements for additional wilderness review in 

Alaska under FLPMA and granted the Secretary of the Interior discretion to identify additional 

wilderness for Congressional consideration. In 1981 the Secretary exercised that discretion to

cease wilderness reviews in Alaska. This decision was rescinded in 2001 by Secretary Bruce 

Babbitt. However, on April 11, 2003 Secretary Gale Norton instructed BLM to “consider specific 

wilderness study proposals in Alaska, as part of any new or revised resource management 

planning effort, if the proposals received have broad support among the State and federal 

elected officials representing Alaska. Absent this broad support, wilderness should not be 

considered in these resource management plans.” The State of Alaska, in a January 8, 2007 

communication responding to the Notice of Intent for the Supplement stated that it opposes 

designation of ”new conservation system units,” a designation that includes wilderness areas, in 

the planning area. Therefore, based both on the purpose and need of this plan and a 

legislatively-supported Secretarial decision, BLM is not considering wilderness designations in

this plan. 

2.5.4 Consideration of Wild and Scenic River Designation 

Detailed analysis of an alternative considering Wild and Scenic River recommendations is not 

included in this Supplemental IAP/EIS for two reasons. First, the underlying purpose of the 

IAP/EIS relates to additional oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development. (See section 

1.2). Because creating new Wild and Scenic River designations is inconsistent with this

management objective, alternatives proposing such an action are outside the scope of the IAP/EIS. 

Second, BLM conducted a comprehensive review of Wild and Scenic River eligibility in the 1998 

Northeast IAP/EIS, and no rivers were recommended for Wild and Scenic River designation by 

Congress as a result of that review. Moreover, BLM has reviewed and considered all of the 

relevant information available since the 1998 analysis was completed and has found no changes 

in factors relevant to Wild and Scenic River designation. BLM concludes that there is no new 

information which suggests that the prior conclusions in the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS and ROD 

should be reconsidered or modified with respect to consideration of wild and scenic river 

designation. 

2.5.5 Fish and Wildlife Service and ConocoPhillips Proposals 

During the comment period on the Draft Amended IAP/EIS, the USFWS submitted a proposal

that would leave approximately 296,000 acres northeast of Teshekpuk Lake unavailable to oil and 

gas leasing, compared to 213,000 acres that would have been made unavailable under Alternative 

B (the Preferred Alternative in the Draft Amended IAP/EIS) and 211,000 acres in Teshekpuk 

Lake that would be unavailable under Alternative D (the Preferred Alternative in the Final 

Amended IAP/EIS). The USFWS wrote that their proposal would provide additional protection 

for molting brant and other wildlife. 

ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. presented another alternative that would allow for oil and gas leasing, 

exploration, and development within portions of the area closed to leasing under Alternative B. 

The ConocoPhillips approach to protecting molting geese north of Teshekpuk Lake was to apply a 

No Surface Occupancy buffer around those lakes with the highest use by molting geese. 

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-20 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

ConocoPhillips wrote that their proposal would provide adequate protection for caribou and

molting geese, while providing additional lands for oil and gas development. 

BLM took these proposals and other public comments into consideration when reviewing the 

alternatives developed for the Draft Amended IAP/EIS. Based on these comments, BLM 

developed a Preferred Alternative for the Final Amended IAP/EIS. This alternative (Alternative D 

in the Final Amended IAP/EIS) allows for some oil and gas development in the 213,000-acre nolease area identified under Alternative B (Map 2-4). However, this alternative also provides 

protection for geese, caribou, subsistence, and other resources found to the north and east of

Teshekpuk Lake, by prohibiting permanent oil and gas facilities (excluding pipelines and roads in 

some areas) on approximately 324,000 acres (Alternative B protects 213,000 acres), and limiting 

the amount of permanent surface disturbance resulting from oil and gas activities (maximum of 

300 new acres) that can occur within each of seven lease tracts to the north of the lake (Map 2-4). 

This alternative includes both the USFWS and ConocoPhillips suggested alternatives, and is

being carried forward, with minor modifications, as Alternative D in this Supplement (see 

section 2.3). 

2.6 MONITORING 

Monitoring “to determine the status of the various resources in the planning area, to ensure 

compliance with and enforcement of plan decisions and with stipulations attached to separate

land use authorizations, and to measure the effectiveness of protective measures” is required

under the 1998 Northeast IAP/EIS ROD for the No Action Alternative in this Supplement, and is

included in the stipulations and ROPs identified in Table 2-2 for all of the alternatives.

Monitoring activities include, but would not be limited to, the following: 

• Monitoring the movements, distribution, and range use of caribou in areas proposed for 

development (Alternative A Stipulation 29; Alternatives B-D Stipulation K-5[a]); 

• Monitoring fish-bearing waters when projects impact fish-bearing and non fish-bearing water 

bodies to ensure free passage of fish and water quality (Alternative A Stipulation 30; 

Alternatives B-D Stipulation E-3); 

• Monitoring caribou movements in areas with permanent roads (Alternative A Stipulation 49; 

Alternatives B-D Stipulation K-5[e]); 

• Monitoring oil and gas exploration, development, and production effects on subsistence 

(Alternative A Stipulation 59; Alternatives B-D ROP H-1); 

• Conducting cultural and paleontological surveys in areas where ground-disturbing activities 

will take place (Alternative A Stipulation 74; Alternatives B-D ROP E-13); 

• Monitoring bear activity near development and production sites (Alternative A Stipulation 76; 

Alternatives B-D ROP A-8); 

• Conducting aerial surveys of Steller’s and spectacled eiders, and yellow-billed loons, in areas 

of facility construction (Alternatives B-D ROP E-11), and 

• Monitoring impacts of aircraft and vehicle use and impacts of development within the Goose 

Molting Area (Alternative D only K-4). 

In the authorizing/NEPA process for on-the-ground activity or development, BLM will develop 

appropriate requirements for project-specific monitoring. 

2-21 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

2.7 EFFECTIVENESS OF STIPULATIONS AND REQUIRED 

OPERATING PROCEDURES 

Table 2-2 lists all of the stipulations and ROPs of the four alternatives. The list is organized to 

aid comparison of similar protective measures across alternatives. In addition to listing the 

stipulations and ROPs for comparison of their provisions, the table also describes their probable 

effectiveness. As noted earlier in this chapter, the comparison of the effectiveness of the

stipulations and ROPs provided in Table 2-2 is based upon the measurable substantive 

differences in the proposed protective measures, such as the size of setbacks and the elevation of 

pipelines. 

The reader of this Supplemental IAP/EIS should keep in mind that stipulations and ROPs were 

often developed to address a specific, or narrow range of, resource concern(s). Thus, the

effectiveness statement for each stipulation and ROP may only address one or a few resources. 

2.8 COMPARISON OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF EACH 

ALTERNATIVE 

Table 2-3, which follows Table 2-2, summarizes the likely effects of oil and gas activities on 

resources and uses in the Planning Area for each alternative. Information contained in these 

tables is derived from more detailed discussions in Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences). 

2.9 EFFECTS ON CURRENT AND FUTURE LEASE HOLDERS 

FROM REVISIONS TO 1998 NORTHEAST IAP/EIS ROD 

The analysis contained in this Supplemental IAP/EIS provides NEPA analysis that may allow 

adoption of a new set of stipulations and ROPs for existing leases in the planning area. If BLM in 

its ROD for this Supplemental IAP/EIS determines to adopt a set of stipulations and ROPs other 

than the stipulations adopted in the 1998 Northeast NPR-A IAP/EIS, existing leases may be

modified through negotiations with leaseholders to replace the existing lease stipulations with the 

new stipulations and ROPs. No changes to the stipulations attached to the existing leases would 

occur until after completion of renegotiations with leaseholders and any additional NEPA that is 

determined at that time to be necessary. 

2.10 HEALTHY NEIGHBOR POLICY 

The Supplemental IAP/EIS contains a new analysis that addresses potential public health effects 

of development in Northeast NPR-A. The BLM and the NSB encourage lessees and permittees 

engaged in oil and gas exploration, development, and abandonment procedures in the planning 

area to be cognizant of the potential public health impacts of their activities and to work with the 

local communities to develop and implement measures to avoid or minimize the potential for such 

impacts. BLM and NSB encourage lessees and permittees to work with the NSB, the Health 

Advisory Board (if such a Board is established as contemplated in a potential mitigation measure 

described in section 4.4.19.5), and communities that could be affected by their activities through 

preparation of, and regular updates to, a plan for industry and community interaction. The plan 

should be developed to meet the needs of North Slope communities potentially affected by BLMChapter II: Alternatives 2-22 
Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS 

authorized activities in the planning area, and would be developed in consultation with the

communities. See Appendix G for examples of elements that may be made part of the plan taken 

from development experiences elsewhere in the world. 

2-23 Chapter II: Alternatives 
T

a

ble 

2-2. Comparison of Stipulations from the 1998 Record of Decision for the Northeast National Pe

Alaska Int

egrated A

ctivity Plan a

nd the S

u

p

plemental Northeast National P

etroleum 

R

eserve - Alask

Activity Plan’s Alt

ernatives B, C, and D. 

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-24 1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Note: The stipulations and ROPs are listed in order of their appearance in Alternative D. 

Some Alternative A stipulations are liste

because their require

ments correspond to more than one stipulation or ROP liste

d for the other alternatives. 

The performance-base

d stipulations and required operating procedures would offer greater flexibility to adapt requirements/stan

dar

and to modify the requirements/standar

ds if they prove ineffective. Prescriptive based protective measures often attempt to define a 

“one size fits all” approach that does 

not allow adjustments when site and project-specific information. Accordingly, while 

we ha

ve i

performance-based stipulation or ROP to be less effective than the corresponding prescriptive stipulation in Alternative A, this lessecompensated for by the additional flexibility i

n t

he performance-based 

R

O

Ps. 

WASTE PREVENTIO

N, HANDLING, DISPOSAL, SPILLS, AND PUBLIC SAFETY 

6. Areas of operation shall be left clean of alldebris 

A-1 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Protect the health and safety of oil field workers and the general pub

disposal of solid waste and garbage near areas of h

uman activity. 

Requirement/Standard: Areas of operation shall be left clean of all debris. 

Alternative A - Stipulation 6 and Alternatives B, C, and D - ROP A-1 would effectively provide t

he same benefits in reducing imp

and water quality, wetlands, bir

ds, fresh

water, estuarine, and marine water resources a

nd water q

uality, terrestrial mammals, f

fish, endangered and threatened species, subsistence harvest patter

ns, wild and scenic rivers, recreation/wilderness, a

nd vis

ual r

areas of operation be left clean of all debris and avoid the disposal of solid waste an

d garbage near areas of h

u

man activity. All m

protect water resources a

nd water q

uality b

y reducing t

he potential for solid waste a

nd garbage to contaminate surface waters; 2

degradation from solid waste and garbage; 3) effectively protect bir

ds by reducing the potential for solid waste an

d garbage to fou

consumed b

y birds; 4) reduce t

he potential effects of human refuse on grizzly bears, polar bears, arctic foxes, and other terrestria

potential inland and marine pollution and effects on freshwater and marine fish in areas where oil exploration and development effective in protecting endangered and threatened species by reducing the potential for solid waste a

nd garbage to adversely imp

consumed by species of concern; 7) be effective in pro

viding increased protection for terrestrial mammals, thus reducing the poten

subsistence-harvest patterns; 8) be effective in helping to protect t

he area's recreation/wilderness resources as well as t

he users; 

degradation of visual resources caused by unregulated disposal of garbage. 

1. To prevent and minimize present and future pollution, management decisions affecting waste generation shall be addressed in the following order of priority: 

-Prevention and Reduction -Recycling -Treatment -Disposal 

A-2 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Minimize impacts on the environ

ment fro

m non-hazardous waste ge

continuous environmental improvement. Protect the 

health and safety of oil fie

general public. Avoid huma

n-caused changes in predator populations. 

Requirement/

Stan

dard: Lessees/permittees shall prepare and implement a com

management plan for all phases of exploration and development, inclu

ding seis

shall be submitted to the AO for approval, in consultation with federal, state, aresource agencies, as appropriate (based on agency legal aut

hority a

nd jurisdic

part of a plan of operations or other similar permit application. Management d
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

WASTE PREVENTIO

N, HANDLING, DISPOSAL, SPILLS, AND PUBLIC SAFETY

 2-25 Chapter II: Alternatives a. Lessees shall prepare a wastemanageme

nt generation shall be addressed in the following order of priority: 1) Prevention a

plan approved by the AO, in consultation with recycling, 3) treatment, and 4) disposal. The plan shall consider and take i

nto a

appropriate federal, state, and N

S

B regulatory requirements:

and resource agencies, to ac

hieve specific waste- a. 

Methods to avoid attracting wil

dlife to food and garbage. All feasible preca

reduction and prevention goals for all phases of avoid attracting wil

dlife to food and garbage. (A list of approved precautions, 

exploration and development (including permitte

d use, can be obtai

ned from t

he A

O.)

activities conducted by contractors). The pla

n b. Disposal of putrescible waste. Req

uirements prohibit t

he b

urial of garbage

shall i

dentify all waste streams that will be users shall have a written procedure to ensure that the han

dling and disposa

produce

d during each operation by type, will be accomplished in a ma

n

ner that prevents the attraction of wildlife. All 

volume, and toxicity and the method of disposal. be incinerated, backha

uled, or composted in a manner approved by the AO. A

For each waste stream, the lessee/operator shall incinerator ash, s

hall be disposed of in an approved waste-disposal facility in 

describe what actions will be taken to minimize and ADE

C regulations and procedures. The burial of human waste is prohibi

the volume. The plan should include activities by the AO. that will integrate pollution prevention concepts c. Disposal of pumpable waste products. Except as specifically provi

ded, t

he B

into purchasing, inventory, s

hipping/receiving, pu

mpable solid, liquid, and slu

dge waste be disposed of by injection in accord

operations maintenance, training, accounting, ADEC, and the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission regulations an

and desig

n. The goal of the plan shall be temporar

y muds and cuttings storage, as approved by ADEC, will be allowed 

continuous environmental improvement and facilitate annular injection a

nd/or backhaul operations. 

achievement of reduction goals developed d. Disposal of wastewater and domestic wastewater. The BLM prohibits wasthrough the planning process. Lessees s

hall disposal of domestic wastewater into bodies of fresh, estuarine, and marine w

develop sche

d

ules for implementation and wetlan

ds, unless authorized by the NPDES or state per

mit. 

review to meet reduction and prevention goals, designate accountable personnel to carry outaction ite

ms, and specify bu

dget line ite

ms for 

plan elements. Lessees shall provide the AO with a

n annual waste-ma

nagement report. 

c. Lessees s

hall conduct annual environ

mental 

complia

nce a

udits. 

2. Attracting wildlife to food and garbage isprohibited. All feasible precautions shall be taken to avoid attracting wildlife to food and garbage. A current list of approved precautions, specific to type of permitted use, can be obtaine

d from the 

AO. Lessees and per

mitted users shall have a 

written proce

dure to ensure that the 

han

dling and 

disposal of putrescible waste will be accomplishedin a manner to prevent the attraction of wildlife. 3. Burial of garbage is prohibited. All p

utrescible 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-26 WASTE PREVENTIO

N, HANDLING, DISPOSAL, SPILLS, AND PUBLIC SAFETY 

waste shall be incinerated or composted t

hrough 

an AO-approved system, u

nless ot

herwise 

authorized by the AO. All solid waste, includingincinerator ash, s

hall be removed from BLM lands 

and disposed of in an approved waste-disposal facility in accordance with USEPA and ADEC regulations and proce

dures. Burial of human 

waste is prohibite

d, except as authorized by the

AO. 4. Except as specifically provided, all pumpable solid, liquid, a

nd sludge waste shall be disposed 

of b

y injection, in accorda

nce wit

h USEPA, 

ADEC, and the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulations and procedures. On-pad temporary muds and cuttings storage will be allowed as necessary to facilitate annularinjection and/or backhaul operations 5. Wastewater disposal: 

a. Unless authorized by the National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination S

ystem (N

P

DES) or 

state per

mit, disposal of domestic wastewater

into bodies of freshwater, including wetlands, is prohibited.e. Alternate disposal 

methods will require an

NPD

ES per

mit certified by t

he State. 

Alternative A - Stipulation 1 and Alternatives B, C, and D - ROP A-2 provides essentially the same benefit in effectively reducing i

m

resources, and water quality. wetlands, vegetation, fresh

water and marine fishes, birds, terrestrial m

ammals (includi

arctic foxes) and endangered and threatened species, recreatio

n/wilderness and users, wild and scenic river values, v

public health from solid an

d hazardous waste prod

ucts by minimizing i

mpacts on the environ

ment from non-hazar

dous waste gen

continuous environmental improvements; by protecting the health and safety of oil field wor

kers an

d the general public; and avoidin

cha

nges in predator populations. Under all circumstances the lessee/per

mitee is required to prepare and implement a comprehensiv

plan for all phases of exploration a development, including seis

mic activities; management decisions affecting waste general wo

uld b

following order of priority: 1) Prevention and reduction, 2) recycling, 3) treatment, and 4) disposal. Mitigations for all alternatives refuel, petroleum pro

ducts, and liquid chemicals, reducing the likelihood of spills entering a lake or river; prohibits wastewater discha

domestic waste

water into bodies of fresh, estuarine, and 

marine water, inclu

ding wetlands, u

nless authorized by the N

PDES or stat

the potential of har

ming or killing forage fish, which would benefit the breeding success of fish-eating bir

ds such as loons, merganse

threatened and endangere

d eiders; limits the availability of food and garbage and the disc

harge of solid and hazardous waste produc

predators or harm habitat; limits reductions in water quality, loss of critical winter habitat and declines in outstandingly remarkablwil

dlife, and s

ubsistence use; prohibits the disposal of solid and hazardous waste prod

ucts that would i

mpact the visual c

haracterist
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-27 Chapter II: Alternatives WASTE PREVENTIO

N, HANDLING, DISPOSAL, SPILLS, AND PUBLIC SAFETY 

The protection to subsistence resources is beneficial to the subsistence h

u

nting and gathering. 

Alternative A - Stipulation 2 and 3 and Alter

natives B, C, and D - ROP A-2a and b provide essentially the same benefit in effectively 

water resources, and water quality. wetlands, vegetation, fresh

w

ater and 

m

arine fishes, bir

ds, terrestrial m

ammals (i

bears, arctic foxes) and endangered and threatened species, recreation/wilder

ness and users, wild and scenic river v

a

resources fro

m solid and hazar

dous waste products by minimizing impacts on the environment from non-hazardous waste generat

continuous environmental improvements; by regulating garbage disposal; by protecting t

he health and safety of oil fiel

d workers and 

requiring all putrescible waste be incinerated, bac

k

hauled, or composted in a man

ner approved by the AO; and avoi

ding h

u

man-cau

populations. Under all circumstances the lessee/permitee is required to prepare and i

mplement a comprehensive waste managemen

exploration a 

development, inclu

ding seismic activities; management decisions affecting waste general would be addressed in the fol

1) Prevention and reduction, 2) recycling, 3) treatment, and 4) disposal. 

Mitigations for all alter

natives require contain

ment of fuel, 

liqui

d che

micals, reducing the likelihood of spills entering a lake or river; prohibits wastewater discharges or disposal of domestic 

wa

fresh, estuarine, and marine water, inclu

ding wetlands, u

nless authorized by the NPD

ES or state permit. This reduces the potentia

forage fish, whic

h would benefit the breeding success of fish-eating birds such as loons, mergansers, and ter

ns, and threatened an

d e

the availability of food and garbage and the disc

harge of solid and hazardous waste prod

ucts that could attract predators or harm ha

in water quality, loss of critical winter habitat and declines in outstandingly remarkable values for fish, wildlife, and subsistence usof solid and hazar

dous waste products that would impact the visual c

haracteristics near oil and gas sites. The protection to subsisten

beneficial to the subsistence 

hunting a

nd gathering. 

Alternative A - Stipulation 4 and Alternatives B, C, and D - ROP A-2c pro

vide essentially the same benefit in effecti

vely re

d

ucing im

water resources, and water quality. wetlands, vegetation, fresh

w

ater and 

m

arine fishes, bir

ds, terrestrial m

ammals (i

bears, arctic foxes) and endangered and threatened species, recreation/wilder

ness and users, wild and scenic river v

a

resources, and public health. Alternative A - Stipulation 5a and e and Alternatives B, C, and D – ROP A-2d would essentially provide the same benefits in reducinvegetation, wetlands, birds, fresh

water, estuarine, a

nd marine water resources and water quality, marine and terrest

freshwater a

nd marine fish, endangered and threatened species, subsistence harvest patterns, wil

d and scenic rivers

prohibiting wastewater disc

harges or disposal of domestic wastewater into bodies of fresh, estuarine, and marine water, inclu

ding w

authorized by the NPD

ES or state per

mit. Mitigations wo

uld 1) reduce impacts to 

wetlan

ds, soil, 

vegetation, water resources and w

regulating wastewater discharges and preventing such products from reaching the tundra or spreading further if t

hey did actually r

lessen the impacts on birds by preventing wastewater disc

harges from i

mpacting avian habitat; 3) be effective in reducing t

he poten

discharged and potentially i

mpacting marine and terrestrial ma

m

mals; 4) lessen impacts to subsistence har

vest patterns by providi

for birds and terrestrial mam

mals; 5) be equally effective in protecting freshwater, estuarine, and marine water resources and 

water 

wastewater disc

harges to surface water bo

dies or marine waters; 6) be equally effective in reducing the likelihood of wastewater disc

environ

ments inhabited by freshwater and marine fish; 7) effectively minimize impacts to endangered and threatened species fro

m w

into their habitat. 1. To prevent and minimize present and future pollution, management decisions affecting waste generation shall be addressed in the following order of priority: 

-Prevention and Reduction -Recycling 

A-3 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Minimize pollutio

n through effective hazardous-materials continge

Requirement/Standard: For oil- a

nd gas-related activities, a Hazardous Mate

Contingency Plan shall be prepared and implemented before transportation, hazardous substances. The plan shall include a set of procedures to ens

ure pr

notification, and cleanup in the event of a hazardous substance spill or threa
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

WASTE PREVENTIO

N, HANDLING, DISPOSAL, SPILLS, AND PUBLIC SAFETY

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-28 -Treatment Procedures applicable to fuel and hazardous s

ubstances handling (associated 

-Disposal vehicles) may consist of Best Management Practices (BM

Ps) if approved by th

b. Lessees shall implement a hazardous- include a list of resources available for response (e.g., heavy-equipment operamaterials tracking system to ensure proper 

use, materials or companies), and names and phone numbers of federal, state, and 

storage, and management of materials being federal and state regulations may apply a

nd require additional plan

ning requ

use

d within industrial processes. The use of be instructed regarding these procedures. 

chlorinated solvents is prohibited. c. Lessees s

hall conduct annual environ

mental 

complia

nce a

udits. 

7. All spills shall be cleaned 

up i

m

mediatel

y and 

to the satisfaction of the 

A

O and all agencies with

regulatory authority over spills, inclu

ding the 

USEPA, ADE

C, and the U.

S. Coast Guard. 

8. Notice of an

y spill shall be given to the A

O as

soon as possible. Other federal, state, and NSB entities shall be notified as req

uired by law. 

9. For oil and gas-related activities, a 

HazardousMaterials E

mergency-Contingency Plan shall be 

prepare

d and i

mplemented prior to 

transportation, storage, or use of fuel. The plan shall include a set of proce

d

ures to ensure prompt

response, notification, and cleanup in the event ofa hazardous s

ubstance spill or threat of a release. 

Procedures applicable to fuel handling (associated with transportation 

vehicles) may consist of BM

Ps

approved by the AO. The plan shall inclu

de a list 

of resources available for response (e.g., heav

yequipment operators, spill-clean

up materials or

companies), and 

names and p

hone n

u

mbers of 

federal, state, and NSB contacts. Other federal and state regulations may apply and require additional plan

ning requirements. All staff shall 

be instructed regarding these procedures. 11. Lessees shall provide refresher spill-response training to 

N

SB and local community spillresponse teams on a 

yearly basis. 

12. Lessees shall plan and con

d

uct a major spillresponse field-deployment drill annually. 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-29 Chapter II: Alternatives WASTE PREVENTIO

N, HANDLING, DISPOSAL, SPILLS, AND PUBLIC SAFETY 

13. Prior to production and as required by law, lessees shall develop spill prevention and response contingency plans and participate indevelop

ment and maintenance of the North Slope 

Subarea Contingency Plan for Oil and Hazardous Substances Disc

harges/

Releases for the National 

Petroleum Reserve - Alaska operating area. Planning s

hall include development a

nd fun

ding 

of detailed (e.g., 1:26,000 scale) environmental sensitivity in

dex maps for the lessee’s operating 

area and areas outside the lessee’s operating areathat could be affected by their activities. (Thespecific area to be mapped shall be 

defined in the 

lease agreement and approved by the AO i

n

consultation with appropriate resource agencies). Maps s

hall be completed in paper copy a

nd 

geographic information system for

mat in

conformance 

with the latest 

version of the U.S. 

Department of Com

merce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s Environ

mental 

Sensitivity In

dex Guidelines. Draft and final

products shall be peer reviewed and approved by the AO in consultation with appropriate fe

deral, 

state, a

nd NSB resource a

nd regulatory agencies. 

Alternative A - Stipulations 1, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 an

d Alternative B, C, and D - ROP 

A-3 would effectively pro

vide protection fr

paleont

ological and cultural resources, water resources and water quality, vegetation, freshwater and m

arine fis

h, 

mammals, endangered and threatened species, subsistence-har

vest patterns, wild and scenic river value, and publi

hazardous materials through the develop

ment of a Hazardous Materials Emergency Contingency Plan (HMECP). The HMECP w

protecting the above listed habitats and/or species by addressing and implementing plans for fuel and c

hemical storage, fuel han

and cleanup. The HMECP will 1) reduce the acreage of impacts to vegetation by reducing the probability of oil spills reaching th

further if they reach the tundra by providi

ng for better clean-up of spills; 2) will be effective in pro

viding increased protection to f

fish and associated habitat d

uring fuel 

use, han

dling and storage; 3) would effectively reduce contamination risk to bir

ds, terrest

endangered a

nd threatened species from accidental spills of fuel or other hazardous substances by preventing their entry into wa

wetlands; 4) would be beneficial in effectively providing protection from potential i

mpacts to subsistence harvest patter

ns by assu

to spills which would minimize impacts to bir

ds, terrestrial and marine mam

mals, and fish and fish habitat. 

8. Notice of an

y spill shall be given to the A

O as

soon as possible. Other federal, state, and NSB entities shall be notified as req

uired by law. 

10. Oil-spill-clean

up 

materials (absorbents, 

A-4 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Minimize the impact of contaminants on fish, wildlife, an

d t

he envir

wetlands, marshes and marine waters, as a result of fuel, crude oil, and other lProtect subsistence resources and subsistence activities. Protect public health a
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

WASTE PREVENTIO

N, HANDLING, DISPOSAL, SPILLS, AND PUBLIC SAFETY

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-30 

contain

ment devices, etc.) shall be stored at all Requirement/

Stan

dard: Before initiating any oil and gas or related activity or o

fueling points and vehiclemaintenance areas and research/surveys and/or seismic operations, lessees/permittees shall develop a cbe carried by field crews on all overlan

d moves, 

prevention and response contingency plan per 40 CFR § 112 (Oil Pollution Act)

seis

mic wor

k trains, and si

milar overlan

d moves and take i

nto account the following requirements: by heavy equipment. a. On-site Clean-up Materials. Sufficient oil-spill-clean

up materials (absorben

11. Lessees shall provide refresher spill-response etc

...) shall be stored at all fueling points and 

vehiclemaintenance areas and 

training to 

N

SB and local community spill- crews on all overlan

d moves, seis

mic wor

k trains, and si

milar overlan

d move

response teams on a 

yearly basis. b. Storage Containers. Fuel a

nd other petroleum products and other liquid ch

12. Lessees shall plan and con

d

uct a major spill- in proper containers at approved locations. Except during overland moves an

response field-deployment drill annually. fuel, other petroleum products, and other liquid che

micals desig

nated by the 

gallons in storage capacity s

hall be stored within an impermeable lined and d

13. Prior to production and as required by law, 

approved alter

nate storage containers, such as over packs, capable of contain

lessees shall develop spill prevention and stored volume. response contingency plans and participate in

c. Liner Materials. Liner material shall be compatible 

with the stored prod

uc

develop

ment and maintenance of the North Slope 

remaining i

mpermeable during typical weather extremes expected throughou

Subarea Contingency Plan for Oil and Hazardous d. Per

manent Fueling Stations. Per

manent fueling stations shall be lined or h

Substances Disc

harges/

Releases for the National 

Petr protection to prevent fuel migration to the environ

ment from overfills and sp

oleum Reserve - Alaska operating area. 

Pla e. Proper I

dentification of Containers. All fuel containers, including barrels a

nning s

hall include development a

nd fun

ding be marked with the responsible party's name, product type, and year filled or 

of detailed (e.g., 1:26,000 scale) environmental f. Notice of 

Reportable 

Spills. Notice of an

y reportable spill (as required by 40 

sensitivity in

dex maps for the lessee’s operating 

AA

C § 75.300) shall be given to the A

O as soon as possible, but no later than 

area and areas outside the lessee’s operating area

occurrence. that could be affected by their activities. (Theg. Identification of Oil Pans (“duck ponds”). All oil pans shall be mar

ked with 

specific area to be mapped shall be 

defined in the 

name. lease agreement and approved by the AO i

n

consultation with appropriate resource agencies). Maps s

hall be completed in paper copy a

nd 

geographic information system for

mat in

conformance 

with the latest 

version of the U.S. 

Department of Com

merce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s Environ

mental 

Sensitivity In

dex Guidelines. Draft and final

products shall be peer reviewed and approved by the AO in consultation with appropriate fe

deral, 

state, a

nd NSB resource a

nd regulatory agencies. 

14. Except during overlan

d moves and seismic 

operations (see Stipulation 24m), fuel, other 

petroleum prod

ucts, and other liquid c

hemicals 

desig

nated by the AO, whether in excess of 660 

gallons in a single tan

k or in excess of 1,320 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-31 Chapter II: Alternatives WASTE PREVENTIO

N, HANDLING, DISPOSAL, SPILLS, AND PUBLIC SAFETY 

gallons in multiple containers, shall be store

d

within an i

mpermeable lined and diked area

capable of containing 110 percent of the stored volume. The liner 

material s

hall be compatible 

with the stored pro

duct and capable of remaining 

imper

meable 

d

uring typical weather extre

mes 

expected throughout the storage period. Per

manent fueling stations s

hall be lined or have

imper

meable protection to prevent fuel migration 

to the environ

ment due to overfills and spills. The 

storage area s

hall be located at least 500 feet from 

any water bo

d

y with the exception of s

mall caches

(up to 210 gallons) for motor boats, float planes, and ski planes. 17. All fuel containers, including barrels and propane tanks, shall be marked with the responsible party's name, prod

uct type, and 

year

fille

d or purchased. 

24. m. Operators shall use best available technology (e.g., self- contained containment systems) or ot

her appropriate spill contain

ment 

measures, approved by the AO, to prevent fuel migration fro

m fuel or chemical storage areas to 

the environ

ment due to overfills and spills. 

25. From May 1 through September 30, exploratory drilling other than from production pads is prohibited in the Special Caribou Stipulations Area. 

Alternative A - Stipulation 8 and Alternatives B, C, and D - ROP A-4f pro

vide essentially the same benefit in effectively reducing i

mp

water resources and water quality, wetlands, bir

ds, m

arine and fresh

water fish and fish habitat, terrestrial mammals

threatened s

pecies, subsistence harvest patterns, wild and scenic rivers, recreation/wil

derness, visual resources, a

nd 

provi

ding notice to BLM of spills. 

Alternative A - Stipulation 10 and Alternatives B, C, and D – ROP A-4a would effectively provide the same benefits in reducing impawater resources and water quality, wetlands, bir

ds, m

arine and fresh

water fish and fish habitat, terrestrial mammals

threatened s

pecies, subsistence harvest patterns, wild and scenic rivers, recreation/wil

derness, visual resources, a

nd 

requiring that oil-spill-clean

up 

materials (absorbents, contain

ment devices, etc.) shall be stored at all fueling points a

nd 

vehiclemai

carried by field crews on all overla

nd 

moves, seismic work trai

ns, and similar overlan

d moves by heavy equip

ment. These mitigatio

in preventing fuel or crude oil spills from impacting soil resources; 2) be effective in protecting 

water resources a

nd 

water q

uality by 

materials be stored on-site; 3) red

uce the impacts to vegetation b

y red

ucing t

he probability of oil spills reaching t

he tundra or sprea

d
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

WASTE PREVENTIO

N, HANDLING, DISPOSAL, SPILLS, AND PUBLIC SAFETY

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-32 the tu

n

dra and by providing better clean-up of spills; 4) protect wetlan

ds from degradation by fuel and oil spills and by requiring spi

materials be o

n-site; 5) reduce contamination risk to birds from accidental spills of fuel or liquid c

hemicals during oil and gas activit

entr

y into water bodies and wetlan

ds through imple

mentation of a comprehensive spill prevention and response contingency pla

n w

specifications on clean

up, materials, storage containers, and liner materials; 6) provide i

ncreased protection to marine and fresh

wat

during fuel use, han

dling and storage; 7) red

uce the contamination risk to grizzly bears, polar bears, arctic foxes, an

d other terrestri

crude oil spills; 8) minimize impacts to en

dangered and threatened species by reducing the risk of fuel or liquid che

mical spills ente

and wetlan

ds; 9) minimize i

mpacts on subsistence-harvest patter

ns by reducing the potential for impacts on birds, terrestrial 

mamm

habitat, and marine mammals during fuel use, 

han

dling, a

nd storage; 10) limit the impacts that oil and gas exploration and develop

wil

d and scenic river values; and 11) limit the degradation of visual resources caused by spills. 

Alternative A – Stipulation 11, 12, 13 and 25 and Alternatives B, C, and D – ROP A-4 (an

d Federal Regulations at 40 C

FR 112) wo

ul

effective in helping to prevent large fuel or crude oil spills, and consequently reduce t

he potential for impacts to t

he various resource

because mitigations under all alternatives call for some level of spill response training. Under Alternatives B, C, and 

D, the require

m

must be met - spill response training requirements fall under the enforcement authority of the Environmental Protection Agency 40 

112.21(a) calls for the owner and operator of an

y facility to prepare a facility response plan, and develop and i

mplement a facility res

and a drill/exercise program that satisfy the requirements of this sectio

n. Under all alter

natives, spill response trai

ning requireme

n

train participants in the specific area of oil spill response a

nd clean-up tech

niques, skills and knowle

dge associated with the ability t

duties. Mitigations under all alternatives: would be equally effective in helping to prevent large fuel or crude oil spills, and conseq

u

potential for impacts to soil resources fro

m spill cleanup; effectively help to prevent large fuel or crude oil spills, and conseq

uently 

impacts to paleontologic

al and c

ultural resources fro

m spill cleanup; be effective in protecting water resources and water q

and che

mical storage, fuel handling, and developing and implanting spill prevention and cleanup plans; effectively reduce the impac

decreasing t

he probability of oil spills reaching the tundra or spreadi

ng further if they reach t

he tundra a

nd by providi

ng better clea

protect wetla

nds and freshwater and 

m

arine fish a

nd fish habitat by regulating fuel and c

hemical storage, fuel 

handling and 

implanting spill prevention and clean

up plans; be beneficial to birds by reducing contamination ris

k from accide

ntal spills of fuel or 

entering into water bodies and wetlands through implementation of a comprehensive spill prevention and response contingency planinclu

de specifications on clean

up, materials, storage containers, and liner materials; help protect grizzly bears, arctic foxes, a

nd ot

he

by reducing the potential effects of spills on this animals and their habitat; minimize i

mpacts to endangere

d and t

hreatened spe

of fuel or liquid c

hemicals into water bodies and wetlan

ds, th

us reducing contamination risk to eiders and whales from accidental sp

be effective in reducing impacts on subsistence-harvest patterns by reducing t

he potential for impacts on birds, terrestrial mamm

habitat, and 

marine mammals during fuel use, handling, a

nd storage; increase the protection of wilderness and recreation resou

help reduce, if not eliminate, fuel spills in pristine areas; 

would effectively limit the impacts that oil and gas exploration and develop

and scenic river values and limit the degradation of public healt

h and visual resources caused by spills. 

Alternative A - Stipulation 14 and Alternatives B, C, and D - ROP A-4 b, c, and d would be equally effective in protecting soil resou

and c

ultural resources, water resources and water quality, wetlands, vegetation, fresh

water and 

m

arine fish and fish 

terrestrial mammals, end

angered and threatened s

pecies, subsiste

nce-harvest patterns, wilderness a

nd recreatio

n re

scenic river, and public health values by requiring lessees/per

mittees to develop a comprehensive spill preventio

n and response 

CFR § 112 (Oil Pollution Act) before initiating any oil and gas or related activity or operation, including field research/surveys and/oThe plan shall take into accou

nt specifications for storage containers, liner materials and per

manent fueling stations. These protect

effectively protect soil resources, paleontological and cultural resources, a

nd water resources and water quality by regulating fuel an

han

dling, spill prevention, and clean

up plans; 2) reduce the i

mpacts to wetlan

ds by red

ucing the probability of oil spills reac

hing we

impacts to wetlan

ds by reducing the probability of oil spills reaching wetlands; 4) reduce the impacts to vegetation by reduci

ng the p
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-33 Chapter II: Alternatives WASTE PREVENTIO

N, HANDLING, DISPOSAL, SPILLS, AND PUBLIC SAFETY 

reaching the tundra or spreading further if they reach the tundra and by providing better clean-up of spills; 5) provide increased proand 

marine fish and fish habitat during fuel use, handling, a

nd storage; 6) reduce contamination risk to birds from accidental spills 

entering into water bodies and wetlands through implementation of a comprehensive spill prevention and response contingency plan specifications on clean

up, materials, storage containers, and liner materials; 7) reduce the potential effects of spills on grizzly bears, 

terrestrial mam

mals; 8) reduce impacts to endangered a

nd threatened species by preve

nting entry of fuel or liquid chemicals into wa

wetlan

ds, th

us reducing contamination risk to eiders from accidental spills of these substances; 9) reduce i

mpacts on subsistence-ha

reducing the potential for impacts on bir

ds, terrestrial mammals, fish and fish 

habitat, and marine mam

mals during fuel 

use, 

han

dl

increase the protection of wilderness and recreation resources. This R

OP woul

d help red

uce, if not eliminate, fuel spills in pristine a

impacts that oil and gas exploration and development will have on wild and scenic river values. Alternative A - Stipulation 17 and Alternatives B, C, and D - ROP A-4e would all effectively reduce i

mpacts to water resources an

and marine fish habitat a

nd fish, bir

ds, terrestrial a

nd marine mammals, end

angered and threatened s

pecies, subsist

and public health by requiring lessees/permittees to develop a comprehensive spill prevention and response contingency plan per Pollution Act); the plan shall consider and take into accou

nt the require

ment of properly identifying containers which included all fu

barrels and propane tan

ks; a

nd all containers shall be marked 

with the responsible party's name, prod

uct type, and year filled or pu

ensure that should a spill occur, proper treatment proce

d

ures are implemented based on the type of material spilled. These requirem

effective in determining the t

ype of material and its likely impacts to fresh

water and marine fish 

habitat and fish should a spill occ

u

effective in red

ucing the pote

ntial i

mpacts to birds by ensuring that if a spill occurs, the spill material is correctly identifie

d and prop

implemented; would be equally effective in reducing impacts to terrestrial and 

marine ma

m

mals by ensuring that s

hould a spill occu

and treatment procedures are implemented based on the type of 

material spilled; would be equally effective in reducing impacts to e

threatened species by ensuring that should a spill occur, proper spill response and treatment procedures are implemented based on spilled; and wo

uld be equally effective in red

ucing i

mpacts on subsistence use patter

ns b

y ensuring that the risks of consu

ming subs

come into contact with a spilled material are identified base

d on the type of material spilled. 

Alternative A – Stipulation 24(m) and Alternatives B, C, and D – ROP A-4 provide equal benefits in the avoidance and minimization soils, vegetation, and the terrestrial mammals and birds depen

dent on the vegetation, fish and freshwater fish habitat by restr

which refueling of heavy equipment can take place, an

d public healt

h. This measure should significantly reduce fuel spills by man

contain

ment. 

14. Except during overlan

d moves and seismic 

operations (see Stipulation 24m), fuel, other 

petroleum prod

ucts, and other liquid c

hemicals 

desig

nated by the AO, whether in excess of 660 

gallons in a single tan

k or in excess of 1,320 

gallons in multiple containers, shall be store

d

within an i

mpermeable lined and diked area

capable of containing 110 percent of the stored volume. The liner 

material s

hall be compatible 

with the stored pro

duct and capable of remaining 

imper

meable 

d

uring typical weather extre

mes 

expected throughout the storage period. Per

manent fueling stations s

hall be lined or have 

A-5 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Minimize the impact of contaminants from refueling operations on fi

environ

ment. 

Requirement/Standard: Refueling of equipment within 500 feet of the active 

bearing water body and 100 feet of non-fish-bearing water bodies is prohibite210 gallons) for motorboats, float planes, ski planes, and small equipment, e.and water pumps, will be permitted. The AO may allow storage and operatiothe stated distances if properly designed to account for local hydrologic condi
1998 Northeast IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alternative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required Operating Procedures for 

Alternative B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required Operatin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-34 WASTE PREVENTION, HANDLING, DISPOSAL, SPILLS, AND PUBLIC SAFETY impermeable protection to prevent fuel migration to the environment due to overfills and spills. The storage area shall be located at least 500 feet from any water body with the exception of small caches (up to 210 gallons) for motor boats, float planes, and ski planes. 15. Fuels shall not be stored on the active floodplain of any water body. Although fuels may be off-loaded from aircraft on ice, fuels shall not be stored on lake or river ice. 16. Refueling of equipment within 500 feet of the highest high water mark of any water body is prohibited with the exception of refueling motor boats, float planes, and ski planes. (See Stipulation 24n for restrictions related to overland moves and seismic operations.) 24.n. Refueling of equipment is prohibited within the active floodplain of any water body 

25. From May 1 through September 30, exploratory drilling other than from production pads is prohibited in the Special Caribou Stipulations Area. 70. Construction camps are prohibited on frozen lakes and river ice. Siting of construction campson river sand and gravel bars is allowed and,where feasible, encouraged. Where leveling of trailers or modules is required and the surface has a vegetative mat, leveling shall beaccomplished through blocking rather than use of a bulldozer. Alternative A - Stipulations 14, 16, 25, and 70 would be somewhat more effective than Alternatives B, C, and D - ROP A-5 in protectand water quality, wetlands, freshwater and marine fish and fish habitat, wild and scenic river values, and public hea

activities would be prohibited within 500 feet of both fish- and non-fish-bearing waters under Stipulation 14; ROP A-5 would allow rwithin 100 feet of non-fish-bearing waters. It would provide essentially the same level of protection to 1) vegetation by reducing the reaching the tundra or spreading further if they reach the tundra and by providing better clean-up of spills; 2) birds by prohibiting tequipment within 500 feet of the active floodplain of fish-bearing and 100 feet of the active floodplain of non-fish-bearing water bodiepotential for spilled fuel to enter water bodies where water birds or their prey are found; 3) grizzly bears, arctic foxes, and other terrreducing the potential effects of fuel spills; 4) endangered and threatened species by preventing spilled fuel from reaching water bod

become contaminated; and 5) subsistence-harvest patterns by providing greater protection for terrestrial mammals, fish and fish ha
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-35 Chapter II: Alternatives WASTE PREVENTIO

N, HANDLING, DISPOSAL, SPILLS, AND PUBLIC SAFETY 

fuel use, han

dling, near rivers and fish bearing lakes. 

Alternative A - Stipulation 15 and Alternatives B, C, and D - ROP A-5 would be equally effective in protecting water resources and prohibiting fuel storage and refueling operations in the active floodplain; would not reduce the acreage of vegetation impacted by a

equally effective in shifting the impacts from more valuable wetland or riparian vegetation types to habitats perceived as lesser in veffective in re

d

ucing the loss of wetland habitat b

y restricting developme

nt of perma

nent oil an

d gas facilities wit

hin 500 feet of fis

or 100 feet of non fish-bearing water bodies; would be equally beneficial to freshwater fish habitat a

nd fish by reducing t

he likeli

in habitat used by fish; would be equally effective in reducing the potential i

mpacts to birds by prohibiting the refueling of equipme

active floodplain of fish-bearing and 100 feet of the active floodplain of non-fish-bearing water bodies, th

us reducing t

he potential for 

water bodies w

here water birds or t

heir prey are found; would be equally effective in reducing impacts to endangered and t

hreate

reducing the potential for a fuel spill to i

mpact wetland habitat ;would be equally effective in reducing impacts on subsistence use 

health by providing increased protection to fish and fish habitat by re

d

ucing the likelihood of fuel or oil contaminating water bodies

effective in li

miting the impacts that oil an

d gas exploration and development will have on wild and scenic river values. 

Alternative A – Stipulation 24(n) and Alternatives B, C, and D – ROP A-5 provide equal benefits in the avoidance and minimization soils, vegetation, and the terrestrial mammals and birds depen

dent on the vegetation, fish and freshwater fish habitat by restr

which refueling of heavy equipment can take place. This measure should prevent spills fro

m entering the aquatic environment by p

within floodplains. While Alternative A - Stipulation 

24(n) prohibits refueling within active floodplain, Alternatives B, C, and D, RO

prohibition to the area within 500 ft of the floodplain and 100 ft of non-fish-bearing water bodies 

4. b. Surface disc

harge of reserve-pit fluids is

prohibited unless authorized by applicable NPD

ES, AD

E

C, and N

SB permits and approved 

by the AO. 

A-6 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Minimize the impact on fish, wildlife, and the environment from con

with the exploratory drilling process.Requirement/

Stan

dard: S

urface discharge of reserve-pit fluids is prohibited un

applicable NPDES, ADEC, a

nd 

N

SB per

mits (as appropriate) and approved by 

Alternative A - Stipulation 4b and Alternatives B, C, and D – A-6 would essentially provide the same benefits in reducing impact

wetlands, bir

ds, freshwater, estuarine, and m

arine water resources and water quality, m

arine a

nd terrestrial m

a

m

marine fish, endangered and threate

ned species, subsistence harvest patter

ns, wild and scenic rivers, and public h

surface discharge of reserve-pit fluids unless authorized by applicable NPDES, ADEC, and NSB per

mits (as appropriate) and app

Mitigations would 1) reduce impacts to wetlands, soil, vegetation, water resources a

nd water q

uality b

y reg

ulating discharges an

fluids from reaching t

he t

u

n

dra or sprea

ding further if t

hey did actually reach t

he t

undra; 2) lessen t

he impacts on birds b

y preve

discharges fro

m impacting a

vian habitat; 3) be effective i

n reducing t

he potential for reserve pit fluid to be discharged a

nd potent

and terrestrial mam

mals; 4) lessen impacts to s

ubsistence harvest patterns b

y pro

viding increased protection for birds a

nd terres

equally effective in protecting fres

h

water, estuarine, a

nd marine water resources a

nd water q

uality b

y reg

ulating reserve pit flui

water bodies or marine waters; 6) be equally effective i

n reducing the likelihood of reserve pit fluid discharges contaminating env

freshwater and marine fish; 7) effectively minimize impacts to endangered and threatened species from reserve pit fluid discharg5. 

c. Disposal of produced 

waters in upland areas, 

including wetlands, will be by s

ubsurfacedisposal tech

niques. The AO, in consultation

with the AD

E

C and U

SEPA, may per

mit 

A-7 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Minimize the impacts to the environment of disposal of produce

d flu

develop

ment phase on fish, wildlife, and the environ

ment. 

Requirement/

Stan

dard: Proce

dures for the 

disposal of produced fluids shall me

requirements: 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-36 WASTE PREVENTIO

N, HANDLING, DISPOSAL, SPILLS, AND PUBLIC SAFETY 

alter

nate disposal methods, if the lessee 

demonstrates t

hat subsurface disposal is not

feasible or pru

dent. 

d. Discharge of produce

d waters into open or icecovered marine waters less tha

n 33 feet (10 

meters) in depth is prohibited. The AO, in consultation with ADEC and USEPA, mayapprove discharges into waters greater than 33 feet (10 meters) in depth based on a case-by-casereview of environmental factors and consistency with the con

ditions of a NPD

E

S per

mit. 

a. In upland areas, inclu

ding wetlan

ds, disposal will be by subsurface-disposa

may per

mit alternate disposal methods if the lessee demonstrates that subsu

feasible or pru

dent and the alternative method will not result in a

dverse envi

b. In marine waters, approval of discharges by the AO will be based on a ca

environmental factors and consistenc

y with the conditions of an NPDES pe

produced fluids will be prohibited at locations where currents and water dewith other conditions, are not adequate to prevent impacts to known biologAlternate disposal methods will require an NPDES permit certified by the 

Alternative A - Stipulation 5 c and d and Alternatives B, C, and D – ROP A-7 would essentially provide the same benefits in redu

vegetation, wetlands, bir

ds, freshwater, estuarine, and m

arine water resources and water quality, marine a

nd terr

freshwater and marine fish, endangered and threatened species, subsistence harvest patterns, wild and scenic riveby minimizing the impacts to the environment of disposal of produced fluids recovered during the development phase on fish, wilen

viron

ment b

y requiring that disposal in 

upla

n

d areas, inclu

ding wetlands, be by subsurface-disposal techniques; prohibiting th

fluids at locations where c

urrents and water depths, in combination with other conditions, are not adequate to prevent impacts to 

sensitive areas. Alternate disposal methods would require an NPDES permit certified by the state. Mitigations would 1) reduce 

soil, vegetatio

n, water resources and water quality by regulating produced fluid discharges and preventi

ng such fluids from reach

sprea

ding further if t

hey did actually reach t

he tundra; 2) lessen the impacts on birds by preventing produced fluids from impact

effective in reducing the potential for, produced fluids to be discharged and potentially impacting marine and terrestrial mammasubsistence harvest patter

ns by providing increased protection for bir

ds and terrestrial mammals; 5) be equally effective in prote

estuarine, a

nd marine water resources a

nd water q

uality b

y reg

ulating produced fluid discharges to surface water bodies or mari

effective in reducing the likelihood of produced fluid discharges conta

minating environments inhabited b

y freshwater a

nd marine 

minimize impacts to endangered and threatened species from produced fluid discharges into their habitats. 

76. Oil and gas lessees and their contractors and subcontractors will prepare and i

mplement bearinteraction plans to minimize conflicts between 

bears and h

u

mans. These plans shall inclu

de 

measures to: (a) minimize attraction of bears tothe drill sites; (b) organize layout of buildings and work areas to minimize human/bear interactions; (c) warn person

nel of bears near or on drill sites 

and identify proper procedures to be followe

d; (d) 

if authorized, deter bears from the drill site; (e) provi

de contingencies in the event bears do not 

leave the site or can

not be deterred by authorize

d

personnel; (f) discuss proper storage and disposal of 

materials that may be toxic to bears; and (g) 

A-8 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Minimize conflicts resulting from interaction between h

u

mans and b

activities. Require

ment: Oil and gas lessees and their contractors and subcontractors will

preparation of lease operation plan

ning, prepare and implement bear-interacti

conflicts between bears and 

h

umans. These plans shall inclu

de measures to: 

a. Minimize attraction of bears to the work sites. b. Organize layout of buildings and work areas to minimize huma

n/bear inter

c. Warn personnel of bears near or on work sites and identify proper proce

dur

d. Establish procedures, if authorize

d, to discourage bears from approaching 

e. Provide contingencies in the event bears do not leave the site or can

not be 

authorized personnel. f. Disc

uss proper storage and disposal of materials that may be toxic to bears

g. Provide a systematic record of bears on the site a

nd in the immediate area
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-37 Chapter II: Alternatives WASTE PREVENTIO

N, HANDLING, DISPOSAL, SPILLS, AND PUBLIC SAFETY 

provide a systematic record of bears on the siteand in the immediate area. The lessee's shall develop educational programs and camp layout and management plans as they prepare theirlease operatio

ns plans. These plans shall be

developed in consultation with appropriate federal, state, and NSB regulatory a

nd resource 

agencies and s

ubmitted to the AO. 

h. Encourage lessee/perand comply with the Inunder the Marine Mam

Alternative A Stipulation 76 and Alternatives B, C, and D - ROP A-8 woul

d provide equal benefit in mi

nimization of pote

ntial impac

ma

m

m

als (grizzly bears) and marine ma

m

m

als (polar bears) and to recreation and wilderness users of the area by requiring b

that should avoid acclimatization of bears to h

u

man contact. The stipulation and ROP 

would benefit bears by reducing both the n

um

“defense of life and property” and the n

u

mber of bears becoming habituated to anthropogenic food sources 

WATER USE FOR PERMITTED ACTIVITIES 

20. Water wit

hdra

wal from rivers and streams 

during winter is prohibited. Water 

withdrawal is 

prohibited during winter flooding by a fishbearing stream. Water may be 

withdrawn from 

isolated lakes t

hat are less than 7 feet (2.1 m) 

deep that lack connection to or are not subject toseasonal flooding by a fish-bearing stream. Afterconsultation with the appropriate federal, state, and NSB regulatory a

nd resource agencies, the 

AO may authorize withdrawals from an

y lake less

than 7 feet (2.1 m) deep, if the proponent demonstrates that 

no fish exist in the lake. 

Generally, water withdrawal drawdown during winter from lakes 7 feet (2.1 

m) deep or deeper

shall be limited to 15 percent of t

he estimated 

free-water volume (i.e., exclu

ding the ice). After 

consultation with the appropriate federal, state, and NSB regulatory a

nd resource agencies, the 

AO may authorize drawdown exceeding 15 percent from a lake greater tha

n 7 feet (2.1 

m)

deep, if the proponent of the additional drawdown demonstrates that 

no fish exist in the lake. 

Operators are encourage

d to use new ice-road and 

ice-pad construction metho

ds, suc

h as using

aggregate ‘chips’ shave

d from frozen lakes, to 

decrease water demands, construction time, a

nd 

B-1 Require

d Operating Procedure 

Objective: Maintain populations of, and adequate habitat for, fish and in

verteb

Requirement/

Stan

dard: Water withdrawal from rivers and streams during win
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-38 WATER USE FOR PERMITTED ACTIVITIES impact on fisheries. Alternative A - Stipulation 20 and Alternatives B, C, and D - ROP B-1 would be equally beneficial in protecting water resources an

freshwater fish, bir

d s

pecies, subsistence-harvest patterns, wild a

nd scenic rivers, water resources a

nd water quality

by prohibiting water removal from streams and rivers during winter. These protective measures would be effective in protecting ovepreventing harm to fresh

water fish from fish intake structures; would be equally effective in reducing impacts to some bird specie

die-off of fish prey of fish-eating bir

ds (e.g., loons, mergansers, ter

ns), which could adversely affect the breeding success of these wat

equally effective in reducing impacts on subsistence-harvest patterns by providing increased protection to fish and fish habitat aremoval fro

m rivers and streams; would be equally effective in preserving instream flows in eligible wild and scenic rivers; and 

w

in protecting water resources and water quality, and local hydrology by prohibiting or limiting water removal fro

m lakes and 

20. Water wit

hdra

wal from rivers and streams 

during winter is prohibited. Water 

withdrawal is 

prohibited during winter flooding by a fishbearing stream. Water may be 

withdrawn from 

isolated lakes t

hat are less than 7 feet (2.1 m) 

deep that lack connection to or are not subject toseasonal flooding by a fish-bearing stream. Afterconsultation with the appropriate federal, state, and NSB regulatory a

nd resource agencies, the 

AO may authorize withdrawals from an

y lake less

than 7 feet (2.1 m) deep, if the proponent demonstrates that 

no fish exist in the lake. 

Generally, water withdrawal drawdown during winter from lakes 7 feet (2.1 

m) deep or deeper

shall be limited to 15 percent of t

he estimated 

free-water volume (i.e., exclu

ding the ice). After 

consultation with the appropriate federal, state, and NSB regulatory a

nd resource agencies, the 

AO may authorize drawdown exceeding 15 percent from a lake greater tha

n 7 feet (2.1 

m)

deep, if the proponent of the additional drawdown demonstrates that 

no fish exist in the lake. 

Operators are encourage

d to use new ice-road and 

ice-pad construction metho

ds, suc

h as using

aggregate ‘chips’ shave

d from frozen lakes, to 

decrease water demands, construction time, a

nd 

impact on fisheries. 19. Compactio

n of snow cover or snow removal 

from fish-bearing water bodies shall be prohibited 

B-2 Require

d Operating Procedure 

Objective: Maintain natural hydrologic regimes in soils surrou

n

ding lakes and 

populations of, and adequate 

habitat for, fish and in

vertebrates, and waterfowl

Requirement/

Stan

dard: Water withdrawal from lakes may be authorized on a 

depending on lake size, water volume, and depth, and fish population and specwithdrawal requirements specify:

a. Lakes that are ≥7 feet with sensitive fish (any fish except ninespine stick

blackfish), water available for withdrawal is limited to 15% of calc

ulated vo

feet; lakes that are between 5 and 7 feet with sensitive fis

h, water available 

be calc

ulated on a case by case basis. 

b. Lakes that are ≥5 feet with only non-sensitive fish (i.e., ninespine stickle

blackfish), water is available for withdrawal is limited to 30% of calc

ulated 

feet. c. An

y lake with no fish present, regardless of depth, water available for wi

as specified within the permit. d. A water-mo

nitoring plan may be required to assess draw down and water 

during, and after pumping any fish-bearing lake or lake of special concern.e. The removal of naturally grounded ice may be authorized from lakes and sspecific basis depen

ding upon its size, 

water volu

me, and 

depth, and fish pop

diversification. 

f. Removed ice aggregate shall be inclu

ded in the 15 percent or 30 percent wi

limits⎯whichever is the appropriate case⎯unless otherwise approve

d. 

g. Any water i

ntake structures in fis

h bearing or non-fish bearing waters sh

operated, and maintained to prevent fish entrapment, entrainment, or i

nju

withdrawal equipment must be equipped a

nd must utilize fish screening de

Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR).

h. Compaction of snow cover or snow removal from fish-bearing water bodieexcept at approved ice road crossings, water pumping stations on lakes, or 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-39 Chapter II: Alternatives WATER USE FOR PERMITTED ACTIVITIES except at approved ice-road crossings Alternative A – Stipulation 20 and Alternatives B, C, and D - ROP B-2 would be equally effective in reducing impacts on subsiste

by providing increased protection to fish and fish habit

at and by limiting water removal from fish-bearing lakes and preventin

intake structures; would be essentially as effective in protecting sensitive (any fis

h except nine-spine stickleback or Alaska black

their habitats; a

nd would be more effective in reducing impacts to some bird species by preventing winter die-off of fish prey of fi

loons, merga

nsers, terns), w

hich could a

d

versely affect t

he breeding s

uccess of t

hese water bird species. 

Alter

native A - Stipulation 19 and Alter

natives B, C, and D - ROP B-2h would be equally effective in protecting water resource

freshwater fish and their habitats, bir

d, and subsistence-harvest patterns by requiring water withdrawal requirements 

compaction of snow cover or snow removal from fish-bearing water bodies be prohibite

d except at approved ice road crossings, wa

lakes. This requirement would effectively protect water resources and water quality and fresh

water fish and their habitats by pr

compaction a

nd removal fro

m fis

h-bearing water bodies; would be equally effective in reducing impacts to some bird species b

y pr

of prey of fis

h-eating birds (e.g., loons, mergansers, terns), which could a

dversely affect the breeding success of these bird species

effective in reducing impacts on s

ubsistence-harvest patterns by provi

ding increased protection to fish and fish habitat and by lim

from water bodies 

WINTER OVERLAND MOVES AND SEIS

MIC WORK 

The following lease stipulations and ROPs apply to overland moves, seismic w

cross-country vehicle use of heavy equipment on non-roaded surfaces during threstrictions do not apply to t

he use of s

uch equipment on ice roads after they a

75. Petroleum exploration and pro

duction 

activities are prohibited wit

hin 1⁄2 mile of 

occupie

d grizzly bear dens, identified by the 

ADFG, unless alter

native protective measures 

are approve

d by the AO in consultation with 

appropriate federal, state, and N

S

B regulatory

and resource agencies. 24. The following restrictions apply to overland moves, seis

mic wor

k, and an

y si

milar use of

heav

y equipment (other than actual excavations 

as part of construction) on unroaded surfacesduring the winter season: 

a. Because polar bears are k

nown to den

predo

minantly within 25 miles of the coast, 

operators shall consult with the USF

WS prior 

to initiating activities in such habitat between October 30 and 

April 15. Activities are 

prohibited within 1 mile of k

nown or obser

ved 

C-1 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Protect grizzly bear, polar bear, and mari

ne mam

mal denning and/or 

Requirement/

Stan

dard: 

a. Cross-country use of heavy equipment and seismic activities is prohibited wgrizzly bear de

ns i

dentified by the ADFG u

nless alternative protective measur

AO in consultation with the ADFG. b. Cross-country use of heavy equipment and seismic activities is prohibited wobser

ved polar bear dens or seal birthing lairs. Operators shall consult with th

Fis

heries, as appropriate, before i

nitiating activities in coastal habitat between 

15. 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-40 WINTER OVERLAND MOVES AND SEIS

MIC WORK 

polar bear dens; obtain locations from the U

SFWS, (907) 786-3800. Operators are 

encouraged to apply for a letter of authorization from the US

F

WS to conduct 

activities in polar bear den

ning areas. 

77. Operators are encourage

d to apply for a letter 

of authorization from the USFWS to conduct activities in polar bear den

ning areas. 

Alter

native A Stipulation 7

5 and Alternatives B, C, and D - ROP C-1(a) would pro

vide equal benefit in reducing potential impacts 

mammals by requiring avoidance of known grizzly bear dens. The 1⁄2 mile setback is t

hought to be sufficient to prevent disturban

bears from seismic operations and other overlan

d moves. The success of this ROP would be relative to the effort made to locate be

initiating work Alter

native A – Stipulations 24(a) and 77 and Alternatives B, C, and D – ROP C-1(b) provide the same benefit in minimizing pote

and terrestrial mammals, specifically polar bears and seals, and subsistence use patter

ns for these resources by prohibiting th

equipment or seismic activities within 1.0 miles of an

y known polar bear dens or seal lairs throughout the area within the Planni

may be found. Suc

h activities could potentially disturb de

n

ning polar bears putting c

ubs at greater risk. It is thought that such d

at a distance of 1.0 miles or greater. Such activities could also crush snow lairs used by seal pups or potentially disturb the sealssuch dens and lairs is not known 

67. All activities shall be con

d

ucted to avoid or 

minimize disturbance to vegetation. 24. The following restrictions apply to overland moves, seis

mic wor

k, and an

y si

milar use of

heav

y equipment (other than actual excavations 

as part of construction) on unroaded surfacesduring the winter season: 

b. Motorized ground-vehicle use will beminimized withi

n t

he Colville River Raptor, 

Passerine, and Moose Area 

L

UEA from April 

15 through August 5, 

with the exception that

use will be minimized in the vicinity of gyrfalcon nests beginning March 15. S

uch use 

will remain 1⁄2 mile away fro

m known raptornesting sites, 

u

nless authorized by the AO. The 

BLM shall consult with U

S

F

WS to plan travel 

routes to minimize disturbance to raptors.f. On-the-grou

nd activities shall use lowgrou

n

d-pressure vehicles such as Rolligons,

ARDCO, Trackmaster, No

d

well, or similar 

types of vehicles. A current list of approved 

C-2 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Protect stream ban

ks, minimize 

compaction of soils, and minimize the breakage, abrasion, compaction, or displacement of vegetation. Requirement/

Stan

dard:

a. Grou

n

d operations shall be allowed only w

hen 

frost and snow cover are at sufficient depths to protect the tun

dra. Ground operations shall 

cease when the spring snowmelt begins(approximately May 5 in t

he foothills area

where elevations reach or exceed 500 feet and approximately May 15 in the northern coastal areas). The exact dates will be deter

mined b

y

the AO. b. Only low-ground-pressure vehicles s

hall be

use

d for on-the-ground activities off ice roads or 

pads. A list of approved vehicles can be obtained from the AO. 

Limited 

use of tractors equipped 

with wide tracks or “shoes” will be allowed to pull trailers, sleighs or other equipment with 

C-2 Required Operating Objective: Protect stream b

compaction of soils, and miabrasion, compaction, or divegetation. Requirement/

Stan

dard:

a. Grou

nd operations sha

frost and snow cover are protect the tun

dra. Grou

when the spring snowmeMay 5 in the foothills arereach or exceed 500 feet a15 in the northern coastawill be determined by the b. Only low-grou

n

d-press

use

d for on-the-ground a

pads. A list of approved vfrom the AO. 

Limited 

use 

with wide tracks or “shoetrailers, sleighs or other approved undercarriage. 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-41 Chapter II: Alternatives WINTER OVERLAND MOVES AND SEIS

MIC WORK 

vehicles can be obtained from the AO. Limited use of tractors equipped with wide trac

ks or

"shoes" will be allowed to pull trailers. g. Bulldozing of tundra, trails, or seismic linesis prohibited. This stipulation, however, does not prohibit the clearing of drifted snow alo

ng 

a trail, seismic line, or in a camp, to the extent that the tundra mat is not disturbed. Snow may be cleared from a water body ice surface to prepare an aircraft ru

n

way, if approved by the 

AO in consultation with appropriate federal,state, a

nd NSB regulatory and resource 

agencies.h. To red

uce t

he possibility of ruts, ve

hicles

shall a

void using t

he same trails for 

m

ultiple 

trips u

nless necessitated by serious safety or

superseding environmental concern. Thisprovision 

does not apply to ice roads (see 

Stipulation 18 below).i. Ground operations are to begin only after the seasonal frost in the tundra and underlying mineral soils has reac

hed a 

depth of 12 inches, 

and the average snow cover is 6 inches deep.The exact date shall be determined by the AO. 

22. Except for approved crossings, alteration of the banks of a waterway is prohibited. Water

ways inclu

de natural features with

sufficient water to create riparia

n (willow) 

habitat s

uch as rivers, streams, deep a

nd 

shallow lakes, tu

n

dra pon

ds, and shallow 

water

tracks. Clearing of willows along the riparian zone is prohibited. Movement of equipment through willow stands shall be avoided wheneverpossible. 18. The location of winter ice roads shall be offset from year to year to minimize vegetative impacts. The offset shall be greater than or equal to the width of the road. 

approved undercarriage. Note: This provision 

does not include the use of heavy equipment such as front-end loaders an

d si

milar equipment 

req

uired during ice roa

d construction.

c. Bulldozing of tundra mat a

nd 

vegetation, 

trails, or seismic lines is prohibited; however, on existing trails, seismic lines or camps, clearing of drifted snow is allowed to the extent that the tundra mat is not disturbed. d. To reduce the possibility of ruts, vehicles shall avoid using the same trails for multiple trips u

nless necessitated by serious safety or

superseding environmental concern. Thisprovision 

does not apply to 

hardened snow trails 

for use by low-ground-press

ure vehicles s

uch as

Rolligons. e. The location of winter ice roads shall be desig

ned and located to minimize compaction of 

soils and the breakage, abrasion, compaction, ordisplacement of vegetation. Offsets may be required to avoid 

using the same route or track 

in the subsequent year. 

(See K-7(a) for an equivalent to Alternative D, ROP C-2(f)) 

does not include the use 

as front-end loaders and req

uired during ice roa

d 

c. Bulldozing of tundra mtrails, or seismic lines is existing trails, seismic lindrifted snow is allowed to tundra mat is not disturbd. To reduce the possibiliavoid using the same trau

nless necessitated by se

superseding environmenprovision 

does not apply 

for use by low-ground-preRolligons. e. The location of winter desig

ned and located to m

soils and the breakage, adisplacement of vegetatiorequired to avoid 

using th

the subsequent year. f. Motorized ground-vehiassociated with overland and an

y similar use of h

minimized wit

hin the Co

Passerine, and Moose Arthrough August 5, with twill be minimized in the nests beginning March 11⁄2 mile away from known unless authorized by the 

Alternative A – Stipulations 67 and 24(f), (g), (h), and (i) 

and Alternatives B, C, and D – ROP C-2(a), (b), (c), and (d) provide equa
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

WINTER OVERLAND MOVES AND SEIS

MIC WORK 

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-42 avoidance and minimization of potential impacts to soils, paleont

ological and c

ultural resources, vegetatio

n, and the terr

birds dependent on the 

vegetation, by restricting the equipment, seaso

n, and manner in which o

verland moves and seismic oper

Many tundra habitats are sensitive to physical disturbance a

nd the movement of heav

y equipment across t

he tundra can res

ult i

or changes to the soils and vegetation. Under all alternati

ves, these protective measures require the use of approve

d low gro

und

bulldozing of tundra, the off-setting of trails to prevent damage by repeated use in the same area, and the cessation of activities w

begins. Stipulation 24(i) – Alter

native A allows commencement of such overland moves only after there are 12 inches of frost and 

while ROP C-2(a) permits activities when frost and snow cover are of sufficient depth to prevent damage, which should result in Studies have s

hown that little long-term changes or damage result when overland moves on the North Slope are conducted under 

Alternative A – Stipulations 67 and 22 and Alternatives B, C, and D – ROP C-2c and e would be equally effective in providing protecpaleontological and cultural resources, water resources and water quality, 

vegetation, wetlands, fresh

water fish habi

terrestrial mammals, subsistence use p

atterns, wild and scenic river values, a

nd visual resource values by prohibiting 

an

d vegetation, a

nd seismic lines on existing trails; seismic lines or camps; clearing of drifted snow would only be allowed to the exte

is 

not disturbed. The location of winter ice roads shall be desig

ned and located to minimize compaction of soils and the breakage, ab

displacement of vegetation. Offsets may be required to avoid using the same route or track in the subsequent year. 

T

hese protective 

equally: effective in providing protection for soils b

y reducing damage to stream banks, reducing rutting, a

nd generally reducing im

restricting seismic activity and overland 

moves to 

winter; effective in pro

viding protection fro

m seismic and overland move activities 

disturb t

he vegetative mat a

nd impact paleontological a

nd cultural resources that are near the surface; effective in protecting 

w

water q

uality b

y regulating overland 

moves, seismic work, ice-roa

d construction, and other heavy equipment travel during the win

water resources; equally effective in reducing the level of impacts to vegetation and wetlan

ds by reducing impacts of off-road vehicle

freshwater fish habitat an

d fish by reducing da

mage to stream ban

ks at river crossings and reducing rutting a

nd other damage to 

would put restrictions on the types of heavy equipment use

d and the seasons of allowable use and would be equally beneficial to ter

reducing the amount of 

habitat disturbed d

uring overlan

d moves and seismic work. They would be also eq

ually effective in reduci

ng 

use patterns by providing increase

d protection to fish and fish habitat, and effective in limiting the i

mpacts that oil and gas explor

would have on wild and scenic ri

ver values as well as visual resource values. 

Alternative A – Stipulations 67 and 18 and Alternatives B, C, and D - ROP C-2e would all effectively provide protection for soil, p

cultural resources, water resources and water quality, vegetatio

n, terrestrial m

a

m

m

als, endangered a

nd threatene

subsistence use patterns , wild and scenic river v

alues, and visual resources by requiring the lessees/permittees to desig

roads to minimize compaction of soils and the breakage, abrasion, compaction, or displacement of vegetation. Offsets may be requ

same route or track in the subsequent year. This protective measure would reduce da

mage to stream banks, reducing rutting a

n

reducing impacts to vegetation b

y restricting seis

mic activity and overland moves to winter; would be equally effective in pro

vidin

seismic and overland move activities that could potentiall

y disturb the vegetative mat and impact paleontological a

nd c

ultural re

the s

urface; 

would be equally effective i

n protecting water resources a

nd water q

uality by regulating overland moves, seis

mic wor

construction, and other heavy equipment tra

vel during the winter; would be equally effective in reducing the level of impacts to v

impacts of off-road vehicles; would be equally beneficial to terrestrial mammals by reducing the amount of habitat disturbed duri

seismic work.; would be equally beneficial to endangered and threatened species by reducing the amou

nt of habitat disturbed dur

seismic work; would be equally effective in reducing impacts on subsistence use patterns by providing increased protection to fish would be equally effective in limiting the impacts that oil and gas exploration and development will have on wild and scenic ri

ver 

equally beneficial to visual resources by reducing the amou

nt of surface disturbance due to seismic activities. 

Alternative A – Stipulation 24(b), Alternatives B and C K-7(a), and D – ROP C-2f provide similar benefit in the avoidance and min
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

WINTER OVERLAND MOVES AND SEIS

MIC WORK 

impacts to vegetation, wetlands, endangered and threatened species, and birds, particularly raptors, b

y reducing ground t

in the area where most of the raptor nests occur. Raptors are most sensitive to disturbance when nesting. The lower two thirds support the highest concentration of raptor nests on the North Slope. Both protective measures are identical in prohibiting mototransportation within 1⁄2 mile of the nests during the defined nesting period. It is thoug

ht that vehicle transport more than 1⁄2 mi

not disturb nesting raptors. ROP K-7 actually applies to a larger area (Colville River Special Area) and includes all of the area coStipulation 24. Both areas include the high raptor conce

ntration area along the Colville. ROP K-7 also mandates (Stipulation 2

permanent oil and gas facilities be located as far as possible from raptor sites and prohibits significant alteration of high value w

habitats withi

n 15 miles of nests, which should be moderately effective in reducing impacts to birds (specifically raptors), endang

species (eider habitat). The ROP would have low effectiveness in reducing impacts to vegetation as i

mpacts would be shifted to o

24. 

c. Crossing of waterway courses shall be madeusing a low-angle approac

h to avoid disr

uption

of the natural stream or lake bank. Except at approve

d crossings, operators are encourage

d

to travel a minimum of 100 feet from overwintering fish streams and lakes. d. If snow ramps or snow bridges are used at water crossings for bank protection, the rampsand bridges shall be substantially free of soiland/or debris. Snow bridges s

hall be removed 

or breache

d immediately after use or before 

spring breakup. e. To avoid additional freeze down of deepwater pools harboring overwintering fish, water

ways shall be crossed at shallow riffles 

from point bar to point bar whenever possible 

C-3 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Maintain natural spring r

u

noff patter

ns and fish passage, avoid flood

sedimentation and scour, protect water quality and protect stream ban

ks. 

Requirement/

Stan

dard: Crossing of waterway courses shall be 

made using a low

and ice bridges shall be remo

ved, breac

hed, or slotted before spring break

up. Ra

substantially free of soil and debris. C-4 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Avoid additional freeze-down of 

deep-water pools harboring over-wint

in

vertebrates used by fish. 

Requirement/

Stan

dard: Travel up and down streambeds is prohibited 

u

nless it c

that there will be 

no a

d

ditional i

mpacts from such travel to over-wintering fish o

rely on. Rivers and streams s

hall be crossed at shallow riffles from point bar to p

possible. 

Alternative A – Stipulation 24(c), (d), and (e), and Alternatives B, C, and D – ROP C-3 and C-4 pro

vide equal benefits in the avoid

of potential impacts to fish, subsistence activities associated with fis

h, and fresh

water fish habitat by directing lessees or seism

streams at locations that are not over-wintering habitat, and by crossing at locations where the bank will not be disturbed. Clearsnow over ice covered strea

ms can increase t

he depth to which streams freeze. If t

his were to happen in the deeper areas where f

habitat could be lost temporarily, oxygen depleted, or fish displaced. These stipulations and ROPs direct the lessees and seismic their stream crossings in areas that are not overwintering fish habitat (e.g. riffles) effectively avoiding potential impacts to the ovThese stipulations a

nd ROPs also mandate that only clean snow be used in construction of snow bridges, and to use a low angle a

banks at crossings so the riparian habitat is maintained, and there is no subsequent degradation of aquatic habitats, wetlands, adue to erosions, protecting water resources and water quality, and wild and scenic ri

vers values. 

 2-43 Chapter II: Alternatives 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-44 OIL AND G

AS EXPLO

RATORY D

RILLING 

28. Exploratory drilling in river, strea

m, and 

lake beds, as determi

ned b

y the highest high 

water mark, is prohibited. Exceptions to this stipulation may be authorized by the AO in cases of shallow lakes which freeze to the botto

m, do 

not support significant fish or bir

d populations, 

and are hydrologically isolated. Furt

her, s

uch a

n

exception may be gra

nted only if it is

environ

mentally preferable to maintaining the 

restriction. 

D-1 Lease StipulationObjectives: Protect fis

h-bearing rivers, strea

ms,

and lakes from blowouts and minimize alteration of riparian habitat.Requirement/

Stan

dard: Exploratory drilling is 

prohibited in rivers a

nd streams, as determined 

by the active floodplain, and fish-bearing lakes, except where the lessee can demonstrate on a sitespecific basis t

hat i

mpacts would be minimal, or it

is deter

mined that there is 

no feasible or prudent 

alter

native. 

D-1 Lease StipulationObjectives: Protect fis

h-bea

and lakes from blowouts anriparia

n habitat. 

Requirement/Standard: Eprohibited in rivers a

nd st

by the active floodplain, an

Stipulation 28 and Lease Stipulation D-1 would be equally effective in protecting water resources, water quality, and wetlands exploratory drilling in most lakes, streams, and floodplains; in reducing i

mpacts to fish and fish habitat during oil and gas explorato

the potential for damage to the riparian habitats used by birds; in reducing impacts on subsistence-harvest patterns and publi

increased protection for terrestrial mammals; in li

miting the i

mpacts that oil and g

as exploration and development will 

ha

river values; and in reducing t

he potential for damage to the riparian 

habitats that are so i

mportant to man

y species of terrestria

moose, bear an

d wol

veri

ne by prohibiting exploratory drilling in active floodplains. Disturbance impacts to wol

veri

nes a

n

d moose wo

27. Per

manent or gravel oil and gas facilities

inclu

ding roads shall not be constr

ucted during

the exploration phase of oil and gas develop

ment. 

67. All activities shall be con

d

ucted to avoid or 

minimize disturbance to vegetation. 

D-2 Lease StipulationObjective: Mini

mize s

urface impacts from

exploratory drilling.Requirement/

Stan

dard: Exploratory drilling shall 

be limited to temporary facilities suc

h as ice pads, 

ice roads, and ice airstrips, 

u

nless the lessee

demonstrates t

hat constructio

n of per

manent 

facilities such as gravel airstrips, storage pads, and con

necting roads is en

viron

mentally

preferable or necessary to carry out exploration more econo

mically. 

D-2 Lease StipulationObjective: Minimize surfac

exploratory drilling.Requirement/Standard: E

be limited to temporary faice roads, and ice airstripsuse a previously constructenvironmentally preferabl

Alternative A Stipulations 27 and 67 and Alternatives B, C, and D ROP D-2— Because Alternative A would prohibit permanent faci

while the other alter

natives may allow some per

manent development, Stipulation 27 would be more effective than R

OP D-2 in prote

damage from perma

nent facilities constructed during exploration; protecting paleontologic

al and cultural resources that are ne

protecting water resources and water quality by regulating the construction of permanent roads during exploration; reducing thestuarine water quality by limiting explorator

y drilling to temporar

y facilities such as ice pads; reducing the level of impacts to vege

the constructio

n of per

manent facilities during exploration; benefiting fresh

water fish habitat and fish by reducing damage to fish h

of per

manent facilities; benefiting terrestrial mammals by reducing the amount of habitat 

disturbed from per

manent facilities; re

impacts to endangere

d and threatened species and their habitats by regulating t

he construction of per

manent facilities during 

impacts on subsistence use patterns by providing increase

d protection to fish and fish habitat; li

miting the i

mpacts that oil and ga

develop

ment would have on wild and scenic river values; and limiting the i

mpacts that oil and gas exploration and development 

resources. 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-45 Chapter II: Alternatives FACILITY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 

48. Per

manent roads (i.e. gravel, sand) 

connecting to a road system or docks outside t

he 

planning area are prohibited, a

nd no exceptions

may be granted. Per

manent roads necessary to 

connect pa

ds within independent, remote oil 

fields are allowed but they must be desig

ned and 

constructed to create minimal environmental impacts. Roads con

necting production sites

between separate oil fields may be considered if road-connected operations are environ

mentally 

preferable to independent, consolidate

d

operations that each include airstrip, housing, production, and support facilities. This exception will only be granted following consultations with appropriate federal, state, and N

S

B regulatory

and resources agencies, and t

he appropriate level 

of NEPA review. 

E-1 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Protect subsistence use and access to traditional subsistence h

u

nti

ng and fishing areas 

and minimize the impact of oil and gas activitieson air, land, water, fish a

n

d wildlife resources. 

Requirement/

Stan

dard: All roads must be 

designe

d, constructed, maintained, and operated 

to create minimal environ

mental impacts a

nd to 

protect subsistence use an

d access to traditional

subsistence h

u

nting and fishing areas. Subject to 

approval by the AO, the construction, operation and maintenance of oil field roads is the responsibility of t

he lessee. Note: T

his provision 

does not apply to intercomm

u

nity or ot

her 

perma

nent roads constructed with public funds

for general transportation purposes. This preserves the opportunity to plan, design and construct public transportation systems to meet the econo

mic, transportation, and public 

health 

and safety 

needs of the State of Alaska and/or 

com

munities within the National Petroleum 

Reserve - 

Alaska. 

E-1 Required Operating Objective: Protect subsiste

traditional subsistence h

u

n

and minimize the impact oair, lan

d, water, fish and w

Requirement/

Stan

dard: Al

designe

d, constructed, mai

create minimal environmeprotect subsistence use an

d 

subsistence h

u

nting and fi

approval by the AO, the coand maintenance of oil fielresponsibility of t

he lessee 

operation, a

nd maintenan

by the appropriate governing e

nt

Alternative A Stipulation 48 would be so

mewhat more effective than Alternatives B, C, and D - ROP E-1 in minimizing effects on so

and cultural resources, water resources and water quality, vegetation, and wetlands because it would not allow the constroad con

necting to a road system or docks o

utside of the Plan

ning Area t

hat could i

mpact near-surface resources and increase the am

area. However, if such a road was not constr

ucted, Stipulation 48 and ROP E-1 would be equally effective. 

Alternative A Stipulation 48 would be somewhat more effective than Alternatives B, C, and D - ROP E-1 in minimizing effects on threatened s

pecies, terrestri

al mammal a

nd bird habitat because it would not allow t

he construction of a permanent roa

d 

system or docks outside of the Planning Area that could impact habitat. ROP E-1 may be more effective than Stipulation 48 in prand endangered species (eiders), terrestrial mammals (including caribou) and bir

ds if constr

uction of a permanent road co

system or docks outside of t

he Planning Area reduces t

he number of aircraft flights, which could disturb a

nimals, between facilit

not constructed, Stipulation 48 a

nd ROP E-1 would be equally effective. Stipulation 48 be somewhat more effective than ROP E-1 

subsistence use a

nd access to tra

ditional hunting a

nd fishing areas a

n

d public health because it would not allow the construct

connecting to a road system or docks outside of the Planning Area t

hat could impact caribou a

nd other s

ubsistence resources a

n

d 

pursue s

ubsistence resources. Stipulation 48 would be somewhat more effective t

han ROP E-1 in limiting the impact that oil a

n

d 

development would have on recreatio

n, wilderness, a

nd wild and scenic river values. Without this ROP, we would expect g

roa

d construction, a

nd declines in outstandingly remarkable values for fish, wildlife, and subsistence use. Alternative A Stip

ulat

somewhat more effective tha

n Alter

natives B, C, and D - ROP E-1 in limiting the impact that oil a

nd gas exploration and develop

visual resource values. Without this ROP, we would expect greater impacts from road constr

uction, and declines in the benefici
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-46 of the landscape. 41. For those water bo

dies not listed in 

Stipulation 39, per

manent oil and gas facilities, 

inclu

ding roads, airstrips, and pipelines, are 

prohibited upon or within 500 feet as meas

ured 

from the highest high water mar

k of the active

floodplain. 

Essential pipeline and road crossings 

will be permitted on a case-by-case basis. 70. Construction camps are prohibite

d on frozen 

lakes and river ice. Siting of construction campson river sand a

nd gravel bars is allowed and,

where feasible, encourage

d. Where leveling of 

trailers or mod

ules is required and the surface 

has a vegetati

ve mat, leveling shall be

accomplis

hed through blocking rather t

han use 

of a bulldozer. 

E-2 Lease Stipulation Objective: Protect fis

h-bearing water bodies, water q

uality, a

nd aquatic habitats

Requirement/

Stan

dard: The design and location of per

manent oil and gas facilit

fish-bearing or 100 feet of non-fish-bearing water bodies will only be approved on the lessee can demonstrate t

hat i

mpacts to fish, water quality, and aquatic and 

be minimal. Note: 

Also refer to Area-Specific Stipulations and ROPs for Rivers A

K-1) and Deep Water Lakes (Lease Stipulation K2). 

Alternatives A Stipulation 41 would be so

mewhat more effective than Alternatives B, C, and D Lease Stipulation E-2 in protecting so

paleontological and cultural resources, vegetation, wetla

nds, freshwater fish and fish habitat, threatened and endang

subsistence use patterns, and public health because permanent oil and gas facilities would be prohibited wit

hin 500 feet of the 

Stipulation 41, but could be allowed within 100 feet of a non-fish-bearing water body, and per

haps e

ven closed on a case-by-case bas

Stipulation E-2. Alternative A Stipulation 41 would be more effective than Alternatives B, C, and D Lease Stipulation E-2 in protecting water resou

quality because per

manent oil and gas facilities would be prohibited within 500 feet of the active floodplain under 

Stipulation 41, b

within 100 feet of a non-fish-bearing water body, and perhaps even closer on a case-by-case basis, u

n

der Lease Stipulation E-2. 

Alternative A Stipulation 41 and Alternatives B, C, and D Lease Stipulation E-2 would be equally effective in reducing the potential grizzly bears, arctic foxes, and other terrestrial mammals and in increasing the protection of wilderness and recreation resouAlternative A Stipulation 41 would be more effective than Alternatives B, C, and D Lease Stipulation E-2 in limiting the i

mpacts tha

and developme

nt will have on 

wild and scenic river values because refueling activities would be prohibited within 500 feet of both 

bearing waters; ROP A-5 would allow refueling operations within 100 feet of non-fish-bearing waters. 30. Causeways and doc

ks are prohibited in river

mouths or deltas. Artificial gra

vel islands an

d

botto

m-founded structures are prohibited in

river mout

hs or active strea

m channels on river 

deltas, except as provided in the paragraphsbelow. 

The BLM discourages the use of continuousfill causeways. Environmentally preferredalternatives for field develop

ment include the

use of onshore directional drilling, elevated 

E-3 Lease StipulationObjective: Maintain free passage of marine and anadromo

us fish and protect sub

to traditional s

ubsistence hunting and fishing.

Requirement/

Stan

dard: Causeways and docks are prohibited in river mo

uths or 

islands a

nd bottom-founded structures are prohibited in river 

mouths or active s

deltas. Causeways, doc

ks, artificial islan

ds, and bottom-fou

n

ded structures shal

free passage of marine and anadromous fish and to prevent significant c

hanges 

ocea

nographic circulation patterns a

nd water q

uality characteristics. A monitori

required to address the objectives of water quality and free passage of fish. 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-47 Chapter II: Alternatives structures, or buried pipelines. Approved 

causeways shall be designed, sited, and constructed to prevent sig

nificant c

hanges to

near s

hore oceanographic circulation patterns

and water-quality c

haracteristics (e.g., 

salinity, temperature, suspended sedime

nts) 

that result in exceeding water-qualitycriteria, and must maintai

n free passage of 

marine and anadromous fish. Causeways, 

docks, artificial gravel islan

ds, and 

bottom-founded structures may be permitted if the AO, in consultation with appropriate federal, state, and 

N

SB regulatory and 

resource agencies, determines t

hat a ca

usewa

y

or ot

her structure is necessary for field 

develop

ment, and that no feasible and pru

dent 

alter

native exists. A monitoring program may

be required to address the objectives of 

water

quality and free passage of fish. A

dditional

mitigation shall be required where significant deviation from t

hese objectives occurs. 

Alternative A – Stipulation 30 and Alternatives B, C, and D – Lease Stipulation E-3 provide the same and equal benefit in effectively 

eli

minating i

mpacts to fresh

water and marine fish, water resources and water quality, wild and scenic rivers values, su

access to traditional use areas, environmental justice concerns, and public health, by prohibiting the placement of causewaymouths or deltas, and artificial gravel islan

ds and bottom-fou

n

ded str

uctures in active stream c

han

nels, river mouths, and deltas. E

must be constructed in a man

ner that does not restrict or impede fish mo

vements or degrade water quality or flow. These are critica

subsistence fisheries. 

38. All crude oil, produced water, seawater, and natural gas pipelines shall be constructed to accommodate the best available technolog

y for 

detecting corrosion or 

mecha

nical defects 

during routine structural integrity inspections 

E-4 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Minimize the potential for pipeline leaks, the resulting environmentaaccidents. Requirement/Standard: All pipelines shall be designed, constructed, and opera

approved Quality Assurance/Qualit

y Control plan that is specific to the produc

Alter

native A Stipulation 3

8 and Alternatives B,C, and D ROP E-4 should provide equal benefit in the avoidance of impact to soi

water resources, fish and fish habitat, wetlands, vegetation, and birds by ensuring that pipelines are designed, constructtechnically sound manner so as to prevent petroleum releases through pipeline failure. 

32. Lessees shall use maximum economically feasible extended-reach drilling for production drilling to minimize the number of pads and the network of roads between pads. New 

E-5 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Minimize impacts of the develop

ment footprint. 

Requirement/

Stan

dard: Facilities shall be desig

ned and located to minimize the 

to the maximum extent practicable considering environ

mental, econo

mic, safety
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-48 develop

ments shall share facilities with existing

develop

ment w

hen prudent and technically 

feasible. 

All oil and gas facilities, except 

airstrips, doc

ks, and seawater-treatment plants, 

will be co-located with 

drill pads. If possible, 

airstrips will be integrated with roads. Given the paucity of gravel sites in the plan

ning area and 

the cost of transporting gravel fro

m outside the 

plan

ning area, lessees are encouraged to

implement gravel-re

duction technologies e.g., 

insulated or pile-supported pads. 67. All activities shall be con

d

ucted to avoid or 

minimize disturbance to vegetation. 

Note: Where aircraft traffic is a concern, consideration s

hall be given to bala

ncin

available supply storage capacit

y with potential reductions in the use of aircraft 

operations. 

Alternative A Stipulations 32 and 67 and Alternatives B, C, and D - ROP E-5 would be equally effective in minimizing effects on soilcultural resources, water resources and water quality, vegetatio

n, wetlands, and fish and fish habitat by minimizing th

and amount of gravel use. Stipulation 3

2 and ROP E-5 would be eq

ually effective in minimizing effects on terrestrial mammal, bird

species habitat, and on subsistence and sociocultural systems by requiring minimal facility footprint. ROP E-5 would be more effecti

in reducing i

mpacts to terrestrial ma

m

mals, bir

ds, and en

dangered species from aircraft activity, as facility footprint size wo

uld be b

need for a

d

ditional air traffic to support the facility when designing facilities. Stipulation 32 and ROP E-5 would be eq

uall

y effective 

on recreation, wilderness area, and wild a

nd scenic river values by minimizing the development footprint and a

mount of gravel use. 

effective than Stipulation 32 in reducing impacts to t

hese resources and resource users from aircraft activity, as facility footprint siz

against the need for ad

ditional air traffic to support the facility when designing facilities. Stipulation 32 and ROP E-5 would be equ

minimizing effects on visual resources by mi

nimizing the development footprint and amou

nt of gravel use. 

42. Bridges, rather than c

ulverts, shall be used

for a

ny allowed road crossings on all major 

rivers, inclu

ding t

hose water bodies listed in 

Stipulation 39 or identified by the AO in consultation with appropriate federal, state, a

nd 

NSB regulatory a

nd resource agencies, to reduce 

the potential of ice-jam flooding and erosion.When necessary on smaller streams, culvertsshall be large enough to avoid restriction of fis

h

passage or adversely affecting natural streamflow. 43. The natural drainage pattern will be identified prior to and maintained during and after construction. All per

manent str

uctures

constr

ucted adjacent to a bo

dy of water, such as 

approved road and pipeline crossings, shall besited and desig

ned to limit erosion from flooding 

E-6 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Re

d

uce the potential for ice-jam flooding, impacts to wetlands and flo

alteration of natural drainage patter

ns, and restriction of fish passage. 

Requirement/Standard: Stream and marsh crossings shall be desig

ned and con

passage of fish, maintain natural drainage, and minimize adverse effects to naNote: Bridges, rather than culverts, are the preferred method for crossing riveculverts ca

n be constructed on s

maller streams, if t

hey are large e

noug

h to a

vo

passage or adversely affecting natural stream flow. 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-49 Chapter II: Alternatives and wave action (e.g., through use of slope- protection measures). Cross-drainage structures will be sited, maintaine

d, a

nd properly

abandoned to prevent i

mpou

ndments or 

alteration of local or area-wide hydrology. Gravel structures shall be designed and sited tominimize the length that is perpendicular tosheet flow. Alternative A Stipulations 42 and 43 and Alternatives B, C, and D - ROP E-6 would be equally effective in minimizing effects on soil

and water quality, wetlands, fresh

water fis

h habitat and fish, subsistence use patterns for these species, and wild and 

by maintaining natural drainages that may reduce erosion, and requiring construction in a manner that allows free passage of fishnatural drainage would protect stream flows and therefore the fish, fish habitat within the streams, and riparian habitats such as impacts on fish and will minimize and i

mpacts to subsistence-harvest patterns associated with the fish. The stipulations would al

the impacts that oil and gas exploration and develop

ment will have on wild and scenic river values. Without this ROP we expect g

obstruction to fish passage and declines in o

utstandingly remarkable values for fish, and subsistence use. 

34. Lessees shall separate elevated pipelines from roads by a minimum of 500 feet, if feasible. Separating roads from pipelines may not be feasible within narrow la

n

d corridors between 

lakes and where pipe and road converge on a drill pad. 35. To minimize delay or deflection of caribou movements, lessees shall place pipeline on the appropriate side of the road as deter

mined by 

the AO (depending on general caribou movements in the area). 36. In the Special Caribou Stipulations Area and where facilities or terrain may funnel caribou movement, ramps over pipelines, buried pipe, orpipe buried under t

he road may be req

uired by

the AO after consultation with appropriate federal, state, and NSB regulatory a

nd resource 

agencies. 37. Aboveground pipelines shall be elevated atleast 5 feet, as measured from the ground to thebottom of the pipe, except where the pipelineintersects a road, pad, or a ramp installed tofacilitate wil

dlife passage and subsistence 

passage and access. The AO, in consultationwith appropriate federal, state, and NSB 

E-7 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Minimize disruption of caribou movement a

nd subsistence 

use.

Requirement/

Stan

dard: Pipelines and roads shall be designed to allow the free m

the safe, unimpeded passage of the public w

hile participating in traditional subs

below are the accepted 

design practices: 

a. Above groun

d pipelines shall be elevate

d a minimum of 7 feet as measured f

bottom of the pipeline at 

vertical support members. 

b. In areas where facilities or terrain may funnel caribou movement, ramps ovpipelines, or pipelines buried u

n

der roads may be required by the AO after con

state, a

nd NSB regulatory and resource agencies (as appropriate, based on age

jurisdictional responsibility). 

c. A minimum distance of 500 feet between pipelines and roads shall be maintained when feasible. Separating roads from pipelines may not be feasible within narro

w land corridors 

between lakes and where pipelines and roads converge o

n a drill pad. 

c. A minimum distance opipelines and roads shalSeparating roads from pfeasible withi

n narrow la

lakes and where pipelineon a drill pad. Where it separate pipelines and rpipeline routes, designs within the roa

d will be c
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-50 regulatory a

nd resource agencies, may make a

n

exception if no feasible a

nd prude

nt means 

exists to meet the requireme

nt. 

Stipulations 34 to 36 and Alternatives B, C, and D RO

P E-7 would be equally effective in reducing sociocultural and public he

disruption of subsistence-h

arvest patter

ns by minimizing the disruption of caribou movement by requiring pipelines and road

allow the free movement of caribou and the safe and unimpeded passage of subsistence hunters. Stipulation 37 would be less eff

reducing sociocultural impacts and disruption of subsistence-harvest patterns by minimizing the disruption of caribou move

would be approximately 5 feet or higher for Stipulation 37, but 7 feet or higher for ROP E-7. 

Alternative A Stipulation 37 would be slightly less effective in pre

venting bird and e

ndangered s

pecies collisions with pipelin

C, and D ROP E-7, as pipeline height would be approximately 5 feet or higher for Stipulation 37, but 7 feet or higher for ROP E-7and ROP E-7 would be equally effective in reducing impacts of oil development on caribou and other large terrestrial mammals 

roa

ds a

nd pipelines to allow for free movement of caribou. Stipulation 37 would be less effective than ROP E-7 in facilitating mo

other large terrestrial mammals from insect-relief habitat to inlan

d foraging habitat, as pipelines would be 5 feet or higher und

feet or higher under RO

P E-7. 

40. Gravel mining sites required for

develop

ment activities will be restricted to

the minimum necessary to develop the field efficiently and with minimal environ

mental

damage. Where feasible and prudent, gravelsites shall be 

designed and constr

ucted to

function as water reservoirs for fut

ure use. 

Gravel mine sites are prohibited within the active floodplain of a river, stream, or lake unless the AO, in consultation with appropriate federal, state, and 

N

S

B

regulatory a

nd resource agencies, 

determines that there is no feasible and prudent alternative or that a floodplain site would enhance fis

h a

nd wildlife habitat 

after mining operations are completed and the site is closed. 

Mine site develop

ment and rehabilitation

within a floodplain shall follow the procedures outline

d in McLean (1993), 

North Slope Gravel Pit Performance Guidelines; Alaska Department of Fish an

d

Game, Habitat a

nd 

Restoration Division 

Technical Report 93-9. 

E-8 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Minimize the i

mpact of 

mineral materials mining activities on air, lan

wildlife resources. Requirement/

Stan

dard: Gravel mine site design and reclamation will be in accor

approved by the AO. The plan shall consider:

a. Locations outside the active flood plain. b. Desig

n and constr

uction of gravel mine sites within acti

ve flood plains to ser

for future use. c. Potential use of the site for enhancing fish a

nd wildlife habitat. 

Alternative A Stipulation 40 and Alternatives B, C, and D ROP E-8 would be equally effective in minimizing effects on soils 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-51 Chapter II: Alternatives 

reclamation of mine sites that minimizes t

he size of the mine footprint and reduces erosion and maintains natural drainages. St

8 would equally effective in protecting paleont

ological and cultural resources, water resources and water qua

freshwater fish by limiting the size of the gravel mine site, and therefore impacts to floodplains. Stipulation 40 and RO

effective in reducing impacts to vegetatio

n by minimizing the size of the mine footprint and by increasing the likelihood of vege

be returned to a natural (or at least more productive) state, and be equally beneficial in creating new wetland habitat. Stipuwould be equally beneficial in minimizing the mine site footprint to reduce loss of bird habitat, and reclaiming the site to prov

fish-eating birds and loafing habitat for ot

her bir

ds. Stipulation 40 and ROP E-8 would reduce impacts on s

ubsistence-harvest 

impact of gravel mining operations on birds, fish, and fish habit

at. 

72. The feedi

ng of wildlife by authorized users 

is prohibited. 

E-9 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Avoidance of human-ca

used increases 

in populations of pre

dators of ground nesting 

bir

ds. 

Requirement/

Stan

dard: Lessee shall utilize best 

available technology to prevent facilities from providing nesting, denning, or shelter sites forravens, raptors, and foxes. T

he lessee shall 

provide the AO with an ann

ual report on the use 

of oil an

d gas facilities b

y rave

ns, raptors an

d

foxes as nesting, den

ning, and shelter sites. 

E-9 Required Operating Objective: Avoidance of hupopulations of predators of Requirement/

Stan

dard:

a. Lessee s

hall utilize bes

prevent facilities from prden

ning, or shelter sites 

foxes. The lessee shall prannual report on the use by ravens, raptors and foand shelter sites. 

Alaska Administrative Code 5 AAC 92.230** b. Feeding of wildlife is p

subject to non-complianc

Alternative B and C, and D ROP E-9(a) sho

uld provide the same benefit in minimizing potential impacts to birds, t

hreatened and 

and terrestrial mammals, by requiring lessees to use the best tec

h

nology to prevent facilities from becoming nesting or shelter sit

Additional shelter or den

ning sites could result in an increased local pre

dator population and consequent increased predation on oth

A has no direct counterpart. Alternative A Stipulation 72 and Alternatives B and C Alask

a Administr

ative Code 

5 AAC 92.2

30, and Alternative D ROP E-9(b) are 

prohibiting the feeding of 

wildlife. 5 AAC 92.230 applies to all activities in the Planning Area under all alternatives. Specifically, the 

may not intentionally feed a moose (except under terms of a permit issued by the department), bear, wolf, coyote, fox, or wolverine, oh

u

man foo

d, pet food, or garbage in a 

man

ner that attracts these animals” 

E-10 Required 

Operating Proce

dure 

Objective: Pre

vention of 

migrating waterfo

wl, including species liste

d u

nder the 

Act, from stri

king oil and gas and related facilities during low light con

ditions. 

Requirement/

Stan

dard: Except for safety lighting, illumination of higher structu

direct artificial exterior lighting i

n

ward a

nd dow

nward, rather than 

upward and 

structures, production facilities, and ot

her structures that exceed 20 feet in heig

as outlined above. 

Alternative B, C, and D ROP E-10 should provide the same benefit in minimizing potential i

mpacts to birds and threatened an

species, and terrestrial m

ammals, by requiring lessees to apply lighting to structures in a manner that reduces bird collisions

inward and downward is tho

ught to reduce the attractiveness to birds and therefore reduce collisions. Alternative A stipulations 

counterpart. 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-52 E-11 Required Operating Procedure E-11 Required Operating P

Objective: Minimize the take of species listed Objective: Minimize the taunder the En

dangere

d Species Act and minimize the Endangered Species Ac

the disturbance of other species of interest from disturbance of other speciedirect or indirect interaction with oil a

nd gas or indirect interaction with 

facilities. Requirement/

Stan

dard: In 

Requirement/

Stan

dard: In accorda

nce with the guidance below, before the 

guidance below, before the approval of facility construction, aerial s

urvey

constr

uction, aerial surveys of breeding pairs of shall be conducted wit

hin a

the following species shall be con

d

ucted 

within develop

ment. 

any area proposed for development. Special Con

ditions in Spe

Special Con

ditions in Spectacled and/or Steller’s Eiders Habitats: 

Eiders Habitats: a. Surveys shall be con

a. Surveys shall be con

d

ucted by the lessee for at least 3 years before a

at least 3 years before authorization of construction, if s

uch con

construction, if s

uch construction is within the USFWS North Slope ei

USFWS North Slope eider survey area and at least 1 year outside thaleast 1 year outside that area. Results of aerial surveys and habitat masurveys and habitat mapping may require additional grou

n

d nest 

additional grou

n

d nest surveys. Spectacled and/or Steller’s eider su

and/or Steller’s eider surveys shall be following accepted BLMconducted following accepted BLM-protocol secon

d week of June. 

during the second week of June. b. If spectacled and/or Sb. If spectacled and/or Steller’s eiders are determi

ned to be prese

determi

ned to be present withi

n t

he propose

d develop

ment area, the 

develop

ment area, the applicant shall consult with the U

S

F

WS and B

with the U

S

F

WS and BLM in the 

desig

n a

nd placement of roads and 

placement of roads and facilities in order to minimize i

mpacts to ne

minimize i

mpacts to nesting and brood- eiders and t

heir preferr

rearing eiders and their preferred habitats. consultation shall addrS

uch consultation s

hall address timing and other temporary m

restrictions and other temporary mitigating construction of perma

n

measures, construction of permanent facilities, of fill, alteration of eideplace

ment of fill, alteration of eider habitat, operations, and introdu

aircraft operations, and introd

uction of high levels. 

noise levels. c. To reduce t

he possibi

c. To reduce t

he possibility of spectacled and/or Steller’s eiders striking 

Steller’s eiders striking above ground utility lines (power and commlines (power and communication), such lines shall either be buried in shall either be buried in access roads, or suspended on vertical ssuspended on vertical support members, to the extent practicable. Sup
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-53 Chapter II: Alternatives extent practical. Support wires associated with with communication to

com

m

u

nication towers, radio a

nten

nas, and and other similar facili

other similar facilities, shall be clearly mar

ked mar

ked along their ent

along their entire length to improve visibility visibility for low flying for low flying birds. S

uch markings s

hall be shall be joi

ntly develop

jointly developed through consultation with with the U

S

F

WS. 

the USFWS. O

verhead power and/or 1. Overhead power or 

communication lines for oil and gas activities may be allowed when will be limited to the followi

ng circumstances. the bou

n

daries of a fa

2. Overhead power or may be allowed when at the specific location bury or con

nect them 

member, or 3. Overhead power or may be allowed when compromised by otherequirement stan

dard 

Area wide.) 

Special Conditions i

n Yel

Habitats:Special Conditions i

n Yellow-billed 

Loon 

Habitats: 

a. Aerial surveys shall 

lessee for at least 3 years before authorizationa. Aerial surveys shall be con

d

ucted by the 

lessee for at least 3 yea

of construction of facilities proposed for of construction of facilitdevelop

ment w

hich are withi

n 1 mile of a lake develop

ment w

hich are 

25 acres or larger in size. These surveys alo

ng 25 acres or larger in siz

shorelines of large lakes shall be con

ducted shorelines of large lake

following accepted BLM protocol during following accepted BLM nesting in late June a

nd during brood rearing in late June and during 

in late A

ugust. Aug

ust. 

b. Should yellow-billed 

design and location of facilities must be suc

h

b. Should yellow-billed loons be present, the

desig

n and location of f

that disturbance is minimized. Accepted that disturbance is minmitigation is a 1-mile buffer around all standar

d mitigation is 

recorded 

nest sites and a minimum 1,625-foot all recorded 

nest sites a

(500-

meter) buffer around the remainder of foot (500-

meter) buffer 

the lake shoreline. Development may be the shoreline. Developmprohibited within buffers or activities curtailed prohibited within buffewhile birds are present. exists. 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-54 Alter

native D ROP E-11 provides greater benefit than Alternatives B and C in minimizing potential impacts to birds and threa

endangered species by requiring lessees to conduct studies of eiders and loons to ensure that facility siting minimizes i

mpacts 

improving the visibility of towers, power lines, and guy wires in a manner that reduces bird collisions. Alternative A stipulations counterpart. 43. The natural drainage patter

n will be E-12 Require

d Operating Procedure identified prior to and maintained during and Objective: Use ecological mapping as a tool to assess 

wildlife habitat before deve

after construction. All permanent structures facilities, to conser

ve important habitat types during develop

ment. constructed adjacent to a bod

y of water, such as Requirement/Standard: An ecological land classification map of the developme

approved road and pipeline crossings, shall be developed before approval of facility construction. T

he map will integrate geom

sited and 

designed to limit erosion from for

m, and vegetation at a scale, level of resolution, a

nd level of positional accu

flooding and wave action (e.g., through use of detailed analysis of development alternati

ves. The map shall be prepared in ti

slope-protectio

n measures). Cross-drainage of ground-based wildlife surveys, if deemed necessary by t

he AO, before appro

structures will be sited, maintained, and location and facility construction. properly abandoned to prevent impou

n

dments

or alteration of local or area-wide hydrology. Gravel str

uctures shall be desig

ned and sited to

minimize the length that is perpendic

ular to

sheet flow. 44. Dewatering during construction s

hall be 

conducted using BMPs. A current list of BMPs will be available from the AO. Examplesinclude the use of splash plates, dewatering points, natural filtration t

hrough vegetation, 

and dewatering during low-water period. 46. Lessees shall minimize the impact ofindustrial development on key wetlands. Key wetlands are those wetlands that are importantto fish, waterfowl, and shorebirds because of their high value or scarcity in the region. Lessees shall identify on a map or aerial photograph the largest surface area, inclu

ding

future expansion areas, within which a facilityis to be sited or an activity is to occur. The AO will consult with federal, state, and NSB regulatory a

nd resource agencies to identify key

wetlands and work with lessees during thedevelopment of operating plans. To minimize impact, the lessee shall avoid siting facilities i

n

the identified wetlands, unless no feasible and prudent alter

native exists. Key wetland types 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-55 Chapter II: Alternatives include but are not limited to fish-bearing lakes

and streams, riparia

n s

hrub, a

nd t

he following

classes described by Bergman et al. (1977): shallow and deep-Arctophila ponds, deep-open 

lakes, basin-complex wetlands, and coastal wetlands. 

Alter

native A Stipulations 4

3, 44, and 4

6 and Alternatives B, C, and D - ROP E-1

2 would be equally effective in minimizing impa

resources and water quality, vegetatio

n, wetlands, birds, and terrestrial m

a

m

m

als, by ensuring that facilities are sited 

of local or area-wide hydrology. 

Preve

nting changes to hydrology will avoid impacts to water resources and water quality, ve

birds and terrestrial mam

mals that use the area habitats. Stipulation 43 and ROP E-12 would be equally effective in mitigati

vegetation by requiring development of an ecological land classification map or facility site pla

n t

hat reduces i

mpacts to vegetat

ROP E-12 would be equally effective in mitigating impacts to wetlands, birds, terrestrial mammals, and end

angered and t

subsistence use, sociocultural systems, and public health by req

uiring development of an ecological land classification map 

that reduces the amou

nt of i

mportant habitat types that mig

ht be impacted by development. Conser

ving important habitat type

to the endangered species (eiders), terrestrial mammals, birds, and subsistence use of these habitats and species. Minimsubsistence translates directly to avoidance of sociocult

ural systems and public health impacts. 

74. Lessees shall con

d

uct a c

ultural and 

paleontological resources s

urvey prior to a

n

y

ground-disturbing activity. Upon finding a

ny 

potential cultural or paleontological resource, the lessee or their designated representative shall notify the AO and suspend all operations in the immediate area of such discover

y u

ntil written

authorization to proceed is issued by the AO. 

E-13 Required 

Operating Proce

dure 

Objective: Protect c

ultural and paleontological resources. 

Requirement/

Stan

dard: Lessees shall conduct a cultural and paleontological res

any ground-dist

urbing activity. Upon finding a

ny potential cultural or paleontol

lessee or their designated representative shall notify the A

O and suspen

d all ope

im

mediate area of such discovery until written authorization to proceed is iss

ue

Paleontological resource protection addressed in NEPA review of proje

Alternative A Stipulation 74 and Alternatives B, C, and D ROP E-1

3 woul

d provide equal benefit in red

ucing pote

ntial impacts to cu

paleontological resources by requiring s

urveys for these resources and authorizatio

n of the AO before con

d

ucting an

y grou

n

d-dis

Additionally, if the survey was to miss such resources and they were discovered during construction, the AO must be notified and prbe set in motion. 

USE O

F AIRCRAFT FOR PERMITTED A

CTIVITIES 

53. Helicopter overflights for BLM-per

mitted F-1 Required Operating Procedure F-1 Required Operating Pr

activities shall be suspended in the Goose Objective: Minimize the effects of low-flying Objective: Minimize the effMolting LUEA from 

June 15 through August 20. aircraft on wildlife, traditional subsistence aircraft on wildlife, traditio

activities, a

nd local communities. activities, a

nd local commu

55. Aircraft shall maintain an altit

ude of at least 

Requirement/

Stan

dard: The lessee shall ensure Requirement/

Stan

dard: Th

1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) (except for that aircraft used for permitted activities that aircraft used for permtakeoffs and landings) over caribou winter 

maintain altitudes according to the following altitudes according to the f

ranges from October 1 through May 15 an

d 2,000 guidelines: feet AGL over the Teshekpu

k Lake Caribou a. Aircraft shall maintain 

Habitat LU

E

A from May 16 through July 31, a. Aircraft shall maintain an altit

ude of at least 1,500 feet above ground l
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-56 USE O

F AIRCRAFT FOR PERMITTED A

CTIVITIES 

unless doing so would enda

nger human life or 

violate safe flying practices. 56. Aircraft shall maintain an altit

ude of at least 

1,500 feet AG

L when within 1⁄2 mile of cliffs 

identified as raptor nesting sites from April 15through August 5, unless doing so would endanger human life or violate safe flying practices. Aircraft shall maintain an altitude of 1,500 feet AGL when within 1⁄2 mile of known gyrfalcon nest sites from March 15 to 

April 15. 

Permittees shall obtain infor

mation from 

B

LM 

necessary to pla

n flight routes near gyrfalcon 

nests. 

1,500 feet above ground level (AGL) when within 1⁄2 mile of cliffs identified as raptor nesting sites from April 15 through August 15and within 1⁄2 mile of known gyrfalcon nest sites from 

March 15 to August 15, u

nless doing so

would endanger huma

n life or violate safe flying 

practices. Per

mitees shall obtain infor

mation

from the BLM necessary to pla

n flight routes

when routes may go near falcon nests. b. Aircraft shall maintain an altit

ude of at least 

1,000 feet A

GL (except for takeoffs an

d

lan

dings) over caribou winter ranges fro

m

October 1 through May 1, u

nless doing so would 

endanger human life or violate safe flying practices. Caribou 

wintering areas will be 

defined annually by the AO. c. The number of takeoffs and lan

dings to 

support oil an

d gas operations with necessar

y

materials and supplies should be limited to the maximum extent possible. During the desig

n of 

propose

d oil a

n

d gas facilities, larger landi

ng 

strips and storage areas should be considered soas to allow larger aircraft to be employed, resulting in fewer flights to the facility. d. Use of aircraft, especially rotary wing aircraft, near known subsistence camps and cabins orduring sensitive s

ubsistence hunting periods 

(spring goose hunting and fall caribou and moose hunting) s

hould be kept to a minimum. 

e. Aircraft used for permitted activities s

hall 

maintain an altitude of at least 2,000 feet AGL (except for takeoffs and landings) over the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area (Map 2­2) from May 20 through Aug

ust 20, unless

doing so would endanger human life or violate safe flying practices. Aircraft use (includingfixed wing and helicopter) by oil and gas lessees in the Goose Molting Area (Map 2-2) should be minimized from May 20 through 

1⁄2 mile of cliffs identified from April 15 through Aumile of known gyrfalcon nto August 15, u

nless doin

human life or violate safe Permitees shall obtain innecessary to pla

n flight r

go near falcon nests. b. Aircraft shall maintain 1,000 feet AG

L (except fo

over caribou winter rangthrough May 1, unless dohuman life or violate safe Caribou wintering areas by the AO. The AO will Alaska Department of Fiannually defining caribou c. Land 

user s

hall s

ubmi

part of an oil and gas exdevelopment proposal. Tstrategies to minimize imhunting a

nd associated a

not limited to the numbeaircraft, a

nd flight altitu

shall also include a plan Proposed aircraft use plaby appropriate Federal, agencies. Consultations agencies will be required disturbance is identified Adjustments, i

nclu

ding p

all flights, may be requirresulting disturbance is u

nacceptable. The numb

lan

dings to support oil an

necessary materials and limited to the maximum the desig

n of proposed oi

larger lan

ding strips and 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-57 Chapter II: Alternatives USE O

F AIRCRAFT FOR PERMITTED A

CTIVITIES 

August 20, u

nless doing so would endanger 

human life or violate safe flying practices. 

considered so as to allow employed, resulting in fed. Use of aircraft, especianear known subsistence cduring sensitive s

ubsiste

(spring goose hunting anhunting) s

hould be kept t

e. Aircraft used for permimaintain an altitude of a(except for takeoffs and lTes

hekpuk Lake Caribou 

from May 20 through Auwould endanger huma

n l

practices. Aircraft use (inhelicopter) by oil and gas Molting Area (Map 2-2) sfrom May 20 through Auwould endanger huma

n l

practices. 

Alternative A – Stipulation 53 and Alternatives B, C and D – ROPs F-1 provide the same and equal benefit in effectively reducing i

m

terrestrial mammals, end

angered and threatened s

pecies, subsistence, and public health use by limiting the number of he

take-offs during critical perio

ds (peak waterfowl nesting/molting period) in the Goose Molting Area. Helicopter flights have been sho

and situations to disturb wildlife. A reduction in the number of flights should provi

de a conco

mitant reduction in wildlife disturbanc

stipulations are targeted at reducing impacts to geese in this i

mportant area, they should result in similar reductions in potential i

m

species as well as the subsistence activities associated with t

hese wildlife species . 

Alternative A – Stipulation 55 and Alternatives B, C, and D – ROPs F-1(b) and (e) provide the same and equal benefit in effectively r

birds, terrestrial mammals, endangered and threatened species, an

d subsistence use by establis

hing a minim

u

m altitude 

flown over caribou winter range (1,000 ft) during winter and over the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou 

Habitat Area (2,000 ft) during the ca

Approximately the same time periods apply in all the above-referenced stipulations and ROPs and are designed to coincide 

with car

calving. Stu

dies have shown that wildlife 

disturbance ten

ds to diminish with altitude, therefore holding aircraft flig

hts to 

mini

m

u

m 

impacts. While these stipulations are targeted at reducing i

mpacts to caribou in these i

mportant areas, they should result in similar 

impact to other sensiti

ve wildlife species as well as t

he subsistence activities a

n

d public 

health associated 

with these 

wildlife spe

Alternative A – Stipulation 56 and Alternatives B, C, and D – ROPs F-1(a) provide equal benefit in effectively red

ucing impacts to 

mammals, endangered and threatened species, and subsistence use by establishing a minimum altitude (1,500 ft) that airwhen within 1⁄2 mile of gyrfalcon nests or cliffs identifie

d as raptor nest sites, during the nesting period. The identified nesting pe

the same for each of the identified stipulations a

nd ROPs. Studies have s

hown that wildlife disturbance tends to diminis

h with a

therefore holding aircraft flights to minimu

m altitudes wit

hin certain distances s

hould reduce a

ny potential impacts. While t

hese 

targeted at reducing impacts to gyrfalcons a

nd other raptors at t

heir nesting sites, t

hey s

hould res

ult in similar reductions in pot
1998 Northeast IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alternative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required Operating Procedures for 

Alternative B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required Operatin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-58 USE OF AIRCRAFT FOR PERMITTED ACTIVITIES sensitive wildlife species in the area as well as the subsistence activities and public health associated with these wildlife spec

Alternatives B, C, and D—ROP F-1(c) and (d) provide equal benefit by reducing disturbance to birds, terrestrial mammals, enthreatened species, and subsistence use and public health by encouraging limiting the number of aircraft take offs and lan

extent possible and encouraging that use of aircraft near known subsistence camps and cabins during sensitive subsistence huntminimum. Alternative A stipulations have no direct counterpart. OILFIELD ABANDONMENT 58. Upon field abandonment or expiration of a lease or oil- and gas-related permit, all facilities shall be removed and sites rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the AO, in consultation with appropriate federal, state, and NSB regulatory and resource agencies. The AO may determine that it is in the best interest of the public to retain some or all of the facilities. Lessees shall comply with all exploration and development bonding 

required by law and regulation (43 CFR 3154.1 and 3134.1). No exceptions shall be granted to this provision. 

G-1 Lease StipulationObjective: Ensure the final disposition of the land meets the current and future needs of the public. Requirement/Standard: Upon abandonment or expiration of the lease, all oil- and gas-related facilities shall be removed and sites rehabilitated to as near the original condition as practicable, subject to the review of the AO. The AO may determine that it is in the best interest of the public to retain some or all facilities. 

G-1 Lease StipulationObjective: Ensure the final meets the current and futuRequirement/Standard: Up

expiration of the lease, all facilities shall be removed to as near the original condsubject to the review of the determine that it is in the public to retain some or all Goose Molting Area, the Ait is in the best interest of tfacility, will consider the immolting geese and goose m

Alternative A – Stipulation 58 and Alternatives B, C, and D – Lease Stipulation G-1 provide equal benefits in the avoidance and minimpacts to vegetation, water resources, water quality, and estuarine water quality, by mandating the removal of all or mos

and rehabilitation of the sites after abandonment or expiration of the lease. Removal of facilities and rehabilitation of the site should of petroleum releases from abandoned facilities that could negatively affect soils, water quality and water resources, and restore any drainage patterns that could affect water resources. The rehabilitation should eventually permit or accelerate the return of natural however the effectiveness is considered moderate as some gravel may be left in place, and because in some areas rehabilitation may vegetation type. 

SUBSISTENCE CONSULTATION FOR PERMITTED ACTIVITIES 

26. Exploratory drilling is prohibited within H-1 Required Operating Procedure H-1 Required Operating 1,200 feet of any known, long-term cabin or Objective: Provide opportunities for participation Objective: Provide opportucampsite, identified by the AO, without written in planning and decision making to prevent planning and decision makpermission of the AO. The AO’s decision will be unreasonable conflicts between subsistence uses unreasonable conflicts betwinformed by the consultation process described in and oil and gas and related activities. and oil and gas and related Stipulation 61. Requirement/Standard: Lessee/permitee shall Requirement/Standard: Op

consult directly with affected communities using be prohibited within a min

47. Permanent oil and gas facilities are 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

SUBSISTENCE CONSULTATIO

N FOR PERMITTED A

CTIVITIES

 2-59 Chapter II: Alternatives prohibited within 1 

mile of k

nown long-term the following guidelines: mile arou

n

d cabins and ca

cabins or long-term campsites, i

dentified by the by the NSB’s official in

ven

a. 

Before submitting an application to the B

L

M, AO, except that pipelines an

d roads are allowed agreement between the op

the applicant shall consult with directly affected 

up to 1⁄4 mile from such cabins or campsites. The cabin/campsite users/owne

subsistence communities, the N

SB, and the AO's decision will be infor

med by the Nation shall consult directly with 

al Petroleum Reserve - Alaska 

consultation process described in Stipulation 61 using the following guideli

Subsistence A

d

visor

y Panel to disc

uss the siting, 

59. During exploration, development, and timing and methods of proposed operations. a. 

Before submitting an a

production, the lessee shall develop and Through this consultation, the applicant shall the applicant shall consuimplement a plan, approved by the AO in make every reasonable effort, including such subsistence communitiesconsultation with the Research a

nd Monitoring mec

hanisms as conflict avoidance agreements National Petroleum Rese

Tea

m and the Subsistence A

d

visory 

Panel, to and 

mitigating measures, to ens

ure that

A

d

visory Panel to discuss 

monitor the effects of activities on subsistence. proposed activities will not result in methods of proposed operThe lessee shall provide bian

n

ual reports to unreasonable interference with subsistence consultation, the applican

BLM, the Research a

nd Monitoring Team, and activities. reasonable effort, includi

the Subsistence Advisory Panel. conflict a

voidance agreem

b. The applicant shall submit documentation of 

measures, to ens

ure that 

consultation efforts as part of its operations 60. Lessees shall not u

nreaso

nably restrict not result in u

nreasonab

plan. Applicants should submit the proposed access by subsistence users in oil field subsistence activities. plan of operations to provide an adequate time develop

ment areas. 

for review and comment by the National b. The applicant shall sub

a. Lessees shall establish procedures for Petroleum Reserve - Alaska Subsistence consultation efforts as paentrance to facilities, the 

use of roads, and 

A

d

visory Panel a

nd to allow time for formal Applicants should submi

firear

ms disc

harge. These procedures shall be Government-to-Government consultation with operations to provide an 

developed in consultation with affected local Native Tribal governments. The applicant shall and com

ment by the Nat

communities, NSB, a

nd the Subsistence 

submit doc

u

mentation of its consultation efforts - Alaska S

ubsistence A

dv

Advisory Panel and be approved by the AO. In and a written plan that shows how its activities, time for for

mal Governm

cases where the lessee and the Panel disagree, in combination with other activities in the area, consultation with Native the AO will deter

mine the appropriate will be scheduled and located to prevent The applicant shall subm

procedure. unreasonable conflicts with subsistence consultation efforts and a b. Lessees shall develop and distribute activities. Operations plans must inclu

de a shows how its activities, 

infor

mation about how to con

duct s

ubsistence discussion of the potential effects of the other activities in the are

activities in de

velopment areas safely (so proposed operation, and the proposed operation located to prevent unreas

equipment is not damaged and people are not in combination with other existing or reasonably subsistence activities. 

Op

endangered) to the communities through public foreseeable operations. include a 

discussion of th

meetings, newsletters, radio, and signs in both c. A subsistence plan addressing the following proposed operation, and English and In

upiaq. items must be submitted: in combination with othe

1. A detailed description of the activity(ies) to foreseeable operations. 61. Exploration and development and production take place (including the use of aircraft and operations shall be con

d

ucted in a man

ner t

hat c. A subsistence plan add

vessels). prevents unreasonable conflicts between the oil items must be submitted2. A description of how the lessee/per

mitee will and gas industry and subsistence activities. 1. A detailed descriptio
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

SUBSISTENCE CONSULTATIO

N FOR PERMITTED A

CTIVITIES

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-60 Prior to submitting an exploration pl minimize and/or deal with an

y potential take place (including th

an or 

impacts identified by the AO during the vessels). development and production plan (incl

uding consultation process. 2. A description of how 

associated oil-spill contingency plans) to the BLM 3. A detailed description of the monitoring minimize and/or deal w

, the lessee shall consult with potentially effort to take place, including process, impacts identified by th

affected s

ubsistence com

munities (e.g., Barrow,

Nu procedures, personnel involved and points of consultation process. iqsut, Atqasuk, or Anaktu

v

uk Pass), NSB, contact both at the wor

k site and in the local 3. A detailed descriptio

and the Subsistence Advisor

y Panel to discuss community. effort to take place, incl

potential conflicts with the siting, timing, and methods of proposed oper 4. Communication elements to provide procedures, personnel i

ations and safeg

uards 

infor

mation on how the applicant will keep contact both at the wor

or mitigating measures that could be 

potentially affected in

dividuals and community. implemented by the operator to prevent communities up-to-date on the progress of the 4. Communication elem

unreasonable conflicts. Through this 

activities and locations of possible, short-ter

m infor

mation on how the 

consultation, the lessee shall make every conflicts (if an

y) with subsistence activities. potentially affected in

d

reasonable effort, including s

uch mecha

nisms 

Com

m

unication methods could i

nclude holding communities up-to-date 

as a conflict avoidance agreement, to e

nsure

that exploration, developme

nt, and production community meetings, open house meetings, activities and locations 

wor

kshops, newsletters, radio and television conflicts (if an

y) with su

activities are compatible with subsistence announcements, etc. 

Com

m

unication metho

hunting, fis

hing, a

nd other subsistence 5. Procedures necessary to facilitate access by community meetings, o

activities and will not res

ult in unreasonable 

subsistence users to con

duct their activities. wor

kshops, newsletters

interference with subsistence harvests. announcements, etc. A disc

ussion of resolutions reac

hed during this In the event that no agreement is reached 5. Procedures necessary 

consultation process, specific conflict avoidance between the parties, the AO shall consult with the subsistence users to conagreement(s), and plans for contin

ued directly involved parties and determine which 

consultation s

hall be included in the permit activities will occur, including t

he timeframes. In the event that no 

application, exploration plan, or the During development, monitoring plans must be between the parties, the Adevelopment and production plan. In particular, established for new per

manent facilities, directly invol

ved parties 

the lessee shall show in the plan how its inclu

ding pipelines, to assess an appropriate activities will occur, inc

activities, in combination with other activities range of potential effects on resources and During development, moin the area, will be scheduled and located to subsistence as determined on a case-by-case basis established for new prevent unreasonable conflicts with subsistence given the nature and location of the facilities. The including pipelines, to activities. 

Lessees also shall include a scope, intensity, and duration of such plans will range of potential effe

disc

ussion of multiple or simultaneous be established in consultation with the AO a

nd subsistence as deter

mined 

operations, such as exploration and delineation Subsistence A

d

visor

y Panel. given the nature and loca

well drilling and seismic activities, that can be scope, intensity, and durexpected to occur during operations to more be established in consultaccurately assess the potential for any 

S

ubsistence Advisory Pan

cumulative effects. Communities, individ

uals, Permittees t

hat propo

and other e

ntities who were invol

ved i

n the equipment, supplies, or ot

consultation shall be identified in the in support of oil and gas a
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

SUBSISTENCE CONSULTATIO

N FOR PERMITTED A

CTIVITIES

 2-61 Chapter II: Alternatives application or plan. The AO shall send a copy of area s

hall notify, confer, 

the exploration plan or development and Alaska Eskimo Whaliproduction plan (including associated oil-spill­ appropriate local com

mu

contingenc

y plans) to the potentially affected associations, and the NS

communities, the NSB, a

nd the Subsistence from the proposed barging 

Advisor

y Panel at the time they are sub

mitted activities. 

to t

he BLM to allow concurrent review a

nd 

comment as part of the plan approval process. In the event no agreement is reached between the parties, the AO shall consult with representatives from the subsistence communities, S

ubsistence Advisory Panel, NSB, 

and the lessee(s) to specifically address theconflict and attempt to resol

ve the issues before

making a final determination on the a

dequacy 

of the measures taken to prevent unreasonableconflicts with subsistence har

vests. 

The lessee shall notify the AO of all concerns expressed by subsistence users duringoperations and of steps taken to address such concerns. Lease-related use will be restricted, when the AO determines it is necessary to prevent unreasonable conflicts with local subsistence hunting, fis

hing, a

nd other 

subsistence activities. In enforcing t

his stipulation, the AO will work 

with other agencies and the public to assurethat potential conflicts are identified and effortsare taken to avoid these conflicts, e.g., planningseismic operations to avoid traditional land usesites and allotments. These efforts may includeseasonal drilling restrictions, seismic restrictions, and 

directional drilling

requirements or use of other technologiesdeemed appropriate by the AO. The consultation process described in this stipulation will also be required of applicants forgeoph

ysical (i.e. seismic) per

mits to address 

potential conflicts with the setback requirements 
1998 Northeast IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alternative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required Operating Procedures for 

Alternative B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required Operatin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-62 SUBSISTENCE CONSULTATION FOR PERMITTED ACTIVITIES for cabins and campsites described in Stipulation 23. This consultation will help provide information to the AO on the advisability of modifying or waiving the restriction on seismic activity identified in Stipulation 23. 62. The following subsistence, wildlife habitat, and traditional/cultural land use areas are of significant concern to local communities and will be given special consideration during the consultation process outlined in Stipulation 61: a. Long-term cabins and campsites: a 2­ mile zone around the cabins and campsites. b. Ikpikpuk River: a 2-mile zone from the east bank of the river. c. Miguakiak River: a 3-mile zone from each bank of the river. d. Fish Creek: (1) a 3-mile zone from each 

bank downstream from Sec. 31. T. 11 N., R. 1 E. U.M.; (2) a 2-mile zone from each bank in and upstream from Sec. 31, T. 11 N., R. 1 E. U.M. e. Judy Creek: a 2-mile zone from each bank of the creek. f. Kogosukruk River: a 2-mile zone from each 

bluff (or bank if there is no bluff) of the river (including the four tributaries off the southernbank) downstream from T. 2 N., R. 3 W., U.M. g. Kikiakrorak River: a 2-mile zone fromeach bluff (or bank if there is no bluff) of theriver downstream from T. 2 N, R. 4 W., U.M. h. Colville River: a 2-mile zone from the westbluff (or bank if there is no bluff) extending the length of river in the Colville River Raptor, Passerine, and Moose LUEA.

In addition, a permitee or lessee engaged in oil and gas related activity shall consult with the BLM, USFWS, ADFG, and the NSB regarding 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-63 Chapter II: Alternatives SUBSISTENCE CONSULTATIO

N FOR PERMITTED A

CTIVITIES 

wildlife concerns prior to s

ubmitting a

geophysical (i.e. seismic) per

mit, exploration 

plan, or development and protection plan involving activity 

within the 2-mile zones around 

the Kogosukr

u

k (an

d its tributaries), 

Kikia

krorak, and Colville rivers described above. 

In the event that the per

mitee or lessee an

d the 

agencies are u

nable to reach agreement on steps 

necessary to address wildlife concerns, the AO will consult with the other agencies and the permitee or lessee before making a determination on the adequac

y of the measures 

taken to prevent conflicts with wildlife. 64. Lessees shall con

d

uct an in

ventor

y of k

nown

tra

ditional lan

d use sites prior to any field 

activit

y. T

his inventory will be compiled from

sites listed in the most current Traditional Land Use Inventory available from the NSB's Inupiat Histor

y, Language, and Cultural Co

m

mission, 

and shall be approved by the AO. 

Based on this

in

ventor

y, the lessee shall de

velop a plan to

avoid these sites and mitigate any potentialdamage that could result fro

m field activities. 

The plan shall in

dicate how access to the site by

local subsistence users will be provide

d. Lessees 

shall s

ubmit copies of t

he plan to B

LM and the 

Subsistence A

d

visory 

Panel with an

y application

for per

mit to drill. 

Alternative A – Stipulations 26 and 47 would be more effective than Alter

natives B, C, and D – ROP H-1 in preventing unreasonable 

subsistence activities and explorator

y drilling and some permanent oil and gas facilities near cabins and campsites. 

T

he ROP H-1 

activity to occur at closer distances to cabins or campsites than would occur u

n

der Stipulations 26 and 47. Alternative A – Stipula

more effective than 

Alternatives B, C, and D—ROP-H-1 in reducing impacts to traditional land 

use sites by assuring that such site

during oil and gas activity plan

ning and that local subsistence users access is provided. Stipulations 26, 47, 62, and 64 and ROP H

impacts on subsistence harvest patterns and would red

uce impacts to sociocultural systems an

d public health as well as a

environment

al justice concerns by providing opportunities for local participation in planning and decisionmaking. 

Alternative A – Stipulations 59, 60, and 61 and Alternatives B, C, and D – ROP H-1(c) provide equal benefits in the avoidance a

nd m

impacts to subsistence harvest patterns, sociocultural systems, an

d public healt

h as well as address environ

mental just

man

dating that lessees consult with subsistence users, and develop and implement a plan to prevent u

nreasonable conflicts betwe

oil and gas related activities. The plan must provide procedures that facilitate access by subsistence users, and provide follow-up m
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-64 SUBSISTENCE CONSULTATIO

N FOR PERMITTED A

CTIVITIES 

the effectiveness. 

23. Seismic work is prohibited within 1,200 feetof any known, long-term cabin or campsite, identified by the AO, without the written permission of the AO. The AO's decision will be infor

med by the consultation process described in 

Stipulation 61. 61. (last paragraph only provided here) T

he 

consultation process described in this stipulationwill also be required of applicants for geoph

ysical 

(i.e. seismic) permits to address potential conflicts with the setback requirements for cabins and campsites described in 

Stipulation 

23. T

his consultation will help provi

de 

infor

mation to the AO on the advisability of 

modifying or waiving the restriction on seismic activit

y i

dentified in Stipulation 23. 

62. T

he following s

ubsistence, wildlife habitat,

and traditional/cultural lan

d use areas are of

significant concern to local communities and will be given special consideration during the consultation process outline

d in Stipulation 61: 

a. Long-term cabins and campsites: a 2­

mile zone arou

n

d the cabins and campsites. 

b. Ikpikpuk River: a 2-mile zone from the east bank of the river. c. Miguakiak River: a 3-mile zone from each bank of the river. d. Fish Creek: (1) a 3-mile zone from each 

bank downstream from Sec. 31. T. 11 N., R. 1 E. U.M.; (2) a 2-mile zone from each bank in and 

upstream from Sec. 31, T. 11 N., R. 1 E. 

U.M. e. 

J

u

d

y Creek: a 2-mile zone from each bank 

of the creek. f. Kogosu

kruk River: a 2-mile zone from each 

bluff (or bank if there is no bluff) of the river 

H-2 Required Operating ProcedureObjective: Prevent unreasonable conflicts between 

subsistence activities and geoph

ysical (seismic) 

exploration.Requirement/

Stan

dard: In addition to the 

consultation process described above for per

mitted 

activities, before applying for per

mits to con

d

uct 

geophysical (seismic) exploration, the applicant shall consult with local com

munities and 

residents. 

H-2 Required Operating Objective: Prevent unreasosubsistence activities and gexploration. Requirement/Stand

ard: 

consultation process descrpermitted activities, beforto conduct geophysical (seapplicant shall consult witand residents and 2.) notifRescue organizations of cuseismic surveys. For the pa potentially affected cabinany camp or campsite witharea subject to proposed gand/or within 1 mile of actroutes used to supply the it is in operation. 

• Because of the large la

typical geophysical opepotential to i

mpact a l

subsistence users duriseason, the permittee/writing all potentially cabin and camp users. 

• The official recognized 

campsite users is the Ncabins and campsites. 

• A copy of the notificat

potentially affected usprovided to the office oNative Tribal gover

n

m

• The AO will prohibit s

mile of any known, loncampsite u

nless an alt

between the cabin/camreached thro

ugh the co

presented to the AO. (
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

SUBSISTENCE CONSULTATIO

N FOR PERMITTED A

CTIVITIES 

(including the four trib

utaries off the southern

bank) downstream from T. 2 N., R. 3 W., U.M. g. Kikiakrorak River: a 2-mile zone from each bluff (or bank if there is no bluff) of theriver downstrea

m from T. 2 N, R. 4 W., U.M. 

h. Colville River: a 2-

mile zone from the west 

bluff (or bank if there is no bluff) extending the length of river in the Colville River Raptor, Passerine, and Moose L

UEA. 

In addition, a permitee or lessee engaged in oiland gas related activity shall consult with theBLM, USFWS, ADFG, and the NSB regarding wildlife concerns prior to sub

mitting a 

geophysical (i.e. seismic) permit, explorationplan, or development and protection planinvolving activity within the 2-mile zones around the Kogos

ukruk (and its tributaries), 

Kikia

krorak, and Colville rivers described 

above. In the event that the permitee or lesseeand the agencies are u

nable to reac

h agreement 

on steps necessar

y to address wildlife concerns, 

the AO will consult with the other agencies an

d

the permitee or lessee before making a determination on the adequacy of the measures taken to prevent conflicts with wildlife. 

consultation outcome, wintertime seismic woknown long-term cabin 

• The permittee shall n

local Search and Rescuand Resc

ue, Atqasuk S

their current operationNPR-A on a weekly bashould include a map iextent of surface use aas areas previously uscourse of the operation purpose of this notificaup-to-date information seismic exploration is occurred, so t

hat t

hey 

trips a

nd access routes 

Identification of the apRescue offices to be cofrom the NPR-A Subsi

Alternative A – Stipulations 23, 61, and 62 and Alternatives B, C, and D – ROPs H-2 provi

de some mitigation for potential impacts t

patterns and sociocultural systems and public health. Subsistence operations can disturb and potentially displace (temporarily

and therefore disrupt subsistence activities, therefore restriction or minimization of seismic operations in proxi

mity to subsistence c

and avoid so

me potential impacts to subsistence. Stipulation 23 (Alternative A) may be more effective in providing additional protec

seismic operations within 1,200 ft of known cabins, whereas ROP H2 only requires notification of owners of cabins within 1,200 ft. 

the seismic progra

m under either stipulation. 

 2-65 Chapter II: Alternatives 

O

RIENTATIO

N PR

O

G

R

A

M

S AS

S

O

CIAT

ED 

WIT

H PE

R

MITTED 

A

C

TIVITIES 

63. the lessee s

hall include in any application for 

permit to drill a proposed orientation program for all personnel involve

d in exploration or 

develop

ment and pro

duction activities (incl

uding 

I-1 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Minimize cultural and resource conflicts. Requirement/

Stan

dard: All personnel involved in 

I-1 Required Operating Objective: Mini

mize c

ult

ur

Requirement/

Stan

dard: Al

oil and gas and related act
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

O

RIENTATIO

N PR

O

G

R

A

M

S AS

S

O

CIAT

ED 

WIT

H PE

R

MITTED 

A

C

TIVITIES 

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-66 personnel of lessee's agents, contractors, and oil and gas and related activities shall be provided infor

mation concerning app

subcontractors) for review and approval by the infor

mation concerning applicable stipulations, ROPs, stan

dards, and spec

AO. The program shall be desig

ned in sufficient ROPs, stan

dards, and specific types of environmental, social, trad

detail to inform individuals working on the environmental, social, traditional, a

n

d cultural concerns that relate to the 

project of specific types of environmental, social, concerns that relate to the region. The lessee/per

mitee shall ensur

and cultural concerns that relate to the pla

nning lessee/per

mitee shall ensure that all person

nel involved in per

mitted activ

area. The program shall address the importance involved in per

mitted activities shall attend an orientation program at lea

of not disturbi

ng archaeological and biological orientation program at least o

nce a year. The proposed orientation progr

resources a

nd habitats, inclu

ding endangered proposed orientation program shall be submitted the AO for review and appr

species, fisheries, bird colonies, and marine to the AO for review and approval and should: a. provide sufficient detamammals and provide guidance on how to avoid a. provide sufficient detail to notify personnel of applicable stipulations a

n

disturbance. G

uidance shall i

nclu

de the applicable stipulations a

nd ROPs as well as infor

m individ

uals wor

ki

production and distribution of information cards infor

m individ

uals wor

king o

n the project of specific types of en

viron

m

on endangere

d and/or threate

ned species in the specific types of en

viron

mental, social, and cultural concerns tha

planning area. The program shall be designed to tra

ditional and cultural concerns that relate to b. 

Address the importanc

increase sensitivity a

nd understanding of the region. archaeological and biolog

personnel to com

m

u

nity values, customs, and b. 

Address the importance of not disturbing habitats, inclu

ding endan

lifestyles in areas in which personnel will be

archaeological and biological resources and bir

d colonies, and marine 

operating. The orientation program shall also habitats, inclu

ding endangered species, guidance on how to avoid 

include information concerning a

voidance of fisheries, bird colonies, and marine mam

mals, conflicts c. Include guidance on th

with subsistence, com

mercial fis

hing and provide guidance on how to avoid activities, and pertinent mitigation. production, and distribut

disturbance. on endangere

d and/or thr

The program shall be atten

ded at least o

nce a 

c. Include guidance on the preparation, year by all personnel d. Be designed to increas

involved in on-site production, and distribution of information exploration or development and production understa

nding of personn

cards on en

dangered and/or threatened species. activities (including personnel of lessee's customs, and lifestyles in 

agen d. Be designed to increase sensitivity and personnel will be operati

ts, contractors, and subcontractors) and all

supervisory a

nd managerial personnel involved understa

nding of personnel to community e. Inclu

de infor

mation co

values, customs, and lifestyles in areas in w

hich in lease activities of the lessee and its agents, conflicts with subsistence

contractors personnel will be operating. , and subcontractors. Individual activities, and pertinent training is transferable from one facility to e. Inclu

de infor

mation concerning a

voidance of f. Inclu

de infor

mation for 

another except for eleme

nts of the training conflicts with subsistence, com

mercial fis

hing concerning s

ubsistence a

specific to a particular site. activities, and pertinent mitigation. areas/seasons that are paLessees shall maintain a record onsite of all f. Inclu

de infor

mation for aircraft personnel disturbance by low-flying 

person

nel who atten

d the program for so long as concerning s

ubsistence activities a

nd concern is aircraft use ne

the site is active, though not to exceed the 5 most areas/seasons that are partic

ularly sensitive to subsistence cabins and ca

recent years of operations. This record shall disturbance by low-flying aircraft. Of special spring goose hunting and include the name and dates(s) of atten

dance of concern is aircraft use near tra

ditional hunting seasons, and flig

each attendee. subsistence cabins and campsites, flig

hts d

uring communities. 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

O

RIENTATIO

N PR

O

G

R

A

M

S AS

S

O

CIAT

ED 

WIT

H PE

R

MITTED 

A

C

TIVITIES 

65. It is the responsibility of the authorized user to ensure that all individuals brought to the planning area under its a

uspices adhere to these 

stipulations. A

uthorized users of the planning 

area shall provide all employees, contractors,subcontractors, and clients with a briefingregarding stipulations applicable to the lease an

d/or permit. A cop

y of applicable stipulations

will be posted in a co

nspicuous place in each 

work site and campsite. 73. Hu

nting and trapping by lessee's e

mployees, 

agents, and contractors are prohibited whenpersons are on “work status.” Work status is defined as the period during which an individual is under the control and s

upervision of a

n

employer. Wor

k status is ter

minated when the 

in

dividual’s shift en

ds and he/she returns to a 

public airport (e.g., Fairbanks, Barrow, Nuiqsut, or Deadhorse). Use of lessee facilities, equipment, or transport for personnel access or aid in hunting and trapping is prohibited. 

spring goose h

u

nting and fall caribou and 

moose 

hunting seasons, and flights near North Slope communities. g. Provi

de t

hat i

ndividual training is

transferable from one facility to another except for elements of the training specific to a particular site. h. Include on-site records of all personnel w

ho 

atten

d the program for so long as the site is

active, though not to exceed the 5 most recent years of operations. This record shall include the name and dates(s) of atten

dance of each

atten

dee. 

i. Inclu

de a module disc

ussing bear interaction

plans to minimize conflicts between bears and huma

ns. 

g. Provi

de t

hat i

ndividua

from one facility to anoththe training specific to a h. Include on-site records atten

d the program for so 

active, though not to exceyears of operations. This name and dates(s) of atte

i. Include a module discuplans to minimize conflichuma

ns. 

j. Provide a copy of 43 CFCompliance Assessment personnel. 

Alternative A Stipulations 63, 6

5, 73 and 

Alternatives B, C, and D ROP I-1 would be equally effective in reducing the impacts to veg

terrestrial mammals; end

angered and threatened s

pecies; and subsistence species and their users by making person

nel i

n

v

activities more aware of the applicable stipulations and ROPs and their p

urpose. The stipulations should be equally effective in red

bir

ds by provi

ding all personnel with information concerning applicable required operating proce

dures and stipulations, and on the 

disturbing biological resources, habitats, and bird colonies. Personnel would be instructed annually on the req

uired methods of han

which should help avoid the dumping of garbage and other wastes onto the tundra; impacts on visual resources, wild and scenic should therefore be reduced, as well as make oil and gas sites less attractive for predators. 

Without this stipulation a

nd ROP 

we wou

impacts on fish, bir

ds, and terrestrial 

mam

mals and declines in outstan

dingly remarkable values for fish, wildlife and subsistence u

ROP I-1 would also reduce c

ultural conflicts as well as address potential environmental justice and public health concer

ns by p

orientation program for all oil and gas wor

kers in

volved in Plan

ning Area activities in order to minimize c

ultural and resource confli

inhabita

nts. Also, t

he stipulation would include information for aircraft personnel concerning s

ubsistence activities and area/season

sensitive to disturbance by low flying aircraft. In addition to t

he training program required of all oil a

nd gas workers, a mod

ule disc

u

and minimizing conflicts between bears and 

h

u

mans would be inclu

ded. 

 2-67 Chapter II: Alternatives ENDANGERED SPECI

E

S ACT--SECTION 7 CON

S

ULTATIO

N P

ROCESS 

J. The lease areas may 

now or hereafter contain plants, animals, or their habita

threatened, endangered, or to have some other special status. The BLM may rec
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-68 ENDANGERED SPECI

E

S ACT--SECTION 7 CON

S

ULTATIO

N P

ROCESS 

to exploration and developme

nt proposals to further its conservation a

n

d manag

BLM-approved activities that will contribute to the need to list such a species or may require modifications to or disapprove a proposed activity that is likely to rcontinued existence of a propose

d or liste

d threatene

d or e

ndangered species or 

or adverse modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. The BLM wgrou

n

d-disturbing activity that 

may affect an

y such species or critical habitat u

n

obligations under applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act as amseq., including completion of any required procedure for conference or consultati

There is no practical difference in the effectiveness in protecting threatened and endangered species between Alternative A a

Species Act Section 7 consultation process described for Alternatives B through D, because the same process would be required 

u

Alternative A. 

LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 

39. Per

manent oil and gas facilities, inclu

ding 

roads, airstrips, and pipelines, are prohibitedwithin and adjacent to t

he water bodies listed 

below at the distances identified to protect fishand raptor habitat, cultural and paleontologicalresources, and subsistence and other resource values. Setbacks include the bed of the 

water 

body and are measured from the ban

k's highest 

high water mark. 

a. Ikpikpuk River: a 

1⁄2-mile setback from the 

bank of the Ikpikpuk River within the Plan

ning Area (fish, raptors, subsistence, 

cultural, and paleontological resources). 

K-1 Lease Stipulation - RiversObjective: Minimize the disruption of natural flow patter

ns and c

hanges to wate

of natural fu

nctions resulting from the loss or c

hange to vegetative and ph

ysical 

floodplain and riparian areas; the loss of spaw

ning, rearing or over-wintering ha

cultural and paleontological resources; the loss of raptor 

habitat; i

mpacts to sub

campsites; the disr

uption of s

ubsistence activities; and impacts to scenic and oth

Requirement/Standard: 

Permanent oil and gas facilities, including gravel p

and pipelines, are prohibited in the streambed and adjacent to the rivers listed identified. With the exception of the Ikpikpuk River, these setbacks are measuthe river as deter

mined by the hydrology at the time of application. The stand

(from the bank’s hig

hest high water mar

k) and increased to 3⁄4 mile (from the b

water mark) where subsistence cabin and campsites are numerous. Along the 

portion of the Ikpikpuk a 1-mile (from the bank’s hig

hest high water mar

k) se

protect important raptor habitat (for locations along rivers where setback distcase-by case basis, a

nd in consultation with federal, state, a

nd NSB regulatory 

(as appropriate, based on agency legal authority and jurisdictional responsibiland road crossings to the main c

hannel will be permitted through setback area

may not be practical within river deltas. In these situations, permanent facilitwithstand a 200-year flood event. 

b. Ikpikpuk River: a 3⁄4-

mile setback from each 

side of the centerline (11⁄2 miles total) of the Ikpi

kpuk Ri

ver extending from the mouth south 

to Sec. 19, T. 7 N., R. 11 W., U.M. (Umiat Meridian). From 

Sec. 19, T. 7 N., R. 11 W., U.M., 

to Sec. 4, T. 3 N., R. 12 W., U.M., a 1-mile 

b. Ikpikpuk River: a 3⁄4

side of the centerline (11⁄2 Ikpi

kpuk Ri

ver extendin

to Sec. 19, T. 7 N., R. 11 WMeridian). From 

Sec. 19, 

to Sec. 4, T. 3 N., R. 12 W
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 

 2-69 Chapter II: Alternatives setback is required. Begin

ning at Sec. 4, T. 3 N., is required. Beginning at 

R. 12 W., U.M., a 1⁄2-mile setback from the U.M., a 1⁄2-mile setback frcenterline (1 mile total) will be require

d to t

he mile total) will be require

confluence of the Kigalik 

River a

n

d Maybe the Kigalik River and Ma

Creek. Note: 

T

he setback distances only apply to setback distances only ap

the east bank where the Ikpikpuk River is the where the Ikpikpuk RivePlanning Area boundary. bou

n

dar

y. b. Miguakiak River: a 

1⁄2-mile setback from 

c. Miguakiak River: a 

1⁄2-mile setback from the c. Miguakiak River: a 

1⁄2

eac

h bank of t

he Miguakiak River (fish an

d

bank’s highest high water mark. bank’s highest high wate

subsistence resources). 

e. Fish Creek: No permanent oil and gas e. Fish Creek: No perma

d. Fish Creek: (1) a 3-mile setback from each

surface facilities, except esse

ntial transportation facilities, except essentia

bank of Fish Creek 

downstream from Sec. 31, crossings, would be allowed within 3 

miles (from crossings, would be allow

T11 N., R. 1 E.; (2) a 

1⁄2-mile setback from each the ban

k’s highest high water mar

k) of the creek the ban

k’s highest high w

bank of Fish Creek in and upstream from Sec. downstream from the easter

n edge of Sec. 31, T. downstream from the eas

31, T. 11 N., R. 1 E. (fish and subsistence 11 N., R. 1 E., U.M. or within 1⁄2 mile (from the 11 N., R. 1 E., U.M. or wiresources). bank’s highest high water mark) of the creek bank’s highest high wate

farther upstrea

m. farther upstrea

m. 

f. Judy Creek: a 

1⁄2-mile setback from the f. Judy Creek: a 

1⁄2-mile 

e. 

J

u

d

y Creek: a 1⁄2-mile setback from each banks’ highest hig

h water 

mark exten

ding from highest high water mark 

bank of Judy Creek extending from the mouth the mouth to the confluence of an unnamed mouth to the confluence to the confluence of an unnamed trib

utary in tributary in Sec. 8, T8N., R.2W., Umiat in Sec. 8, T8N., R.2W, Um

Sec. 8, T8N., R.2W., Umiat Meridian (fish and Meridia

n. subsistence resources). 

a. Colville River: a 1-m

f. Colville River: a 1-

mile setback from the a. Colville River: a 1-

mile setback from the northern bluff (or bank if 

western bluff (or bank if there is no bluff) of the northern bluff (or bank if there is no bluff) of the Colville River exten

ding 

Colville River exten

ding the length of the river Colville River exten

ding the length of that portion of the river locate

as described in the Colville River 

Raptor, portion of the river located within the Planning Area. Note: The Planning 

Passerine, and Moose L

UEA. This restriction Area. Note: The Planning Area exclu

des Native lan

ds along the lo

does not apply within 11⁄2 miles of the U

miat conveyed Native lands along the lower reaches Colville River. Developm

airstrip (fish, raptor, passerine, moose, of the Colville River. Develop

ment of road inten

ded to support oil an

paleontological, subsistence, scenic, and crossings inten

ded to support oil and gas consolidated with ot

her s

recreational resources). activities shall be consoli

dated wit

h other to the maximum extent p

similar projects and uses to the maxim

u

m provision 

does not apply 

extent possible. Note: This provision does not other per

manent roads co

apply to intercommunity or other permanent funds for general transporoads constr

ucted with public fu

n

ds for general preserves the opportunit
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-70 LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS h. Kikiakrorak River: a 1-mile setback from each bluff (or bank if there is no bluff) of the Kikia

krorak River downstream from T.2 N, R. 

4 W., 

U

miat Meridian (raptor, passerine, and 

moose resources). i. Kogosu

kruk River: a 1-mile setback from 

each bluff (or bank if there is no bluff) of theKogos

ukruk River (including the four 

tributaries off the southern ban

k) downstream 

from T.2 N., R.3W., Umiat Meridian (raptor,passerine, and moose resources). 

On a case-by-case basis, essential pipeline and road crossings will be permitted, in consultation with appropriate federal, state, and N

SB 

regulatory a

nd resource agencies, through 

setback areas in those instances where no other suitable sites are available. 

Stream crossings 

will be sited perpendicular to the main channel flow; lake crossings will be at the narrowest point. Pipeline and road crossings are prohibited in the setback arou

nd Teshekpuk Lake, with no

exceptions. Road crossings are prohibited in the setback adjacent to the Colville River with no exceptions. 

transportation p

urposes. T

his preserves the 

opportunity to pla

n, design, and construct public 

transportation syste

ms to meet the econo

mic, 

transportation, and public 

health and safety

needs of the State of Alaska a

nd/or communities 

within National Petroleum Reser

ve - Alaska. 

d. Kikiakrorak and Kogosukruk Rivers: Note: The following discussion refers only toportions of t

he Kikia

krorak River downstream

from T. 2 N., R. 4 W., U.M. and the Kogosukruk River (including the four tributaries off the southern ban

k) downstream from T. 2 N., R. 3 

W., U.M.. No permanent oil and gas surface facilities, except essential transportation crossings, would be allowed within 1 mile of the top of the bluff (or bank if there is no bluff) oneither side of the rivers and several of the Kogosukr

u

k tributaries. 

g. Tingmiaksiqvik River: No per

manent oil 

and gas surface facilities, except essential transportation crossings, would be allowed within 1⁄2 mile (from the bank’s hig

hest hig

h

water mark) of t

his river from its hea

d

waters

within Sec. 13, T. 7 N., R. 1 W., U.M. downstream to its confluence with Fish Creek. Note: This stipulation applies only toAlternative B. 

construct public transpor

the econo

mic, transporta

and safety 

needs of the S

com

munities within 

Nati

- Alaska. 

d. Kikiakrorak and KoNote: The following discu

portions of t

he Kikia

kror

from T. 2 N., R. 4 W., U.MRiver (including the four southern ban

k) downstre

W., U.M.. No permanent facilities, except essentiacrossings, would be allowtop of the bluff (or bank ieither side of the rivers aKogosukr

u

k tributaries. 

g. Tingmiaksiqvik Rivand gas surface facilitiestransportation crossings, 1⁄2 mile (from the bank’s hof t

his river from its hea

d

T. 7 N., R. 1 W., U.M. dowconfluence with Fish Cre

Alternative A Stipulation 39 would provide less benefit for all the following listed resources and 

uses along the Tingmiaksiqvik Ri

ver 

Alternatives B, C, and D - Lease Stipulation K-1. With this exception Stipulation 39 and K-1 would be equally effective in reducing tdisturbance and erosion and i

mpacts to soil from oil spills by establishing setbac

ks along the major rivers and streams. The same w

avoiding impacts to paleontologic

al and cultural resources found o

n and within the soil, for water resources and water qua

aquatic and riparian areas a

djacent to major rivers and streams. These stipulations would be equally protective of aquatic, floodpla

vegetation and wetlands by protecting aquatic and riparian areas adjacent to major rivers and streams. Stipulation 39 and Lease be equally beneficial to both fresh

water and m

arine fish and fish habitat b

y reducing t

he potential for accidental spills to enter 

in turn could contaminate coastal/marine waters where marine fishes might be i

mpacted. The setbac

ks also would increase the oppo

response and clean

up to occur well before contaminants enter either riverine or coastal/marine fish habitats. Stipulation 39 and Lea

would be eq

ually effective in reducing disturbance of raptors nesting along listed water

ways and other birds occupying a

djacent cor

avoiding destruction of habitats—by prohibiting per

mane

nt oil and gas facilities within established setback zones along listed water
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-71 Chapter II: Alternatives LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS and Lease Stipulation K-1 would be equally effective in reducing impacts to end

angered and threate

ned s

pecies by helping to re

eiders nesting or occupying areas along identified 

waterways, as well as by avoiding destr

uction of 

habitats by prohibiting permanen

within the listed setback areas. Stipulation 39 and Lease Stipulation K-1 would be equally effective in reducing impacts on su

bsist

by specifically identifying the rivers of prime i

mportance to subsistence and defining setback requirements. These setbacks protect a

subsistence pursuits, g

uard against potential sociocultur

al disr

uptions and related public healt

h impacts that then fall under th

environment

al justice. Stipulation 3

9 and Lease Stipulation K-1 would be beneficial to wild and scenic river values by reducin

disturbance to major rivers and streams a

nd for accidental spills to enter riverine waters. 

39. Permanent oil and gas facilities, including roads, airstrips, and pipeli

nes, are prohibited

within and adjacent to the water bodies listedbelow at the distances identified to protect fishand raptor habitat, c

ultural and paleontological 

resources, a

nd s

ubsistence a

nd other resource 

values. Setbacks include the bed of the water body and are measured from the bank's highest hig

h water mar

k. 

g. Deep Water Lakes: a 

1⁄4-mile setback 

around the perimeter of any fish-bearing lakewithin or partially within t

he deep la

ke zone. If

the fish-bearing status of the water body is unknown, the burden is on the lessee to demonstrate w

hether fish are present. 

On a case-by-case basis, essential pipeline and road crossings will be permitted, in consultation with appropriate federal, state, and N

SB 

regulatory a

nd resource agencies, through 

setback areas in those instances where no other suitable sites are available. 

Stream crossings 

will be sited perpendicular to the main channel flow; lake crossings will be at the narrowest point. 

K-2 Lease Stipulation--Deep Water Lakes Objective: Minimize the disruption of natural flow patter

ns and c

hanges to water quality; the 

disruption of natural functions resulting from the loss or cha

nge to vegetative and physical

characteristics of deep water lakes; the loss of spawning, rearing or over wintering habitat forfish; the loss of cultural and paleontological resources; impacts to subsistence cabin an

d

campsites; an

d the disr

uption of subsistence 

activities. Requirement/Standard: Per

manent oil and gas 

facilities, including gravel pads, roads, airstrips, and pipelines, are prohibited on the lake orlakebed and within 1⁄4 mile of the ordinary high water mar

k of any deep lake as deter

mined to be 

in lake zone III (i.e., depth greater than 13 feet [4 meters]; Mellor 1985). On a case-by-case basis, and in consultation with federal, state and NSB regulatory a

nd resource agencies (as appropriate 

based on agency legal authority and jurisdictional responsibility), essential pipeline,road crossings, and other permanent facilities may be per

mitted through or in these areas 

where the lessee can demonstrate on a sitespecific basis t

hat impacts would be minimal or 

if it is determi

ned that there is no feasible or 

prudent alternative. 

K-2 Lease Stipulation--DObjective: 

Minimize the di

patter

ns and c

hanges to w

disruption of natural functloss or cha

nge to vegetative 

characteristics of deep watspawning, rearing or over wfish; the loss of cultural anresources; impacts to subsicampsites; an

d the disr

upt

activities. Requirement/Standard: Gand gas facilities, includinairstrips, and pipelines, aror lakebed and within 1⁄4 mwater mar

k of any deep la

in lake zone III (i.e., depth meters]; Mellor 1985). On consultation with Federalregulatory a

nd resource ag

based on agency legal authresponsibility), essential pcrossings, and other permconsidered through the pethese areas where the lessa site-specific basis that i

m

and if it is determined thaprudent alternative. 

Alter

native A Stipulation 3

9 and Alternatives B, C, and D Lease Stipulation K-2 would be equally effective in reducing the potent

and erosion and impacts to soil from oil spills, and therefore reducing i

mpacts to paleontologic

al and cultural resources by e

along fish-bearing (Alternative A) or deep-water (Alternatives B, C, and D) lakes. The

y would also be equally protective of water 

quality, vegetation, wetla

nds, and fish and fish habitat by protecting aquatic and riparian areas adjacent to deep-water lake
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-72 LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS setbacks along fish-bearing (Alter

native A) or deep-water (Alter

natives B, C, and D) lakes. Stipulation 39 and Lease Stipulation 

effective in reducing disturbance to birds by minimizing the loss of habitat of fish prey of fish-eating birds (e.g., loons, merganseadversely affect the breeding success of these water bird species that use fish-bearing (Alternative A) or deep-water (Alternatives Stipulation 39 and Lease Stipulation K-2 would be equally effective in reducing impacts to endangered and threatened speciedisturbance of eiders nesting or occup

ying areas along identified lakes as well as by a

voiding destr

uction of habitats by prohibiti

n

gas facilities within the listed setback areas. Stipulation 39 and Lease Stipulation K-2 would be equally effective in reducing imp

harvest patterns by specifically identifying t

he rivers of prime importance to s

ubsistence a

nd defining setback requirements. Th

against impe

ding subsistence pursuits, g

uard against potential sociocultural disruptions and related public health impacts th

purview of environmental justice. 

31. Per

manent oil and gas surface occupancy,

including but not limite

d to permanent oil and 

gas facilities, pads, rigs, platforms, gravel

roads, airstrips, pipelines, gravel or other material extraction sites, a

nd exploration and 

delineation drilling facilities are prohibited in the Teshekpuk Lake Surface Protection Area (specifically, T. 13 N., Rs. 3-7 W., U.M.; Secs. 1­6, 8-16, 21-25, 36, T. 13 N., R. 8 W., U.M.; T. 14 N., Rs. 1-2 E. and Rs. 1-8 W., U.M.; Secs. 1-2, 11-14, T. 14 N., R. 9 W., U.M.; T. 15 N., Rs. 2-8 W., U.M.; Secs. 1-3, 7-30, 35-36, T. 15 N., R. 9 W., U.M.; T. 16 N., Rs. 2-8 W., U.M.; Secs. 1-6, 8-17, 21-27, 34-36, T. 16 N., R. 9 W., U.M.; T. 17 N., Rs. 1-9 W., U.M.; and T. 18 N., Rs. 2-8 W., U.M.). No exceptions will be granted to thisstipulation. 39. Permanent oil and gas facilities, including roads, airstrips, and pipeli

nes, are prohibited

within and adjacent to the water bodies listedbelow at the distances identified to protect fishand raptor habitat, c

ultural and paleontological 

resources, a

nd s

ubsistence a

nd other resource 

values. Setbacks include the bed of the water body and are measured from the bank's highest hig

h water mar

k. 

c. Teshekpuk Lake: a 1⁄2-mile setback from the bank and around the perimeter of Teshekpuk Lake (fish and subsistence resources). 

K-3 Stipul

atio

n - Teshekpu

k L

a

ke

Teshekpuk Lake contains sensitive biological resources and/or subsistence concer

ns. The 

standar

d(s) for exploration and development 

activities are set high with the burden of proof resting 

with the lessee to de

monstrate to the AO 

that granting an approval for exploration and/or development is warranted. Objective: Protect fish and wildlife habitat, 

preserve air and water quality, and minimize impacts to traditional subsistence activities and historic travel routes on Teshekpuk Lake. Requirement/

Stan

dard (

Exploration): Requests

for approval of any activities must be submitted inadvance and m

ust be accompanied by evide

nce

and doc

umentation that de

monstrates to the 

satisfaction of the AO that the actions or activities meet all of the following criteria: 

a. Exploration activities will not unreasonably conflict with traditional subsistence uses or sig

nificantly impact seasonally concentrated fish

and wildlife resources. b. There is adequate spill response capability to effectively respond during periods of broken ice and/or open water or, the availability of alter

native methods to prevent well blowouts 

during periods when a

dequate response

capability can

not be demonstrated. Suc

h

alternative methods may include improve

ments 

in blowout pre

vention technology, equipment, 

K-3 Stipulation - Teshe

k

(Note: Teshekpuk Lake (approbe deferred from additional oil Objective: Minimize the di

patter

ns and c

hanges to w

disruption of natural functloss or cha

nge to vegetative 

characteristics of t

his large 

significant deep water lakepaleontological resources; icabins, campsites and assoprotect fish and wildlife haimportant insect relief areaRequirement/

Stan

dard: Pe

facilities, inclu

ding gravel 

and pipelines, are prohibitordinary high water mark alternative procedures will 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-73 Chapter II: Alternatives LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 

O

n a case-by-case basis, essential pipeline and 

road crossings will be permitted, in consultationwith appropriate federal, state, and NSB regulatory and resource agencies, throughsetback areas in those insta

nces w

here no other 

suitable sites are available. Stream crossingswill be sited perpendicular to the main channel flow; lake crossings will be at the narrowestpoint. Pipeline and road crossings are prohibited in the setbac

k arou

n

d Tes

hekpuk 

Lake, with no exceptions. 

and/or changes in operational procedures, and “top-setting” of hydrocarbon-bearing zones. c. Reasonable efforts to avoid or minimize impacts related to oil spill response activities, including vessel, aircraft, a

nd pedestria

n traffic 

will be made to minimize additional impacts orfurther compounding of “direct spill”-relatedimpacts on area resources and subsistence uses. d. The location of exploration and related activities shall be sited so as to 

not pose a 

hazard to navigation by the public using hig

huse traditional subsistence-related travel routes 

on Tes

hekpuk Lake, recognizing t

hat marine

and near-shore travel routes change over time, subject to shifting environ

mental con

ditions. 

Require

ment/Stan

dard (Development): With the 

exception of linear features such as pipelines and causeways, permanent oil and gas platfor

ms or

production equipment would not be permitted on or under the water within 3⁄4 mile of the shoreline, and on land 1⁄4 mile lan

d

ward of the shoreline of 

Teshekpuk Lake. Activities will only be permitted if they can meet all the following criteria: 

a. Design and constr

uction of facilities shall

minimize impacts to traditional subsistence uses, travel corridors, and seasonallyconcentrated fish and wildlife resources. b. Daily operational activities, including use of support vehicles, watercraft, a

nd aircraft traffic, 

alone or in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities, shall beconducted to minimize impacts to traditional subsistence uses, travel corridors, and seasonally concentrated fish and wildlife resources. c. The location of oil and gas facilities, inclu

ding 

artificial isla

n

ds, platfor

ms, associated 

pipelines, ice or other roads, bridges or 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-74 LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 

causeways, shall be sited and constr

ucted so as

to not pose a hazard to navigation by the publicusing traditional high-use subsistence-related travel routes i

nto and through Teshekpuk 

Lake. 

d. Demonstrated year-round oil spill response capability, including the capability of a

dequate

response during perio

ds of broken ice or open

water, or the availability of alternative methods to prevent well blowouts during perio

ds whe

n

adequate response capability cannot bedemonstrated. Suc

h alter

native metho

ds may

include seasonal drilling restrictions, improve

ments in blowout pre

vention technology, 

equipment and/or changes in operational procedures, and “top-setting” of hydrocarbonbearing zones. e. Reasonable efforts will be made to avoid or minimize impacts related to oil spill responseactivities, including vessel, aircraft, and pedestrian traffic that add to impacts or furthercompound “direct spill” related impacts on area resources and subsistence uses. 

Alternative A – Stipulation 31 and Alternatives B, C, and D – Lease Stipulation K-3 provide similar but not equal benefits in an area Teshekpuk Lake and nearby lan

ds. Alternative A Stipulation 31 would be more effective than Lease Stipulation K-3 in protecting so

terrestrial mammals, and endangered and threatened species in Teshekpuk Lake Surface Protection Area because no perma

facilities would be allowed in the T

L

SP Area u

n

der Stipulation 31, but permanent oil and gas facilities would be allowed in the TLS

Stipulation K-3. Lease Stip

ulation K-3 for Alternative D would be more protective than Lease Stipulation K-3 for t

he Alternatives B 

Lake, as the lake would be deferred from leasing under Alternative D, but not for Alternatives B a

nd C. However, ot

her elements of 

Restricted Surface Occupancy restrictions, and/or 

management decisions that make lan

ds available or 

u

navailable to oil and gas lea

means for resource protection. A compariso

n between the effectiveness of Stipulation K-3 for Alternatives B, C, and D, on the one h

for Alternative A on the other is misleading without considering the mitigative effects of other stipulations and ROPs in the former sPlease see Table 2.3 for a disc

ussion regarding the comparison of i

mpacts among alter

natives. 

31. Per

manent oil and gas surface occupancy,

including but not limite

d to permanent oil and 

gas facilities, pads, rigs, platforms, gravel

roads, airstrips, pipelines, gravel or other material extraction sites, a

nd exploration and 

delineation drilling facilities are prohibited in 

K-4 Lease Stipulation - Goose Molting 

Area

Objective: Minimize disturbance to molting geese 

and loss of goose molting habitat in and around lakes in the Goose Molting Area. Requirement/

Stan

dard: In goose molting habitats, 

the following stan

dards will be followe

d for 

K-4 Lease Stipulation - GObjective: Minimize distur

and loss of goose molting hlakes in the Goose Molting Requirement/

Stan

dard (Ge

Goose Molting Area no per
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 

 2-75 Chapter II: Alternatives the Teshekpuk Lake Surface Protection Area permitted activities: facilities, except for pipelin

(specifically, T. 13 N., Rs. 3-7 W., U.M.; Secs. 1­ approximately 240,000 of l

a. Water extraction from any lake used by 6, 8-16, 21-25, 36, T. 13 N., R. 8 W., U.M.; T. 14 mo lavender on Map 2-5. No a

lting geese shall not alter hydrological N., Rs. 1-2 E. and Rs. 1-8 W., U.M.; Secs. 1-2, will be considered. Prior to 

conditions t

hat could adversely affect identified 11-14, T. 14 N., R. 9 W., U.M.; T. 15 N., Rs. 2-8 pipeline in the Goose Molti

goose-feeding habitat along lakeshore margins. W., U.M.; Secs. 1-3, 7-30, 35-36, T. 15 N., R. 9 Con will be convened to determ

siderations will be gi

ven to seasonal use by W., U.M.; T. 16 N., Rs. 2-8 W., U.M.; Secs. 1-6, pipeline construction in eff

operators (generally in winter) a

n

d geese 8-17, 21-27, 34-36, T. 16 N., R. 9 W., U.M.; T. 17 to wildlife and subsistence 

(generally in summer), as well as recharge to N., Rs. 1-9 W., U.M.; and T. 18 N., Rs. 2-8 W., workshop participants will lakes from the spring snowmelt. U.M.). No exceptions will be granted to this limited to 

Federal, State, a

b. From Ma

y 20 t

hro

ugh A

ugust 20 drilli

ng stipulation. In addition, only “In Field” 

other than from current production pads is as part of oil and gas field 

21. The AO, in consultatio

n with appropriate prohibited. The intent of this rule is to restrict Requirement/

Stan

dard (

Ex

federal, state, and NSB regulatory a

nd resource exploration drilling during the period when molting habitat area explo

agencies, may allow water extraction from any geese are present. There are no seasonal limited to te

mporar

y facilit

lake used by molting geese, if it is deter

mined restrictions on develop

ment or exploration roads, and ice airstrips, 

u

n

that the withdrawal is consistent with 

drilling for fields in operation. Stipulation 20 demonstrates t

hat constru

and will not adversely affect

c. Oil and gas exploration and development facilities (outside t

he ident

identified goose-feeding 

habitat along lakeshore 

mar activities will a

void alteration (e.g., damage or Restricted Surface Occupa

gins. An analysis/demonstration of the disturbance of soils, vegetation, or surface gravel airstrips, storage pa

hydrologic functions of the lake(s) under review hydrology) of critical goose-feeding habitat types may be requir is environ

mentally prefera

ed of the lessee by the AO prior to along lakeshore margins (grass/sedge/

moss), as K-11 regarding allowable s

approval of the withdrawal. identified by the AO in consultation with the addition, the following stan53. Helicopter overflights for BLM-permitted USFWS. for per

mitted activities: 

activities shall be suspended in the Goose Molting LUEA from J d. Per

manent oil and gas facilities (including a. From June 15 through 

une 15 through August gravel roads, pads, and airstrips but exclu

ding drilling and associated ac

20. pipelines) and material sites will be sited to The intent of this rule is 54. Fixed-wing aircraft traffic takeoffs and meet the state

d objective. With the exception of drilling during the period 

lan

ding for B

LM-per

mitted activities in the linear features such as pipelines and causeways, present. Plan

ning Area shall be limited to an average of per

manent oil and gas platforms or prod

uction b. Water extraction from 

one round-trip flight a day from May 20 through equipment would not be per

mitted on or u

nder 

molting geese shall not a

Ju

ne 20 at aircraft facilities i

n the Teshekp

uk the water within 3⁄4 mile of the shoreline, and on Lak conditions t

hat could adv

e Caribou Habitat LUEA. Within the Goose land 1⁄4 mile landward of the shoreline of goose Molt goose-feeding habitat alo

ing LUEA, fixed-wing aircraft use for such molting lakes. Goose Molting Area lakes shall be Considerations will be gi

activities shall be restricted from Ju

ne 15 to identified by the AO in consultation with Au operators (generally in w

gust 20 to flig

ht corridors and frequencies appropriate federal, state, an

d NSB regulatory (generally in summer), a

established by BLM in consultation 

with the and resource agencies. lakes from the spring sno

appropriate federal, state, and N

S

B regulatory

e. Oil and gas facility layout located within 11⁄2 and resource agencies. c. Oil and gas exploration miles of a Goose Molting Area lake from May 20 alteration (e.g., damage othrough A

ugust 20 shall i

ncorporate features 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-76 LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (e.g., temporary fences, siting/orientation) that screen/shield h

uman activity from view of any 

Goose Molting Area lake, as identified by the AO in consultation with appropriate federal,state, a

nd NSB regulatory and resource 

agencies. f. Major construction activities using heav

y

equipment (e.g., sand/gravel extraction and transport, pipeline and pad construction, but not drilling from existing production pads) s

hall be

suspended within 11⁄2 mile of the Goose Molting Area lakes from May 20 t

hrough A

ugust 20, 

u

nless approved by the AO in consultation with 

the appropriate federal, state, and N

SB 

regulatory a

nd resource agencies. 

g. Strategies to minimize ground traffic will be implemented from May 20 through August 20. These strategies may incl

u

de limiting trips, use 

of convoys, different vehicle types, etc. to the extent practicable. h. Nonessential helicopter overflig

hts by oil and 

gas lessees and all other users shall be reviewed and may be suspended in and aroun

d Goose 

Molting Area lakes from May 20 t

hrough 

Aug

ust 20. 

i. Within the Goose Molting Area, use of fixedwing aircraft by a

uthorized users shall be

restricted from May 20 to August 20. Restrictions may incl

u

de 1) limited to t

wo

round-trip flights/week, and 2) restricted to flight corridors will be established by the BLM after 

disc

ussions with appropriate federal, state, 

and NSB regulatory a

nd resource agencies. 

Note: T

his site-specific stipulation is not

intended to restrict flights necessary to survey wil

dlife to gain infor

mation necessary to meet 

the stated objective of t

his stipulation. 

However, flights necessary to gain thisinfor

mation would be restricted to the minimum 

vegetation, or surface hyfeeding habitat types alo(grass/sedge/

moss), as ide

consultation with the U

S

Require

ment/Stan

dard (De

Molting Area, the following followed for permitted activ

a. Within the Goose Molt

through August 20, all ofmajor construction activiequipment (e.g., sand/gratransport, pipeline and pdrilling from existing prosuspended (see also Leasu

nless approved by the A

the appropriate Federal, regulatory a

nd resource a

this requirement is to resdisturb molting geese dugeese are present. b. Water extraction from molting geese shall not aconditions t

hat could adv

goose-feeding habitat aloConsiderations will be gioperators (generally in w(generally in summer), alakes from the spring snoc. Oil and gas activities w

da

mage or disturbance of 

surface hydrology) criticatypes along lakeshore maand salt marsh habitats. d. Permanent oil and gas gravel roads, pads, and apipelines) and material soutside the identified buAdditional limits on dev
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-77 Chapter II: Alternatives LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS necessary to collect such data. apply; (also see Lease St

e. Between Ju

ne 15 and 

Goose Molting Area, oil incorporate features (e.gsiting/orientation) that sactivity from view of any lake, as identified by the with appropriate Federaregulatory a

nd resource 

f. Strategies to minimize 

implemented from Ju

ne 

These strategies may incof convoys, different vehextent practicable. The lthe development proposathat considers these and The vehicle use plan shause monitoring plan. Adjrequired by the AO if resdetermined to be unacceg. Within the Goose Mol15 a

nd August 20, aircra

wing a

nd helicopter) s

ha

June 15 through August endangers human life or practices. Restrictions mflights to two round-tripflights to corridors estabdisc

ussions with appropr

NSB regulatory a

nd reso

lessee shall submit with proposal a

n aircraft use 

these a

nd other mitigati

pla

n s

hall also include a

plan. Adjustments, inclususpension of all aircraft the AO if resulting distube unacceptable. Note: Tstipulation is not intend
1998 Northeast IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alternative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required Operating Procedures for 

Alternative B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required Operatin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-78 LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS necessary to survey wild

necessary to meet the stlease stipulation. Howevgain this information wiminimum necessary to ch. Any permit for developIAP/EIS will include a reto conduct monitoring stuadequately determine condevelopment and any neemitigations. Monitoring sdevelopment-specific withguidelines developed by twith appropriate FederaThe study(s) will include and will continue for a mconstruction has been comhas begun. The monitorincontinuation of evaluatinK-4 Lease Stipulation reqthe objective of K-4 and dto the lease stipulation or mitigation(s) are necessadetermined to be necessalessee and/or their represassessment of the feasibidevelopment operation (eactivity, visibility barrierchanges determined neceimplemented prior to autconstruction. 

Alternative A – Stipulation 31 and Alternatives B, C, and D – Lease Stipulation K-4 provide similar but not equal benefits. Alternati

would be more effective than Lease Stipulation K-4 in protecting soils, water, fish, birds, terrestrial mammals, and endangspecies in the Goose Molting Area because no permanent oil and gas facilities would be allowed in the area under Stipulation 31gas facilities would be allowed in the TLSP Area under Lease Stipulation K-4. Lease Stipulation K-4 for Alternative D would be water, and endangered and threatened species than Lease Stipulation K-4 for the Alternatives B and C because of larger setbackused by molting geese. However, other elements of each alternative, i.e. Restricted Surface Occupancy restrictions, and/or manamake lands available or unavailable to oil and gas leasing, provide a different means for resource protection. A comparison betwStipulation K-4 for Alternatives B, C, and D, on the one hand, and Stipulation 31 for Alternative A on the other is misleading witmitigative effects of other stipulations in the former set of action alternatives. Please see Table 2.3 for a discussion regarding the 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-79 Chapter II: Alternatives LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 

among alternatives. 

In the Goose Molting Area: Where it applies, Stipulation 21(Alternative A), Lease Stipulation K-4a (Alternatives B and C) and Lea

(Alternative D) provide essentially the same level of protection for lakes used by molting geese (in the goose molting area north 

ensuring that water extraction from any lake used by molting geese shall not alter hydrological conditions that could adverselfeeding habitat along lakeshore margins. However, other elements of each alternative, i.e. Restricted S

urface Occupancy rest

management decisions that make lands available or unavailable to oil and gas leasing, pro

vide a different means for resource 

while the protective measures are comparable in providing protection to this resource, this is not to say that the overall level ovarious Alternatives is necessarily equal or the same base

d on management decisions in the planning area. Please see Table 2

regarding t

he comparison of impacts a

mong alternatives. Each of these stipulations would effectively protect water resourc

wetlands, vegetation, freshwater fish, and birds by limiting water withdrawals from lakes used by molting geese; would impacts to endangered and threatened species by limiting habitat loss or disturbance of nesting and brood-rearing eiders ensuring that water extraction from goose molting lakes does not harm foraging habitat; would effectively reduce i

mpacts to s

patterns by limiting habitat loss or disturbance of nesting and brood-rearing waterfowl and other birds, by ensuring that watgoose molting lakes does not impact foraging habitat. 

Alternative A – Stipulation 53 and Alternatives B and C – ROP K-4(i) and Alternative D ROPs F-1 and K-4(g) provide the same and 

effectively reducing impacts to birds, terrestrial mammals, endangered and threatened species, an

d subsistence use an

impacts by limiting the number of helicopter lan

dings and take-offs during critical perio

ds (peak waterfowl nesting/molting perio

Area. Helicopter flig

hts have been shown in some instances and situations to disturb wildlife. A reduction in the n

u

mber of fligh

concomitant reduction in wildlife disturbance. While these stipulations are targeted at reducing impacts to geese in t

his importa

res

ult in similar red

uctions in potential impact to other wildlife species as well as the s

ubsistence activities associated with t

hese 

Alternative A – Stipulation 54 and Alternatives B and C – ROPs F-1, K-4(i) and Alternative D ROP K-4(k) provide the equal benefit i

impacts to bir

ds, terrestrial mammals, e

ndangered a

nd threatened species, an

d subsistence use and related public he

the number of fixed wing aircraft landings and take-offs during t

he same critical periods in the Teshekpuk Lake 

Caribou Habitat 

calving period) a

nd restricting t

he nu

mber a

nd location aircraft flights in t

he Goose Molting Area (peak 

waterfowl nesting/

moltin

flig

hts have been shown in some instances a

nd situations to disturb wildlife. A reduction in the nu

mber of flights should provide 

in wildlife dist

urbance and s

ubsistence activities associated with these wildlife species. 

29. At least 3 years prior to approval of an

y

development plan for leases within the SpecialCaribou Stipulations Area, the lessee s

hall 

design and implement a study of caribou movement, including historical information regarding t

he distrib

ution and range use of the 

Teshekpuk Lake caribou, as well as 

maps of

caribou trails within the area. Study data maybe gathered concurrent wit

h approved seismic

and exploratio

n activity. The stu

d

y desig

n shall

be approved by the AO in consultation wit

h the 

Research a

nd Monitoring Team. The study will 

include a minimum of 3 years of data to assist 

K-5 Lease Stipulation -

Teshekp

uk Lake 

Carib

ou Habitat Area 

Objective: Minimize disturbance a

nd hindrance of 

caribou, or alteration of caribou movements through portions the Tes

hekpuk Lake Caribou 

Habitat Area t

hat are essential for all season 

use, 

including calving and rearing, insect-relief, and migration. Requirement/

Stan

dard: In the Teshekpuk Lake 

Caribou 

Habitat Area the following stan

dards will

be applied to permitted activities: 

a. Before authorization of construction of per

manent facilities, the lessee shall design and 

K-5 Lease Stipulation -

T

Carib

ou Habitat Area 

Objective: Minimize distur

caribou, or alteration of carthrough portions the Tes

he

Habitat Area t

hat are esse

including calving and rearimigration. Requirement/

Stan

dard: In 

Caribou 

Habitat Area the f

be applied to permitted act

a. Before authorization o

permanent facilities (lim
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-80 in providing the information necessary to implement a study of caribou movement unless RSO areas established in 

determine facility desig

n and location, an acceptable stu

d

y(s) has been completed stipulations), t

he lessee 

including pipelines, which will be part of the within the last 10 years. The stu

dy shall inclu

de implement a

nd report a 

development plan. Lessees 

may submit a minimum of 3 years of c

urrent data on caribou movement u

nless an acc

individual plans or they may combine with movements and the stu

d

y desig

n shall be to the Teshekpuk Lake C

other lessees in the area to do a joint study. approved by the AO and should provide has been completed withTotal study funding by all lessees will not infor

mation necessary to determine facility The study s

hall include 

exceed $500,000 (including pipeline) design and location. Lessees of c

urrent data on the TL

may s

ubmit individual study proposals or they the stu

d

y desig

n shall be 

31. Per

manent oil and gas surface occupancy,

may combine with other lessees in the area to do consultation with the ap

including but not limite

d to permanent oil and 

a single, joint study for the entire Teshe

kpuk State, and NSB wildlife 

gas facilities, pads, rigs, platforms, gravel Lake Caribou Habitat Area. Study data may be The study sho

uld provid

roads, airstrips, pipelines, gravel or other mater gathered concurrently with other activities. to determine facility (inc

ial extraction sites, a

nd exploration and and location. Lessees ma

delineation drilling facilities are prohibited in b. From Ma

y 20 t

hro

ugh A

ugust 20, exploratory study proposals or they m

the Teshekpuk Lake Surface Protection Area drilling will be allowed only from current lessees in the area to do (specifically, T. 13 N., Rs. 3-7 W., U.M.; Secs. 1­ production pads or platforms sited within a lake the entire TLCHA. Stud6, 8-16, 21-25, 36, T. 13 N., R. 8 W., U.M.; T. 14 body, in compliance with setback requirements N., Rs concurrently with other 

. 1-2 E. and Rs. 1-8 W., U.M.; Secs. 1-2, set forth in other stipulations. by the AO and in consult

11-14, T. 14 N., R. 9 W., U.M.; T. 15 N., Rs. 2-8 c. Within the Teshe

kpuk La

ke Caribou Habitat 

W., U.M appropriate Federal, Sta

.; Secs. 1-3, 7-30, 35-36, T. 15 N., R. 9 Area, lessees shall orient linear corridors w

hen 

W., U.M and resource agencies. A 

.; T. 16 N., Rs. 2-8 W., U.M.; Secs. 1-6, laying out oil field developments to the extent study results will be pre

8-17, 21-27, 34-36, T. 16 N., R. 9 W., U.M.; T. 17 practicable, to address 

migration and corralling N., Rs Prior to the per

mitting o

. 1-9 W., U.M.; and T. 18 N., Rs. 2-8 W., effects and to avoid loops of road and/or pipeline U.M.). No e TLCHA, a workshop wil

xceptions will be granted to this that connect facilities. the best corridor for pipe

stipulation. d. Ramps over pipelines, buried pipelines, or efforts to minimize impa33. Within the Special Caribou Stipulations pipelines buried u

n

der the road 

may be required (specifically the TLCH) a

Area, lessees shall orient linear corridors when by the AO, after consultation with appropriate resources. T

he workshop 

laying out oil field developments to address federal, state, and NSB regulatory a

nd resource include but will not be li

migration and corralling effects and to avoid agencies, in the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou and NSB representativeloops of road and/or pipeline that connect Habitat Area where pipelines potentially modifications will increafacilities. impede caribou movement. and other wildlife that u49. The following ground-traffic restrictions e. The following ground-traffic restrictions shall during all seasons. apply to per

manent roads (as authorized in apply to per

manent oil and gas-related roads in b. Within the TLCHA, le

Stipulation 48 above) in the Special Caribou the areas and time periods indicated: corridors whe

n laying o

u

Stipulations Area: 1. Within the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou to the extent practicable

a. From May 20 through June 20: Habitat Area, from May 20 through Aug

ust and corralling effects an

1. Traffic speed will 

not exceed 15 miles per 20, traffic speed shall not exceed 15 miles per and/or pipeline that conn

hour. hour when caribou are within 1⁄2 mile on the c. Ramps over pipelines, 2. Traffic will be minimized (a reasonable 

roa

d. Additional strategies may include pipelines buried under t
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 

 2-81 Chapter II: Alternatives target would be four convoy round-trips per limiting trips, using convoys, using different by the AO, after consulta

day between facilities). Nonessential vehicle types, etc., to the extent practicable. Federal, State, and NSB operations requiring vehicles shall be resource agencies, in the 

2. The lessee or a contractor shall observe 

suspended during this time perio

d. pipelines potentially imp

caribou movement from May 20 through b. From Ma

y 20 t

hro

ugh A

ugust 1: August 20. Based on these obser

vations, traffic d. Major construction ac

1. Caribou movement will be monitored. will be stopped temporarily to allow a crossing equipment (e.g., sand/gr2. Based on this monitoring, traffic will cease by 10 or more caribou. Sections of road will be transport, pipeline and pwhen a crossing b

y 10 or 

more caribou evac

uated when migrations of large n

u

mbers drilling from existing pr

appears to be im

minent. of caribou appears to i

mminent. suspended within TLCH

c. From May 20 t

hro

ugh A

ugust 20: August 20, unless appro

3. 

Major equipment, 

materials, and supplies to 1. 

Convoying will be used to minimize the consultation with the ap

be used at oil a

nd gas work sites in the n

u

mber of disturbances due to road traffic. State, a

nd NSB regulato

Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area shall 2. Person

nel will be bussed between work agencies. The intent of t

be stockpiled prior to or after the period of sites and other facilities to minimize the M restrict activities that w

ay 20 through Aug

ust 20 to minimize road number of vehicles on the road. during calving and insec

traffic during that period. 50. Major stockpiling of equipment, materials, caribou arrive on t

he cal

4. Use of aircraft larger than a Twin Otter by and supplies for oil and gas activities i

n the 

May 20, major construct

authorized users of the Planning Area, Special Caribou Stipulations Area shall occur suspended. The lessee shincluding oil and gas lessees, from May 20 prior to or after t

he perio

d May 20 t

hrough development proposal a 

through Aug

ust 20 within the Teshekpuk June 20 to minimize road traffic during that considers this and any o

Lake Caribou Habitat Area, shall be for period. to caribou early arrival. emergency purposes only. requirement is to provid

52. Use of aircraft larger than a Twin Otter for 5. 

Fixed-wing aircraft takeoffs and lan

dings by cha

nging climate conditi

authorized acti

vities in the Planning Area, 

authorized 

users of the Plan

ning Area shall be during the life of fields i

including oil and gas activities, from May 20 limited to an average of one round-trip flight through Aug

ust 20 within the Teshekpuk Lake e. The followi

ng groun

d 

per day from May 20 through June 20, at Caribou L

UEA is prohibited, except in cases of restrictions s

hall apply t

aircraft facilities within the Teshe

kpuk La

ke

emergency. gas-related roads in the 

Caribou Habitat Areas. indicated: 54. Fixed-wing aircraft traffic takeoffs and 6. Aircraft s

hall maintain a minim

u

m height lan

ding for B

LM-per

mitted activities in the 1. Within the TLCHA, 

of 1,000 feet A

GL (except for takeoffs and Plan

ning Area shall be limited to an average of August 20, traffic spee

landings) over caribou winter ranges from one round-trip flight a day from May 20 through miles per hour when caOctober 1 through May 1, and 2,000 feet A

GL Ju

ne 20 at aircraft facilities i

n the Teshekp

uk of the road. Additional 

over the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Lake Caribou Habitat LUEA. Within the Goose limiting trips, using coArea from May 20 through August 20, unless Molting LUEA, fixed-wing aircraft use for such 

vehicle types, etc., to th

doing so would endanger human life or activities shall be restricted from Ju

ne 15 to The lessee shall submi

violate safe flying practices. August 20 to flig

ht corridors and frequencies proposal a vehicle use 

established by BLM in consultation 

with the these and any other m

appropriate federal, state, and N

S

B regulatory use pla

n s

hall also incl

and resource agencies. monitoring plan. Adjus
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-82 LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 55. Aircraft shall maintain an altit

ude of at least 

1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) (except for takeoffs and landings) over caribou winter ranges from October 1 through May 15 an

d 2,000 

feet AGL over the Teshekpu

k Lake Caribou 

Habitat LU

E

A from May 16 through July 31, 

unless doing so would enda

nger human life or 

violate safe flying practices. 

by the AO if resulting determined to be unac2. The lessee or a contrcaribou move

ment from 

August 20, or earlier if prior to May 20. Based traffic will be stopped tcrossing b

y 10 or more 

road will be evacuated crossing b

y a large n

u

m

to imminent. The lessedevelopment proposal considers these and anvehicle use pla

n s

hall a

use monitoring plan. Arequired by the AO if rdetermined to be unac3. Major equipment, mbe used at oil and gas wTLCHA shall be stockpperiod of May 20 t

hrou

minimize road traffic d4. Use of aircraft largeauthorized users of the including oil a

nd gas le

through August 20 witbe for emergency purpshall submit with the daircraft use pla

n t

hat c

other mitigation. The aalso include a

n aircraf

Adjustments, i

nclu

ding 

all aircraft use, will be resulting disturbance iunacceptable. This leaintended to restrict fligwildlife to gai

n inform

the stated objective of However, flights neces
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-83 Chapter II: Alternatives LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS information will be res

necessary to collect s

uc

5. Fixed-wing aircraft authorized users of the limite

d to an average o

per day from 

May 20 th

aircraft facilities withilessee shall submit witproposal a

n aircraft us

these a

nd other mitiga

pla

n s

hall also include 

plan. Adjustments, incsuspension of all aircraby the AO if resulting determined to be unac6. Aircraft s

hall maint

of 1,000 feet A

GL (exce

landings) over caribou December 1 through MAGL over the TLCHA August 20, u

nless doin

life or violates safe flyiwintering ranges will bthe AO in consultation Department of Fis

h an

Alternative A – Stipulation 29 and Alternatives B, C, and D – Lease Stipulation K-5(a) provide the same and equal benefit in effectiv

eli

minating i

mpacts to terrestrial mammals, specifically TLH caribou and the subsistence use of these animals, in the area cover

by man

dating that lessees con

d

uct a stu

dy of caribou movement in the project area. T

he stu

d

y results would then be utilized to desi

in a man

ner that minimizes i

mpacts. The presence of facilities and associated 

h

u

man activities would still result in some disturba

n

Caribou distribution can also vary from year to year. Alternative A Stipulation 31 and Alternatives B, C, and D Lease Stipulation K-5 would greatly reduce but not totally eliminate impa

ma

m

m

als, specifically TLH caribou. The presence of facilities and associated human activity would still result in disturbance impac

distribution can vary from year to year depe

n

ding upon man

y factors. What appears to be the best design and location based on a m

data may not hold true over the life of the facility or may be altered as additional infrastructure is constructed in other areas. Alternative A Stipulation 33 and Alternatives B and C Stipulation K-5(c) and Alternative D Lease Stipulation K-5b would be equally impacts on terrestrial mammals and subsistence use patterns by providing increased protection to caribou. Alternative A Stipulation 49 and Alternatives B, C, and D Lease Stipulation K-5(e) would be equally protective of air quality, wate
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-84 LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS quality, and vegetation by reducing vehicle travel speeds that can cause dust (P

M10) emissions. 

Deposition of dust and soil depos

bodies can affect water quality and water resources. Deposition on vegetation ca

n harm or kill plants. They also would be equally e

impacts to terrestrial m

ammals, specifically T

LH caribo

u, from traffic, and to subsistence use patterns by provi

ding increased 

Alternative A Stipulation 50 and Alternatives B, C, and D Lease Stipulation K-5e(3) would be equally effective in red

ucing, b

ut not to

impacts to terrestrial m

ammals, specifically 

T

LH caribo

u, by reducing traffic during t

he summer in areas used by caribou, and eq

reducing impacts on subsistence use patterns by providing increased protection to caribou. Alternative A – Stipulation 52 and Alternatives B, C and D – ROP K-5(e)(4) provide the same and equal benefit in effectively reducin

terrestrial mammals, end

angered and threatened s

pecies, and subsistence use by limiting the size of the aircraft that can b

Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area to a Twin Otter or smaller during t

he same critical (caribou calving) time period (May 20 – A

stu

dies have shown that larger airplanes have a greater disturbance effect than smaller airplanes at the same distance, or cause suc

distance. A reduction in the size of t

he airpla

ne during t

he caribou calving periods should logically effect a reduction in caribou distu

stipulations are targeted at reducing impacts to caribou in this important area, they should result in similar reductions in potential wildlife species as well as t

he subsistence activities associated with these wildlife species . 

Alternative A – Stipulation 54 and Alternatives B and C – ROP K-5(e)(5) provide the equal benefit in effectively reducing impacts to 

mammals, endangere

d and threatened species, an

d subsistence use by limiting t

he nu

mber of fixed wing aircraft la

n

dings an

same critical periods in t

he Tes

hekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area (peak caribou calving period). Aircraft flights have been show

n in 

situations to disturb wildlife. A reduction in the n

umber of flights should provide a concomitant reduction in wildlife disturbance an

associated with t

hese wildlife species. 

Alternative A – Stipulation 55 and Alternatives B, C, and D – ROP K-5(e)(6) provide the same and equal benefit in effectively reducinterrestrial mammals, end

angered and threatened s

pecies, an

d su

bsistence use by establishing a minimum altitude that air

caribou winter range (1,000 ft) during winter and over the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area (2,000 ft) during the cal

ving perio

same time periods apply in all the above-referenced stipulations and ROPs and are designed to coincide with caribou wintering a

n

d 

have shown that wildlife dist

urbance ten

ds to diminish with altitude, therefore holding aircraft flig

hts to minimum altitudes s

hould 

these stipulations are targeted at reducing i

mpacts to caribou in these i

mportant areas, they should result in similar reductions in p

sensitive wildlife species as well as the subsistence activities associated with these wildlife species. 

31. Per

manent oil and gas surface occupancy,

including but not limite

d to permanent oil and 

gas facilities, pads, rigs, platforms, gravel

roads, airstrips, pipelines, gravel or other material extraction sites, a

nd exploration and 

delineation drilling facilities are prohibited in the Teshekpuk Lake Surface Protection Area (specifically, T. 13 N., Rs. 3-7 W., U.M.; Secs. 1­6, 8-16, 21-25, 36, T. 13 N., R. 8 W., U.M.; T. 14 N., Rs. 1-2 E. and Rs. 1-8 W., U.M.; Secs. 1-2, 11-14, T. 14 N., R. 9 W., U.M.; T. 15 N., Rs. 2-8 W., U.M.; Secs. 1-3, 7-30, 35-36, T. 15 N., R. 9 W., U.M.; T. 16 N., Rs. 2-8 W., U.M.; Secs. 1-6, 8-17, 21-27, 34-36, T. 16 N., R. 9 W., U.M.; T. 17 

K-6 Stipul

atio

n – Co

astal Area

Objective: Minimize hin

drance or alteration of 

caribou 

movement wit

hin caribou coastal insectrelief areas; to prevent contamination of marine

waters; loss of important bird habitat; alteration or disturbance of shoreline marshes; and impacts to subsistence resources activities. Requirement/Standard: In the Coastal Area, 

permanent oil and gas facilities, including gravel pads, roads, airstrips, and pipelines established to support exploration and developmentactivities shall be located at least 3⁄4 mile inland from the coastline to the extent practicable. Where, as a result of technological limitations, 

K-6 Stipul

atio

n - Co

asta

Objective: Minimize hin

dra

caribou 

movement wit

hin c

relief areas; to prevent conwaters; loss of important bdisturbance of shoreline msubsistence resources activRequirement/

Stan

dard: In 

permanent oil and gas facipads, roads, airstrips, and support exploration and deshall be located at least 3⁄4 coastline to the extent pracresult of technological limi
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-85 Chapter II: Alternatives LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS N., Rs. 1-9 W., U.M.; and T. 18 N., Rs. 2-8 W., U.M.). No exceptions will be granted to this stipulation. economics, logistics, or other factors, a facility must be located within 3⁄4 mile inland of the coastline, the practicality of locating the facility 

at previously occupied sites such as Ca

mp

Lonely, various Husky/USGS drill sites, and Distant Early War

ning (DEW)-Line sites, shall 

be considered. Use of existing sites within 3⁄4 mile of the coastline shall also be acceptable where it is demonstrated that use of such sites will reduce impacts to shorelines or otherwise be environmentally preferable. All lessees/permitees involved i

n activities in the 

immediate area must coordinate use of these new or existing sites with all other prospective users. Before conducting open water activities, the lessee shall consult with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, the Nuiqsut Whaling Captains’ Association, the Barrow WhalingCaptains’ Association, and the NSB to minimize impacts to the fall and spring subsistence whaling activities of the communities of the North Slope. 

logistics, or ot

her factors, a 

within 3⁄4 mile inland of the practicality of locating the occupie

d sites such as Cam

Husky/U

SGS drill sites, an

Warning (DE

W)-Line sites

Use of existing sites within shall also be acceptable whthat use of such sites will rshorelines or otherwise be preferable. All lessees/permactivities in the immediate use of these new or existi

n

prospective users. Before cactivities, the lessee shall cEskimo Whaling CommissWhaling Captains’ AssociaWhaling Captains’ Associa

minimize impacts to the fawhaling activities of the coSlope. 

Alternative A – Stipulation 31 and Alternatives B, C, and D – Lease Stipulation K-6 provide similar but not equal benefits for resour

coastal area encompassed b

y Stipulation 31. In coastal areas in the eastern part of the planning area, where Stipulation 31 is i

napp

Stipulation provides greater protection. W

here applicable, Alternative A Stipulation 31 would be more effecti

ve than Lease Stipulat

soils, water, fish, bir

ds, terrestrial mammals, and endangere

d and threatened species because no per

manent oil and gas f

allowed in the area u

n

der 

Stipulation 31, but per

manent oil and gas facilities would be allowed along t

he coast u

n

der Lease Stipulat

ele

ments of each alternative, i.e. Restricted Surface Occupancy restrictio

ns, and/or management decisions that make lan

ds availabl

and gas leasing, provide a different means for resource protection. A comparison between the effectiveness of Stipulation K-6 for Alton the one han

d, and Stipulation 31 for Alternative A on the other is misleading without consideri

ng the mitigative effects of other s

the former set of action alter

natives. Please see Table 2.3 for a disc

ussion regarding the comparison of i

mpacts among alter

natives. 

24. The following restrictions apply to overland moves, seis

mic wor

k, and an

y si

milar use of

heav

y equipment (other than actual excavations 

as part of construction) on unroaded surfacesduring the winter season: 

b. Motorized groundvehicle use will be minimized within the Colville River Raptor, Passerine, and Moose Area LUEA from April 

K-7 Lease Stipulation - Colville River Special AreaObjective: Prevent or minimize loss of raptorforaging habitat. Requirement/

Stan

dard: If necessary to construct 

perma

nent facilities within the Colville River 

Special Area, all reasonable and practicable efforts shall be made to locate per

manent facilities 

K-7 Lease Stipulation - Area Objective: Prevent or minimforagi

ng habitat. (also see 

Rivers Area) Requirement/

Stan

dard for 

to construct permanent fac
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-86 LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 15 through A

ugust 5, with the exception that

use will be minimized in the vicinity ofgyrfalcon nests beginning March 15. S

uch use 

will remain 1⁄2 mile away from known raptornesting sites, u

nless authorized by the AO.

The BLM shall consult with USFWS to plan travel routes to minimize disturbance to raptors. 

as far from raptor nests as feasible. Wit

hin 15

miles of raptor nest sites, sig

nificant alteration of 

high q

uality foraging habitat shall be prohibited 

unless the lessee can demonstrate on a sitespecific basis t

hat i

mpacts would be minimal or it

is deter

mined that there is 

no feasible or prudent 

alter

native. Of partic

ular concer

n are pon

ds,

lakes, wetlan

ds, and riparian habitats. Note: On a 

case-by case basis, a

nd in consultation 

with 

appropriate federal and state regulator

y and 

resource agencies, essential pipeline a

nd road 

crossings will be permitted through these areaswhere no other feasible or pru

dent options are 

available. 

a. The following restrictions apply to overlan

d

moves, seis

mic wor

k, and an

y si

milar use of

heav

y equipment (other than actual excavations 

as part of construction) on t

undra surfaces

during the winter season: 

1. Motorized grou

n

d-vehicle 

use shall be

minimized withi

n t

he Colville River Raptor, 

Passerine, and Moose Area from April 15 through Aug

ust 5, with the exception that use 

will be minimized in the vicinity of g

yrfalcon

nests beginning March 15. Such use will remain 1⁄2 mile a

way from known raptor 

nesting sites, 

u

nless authorized by the AO. 

River Special Area, all reasefforts shall be made to locas far from raptor nests as miles of raptor nest sites, shigh q

uality foraging habit

unless the lessee can demobasis t

hat impacts would b

determine

d that there is no 

alter

native. Of partic

ular c

wetlan

ds, and riparian hab

case basis, an

d in consulta

federal a

nd state regulator

essential pipeline and road permitted through these arfeasible or pru

dent options 

Requirement/

Stan

dard for 

applies to overland movessimilar use of heavy equipexcavations as part of consurfaces. 

Alternative A – Stipulation 24b an

d Alternatives B, C, an

d D – ROP K-7 provide similar benefit in the avoidance and minimizatio

to vegetation, wetlands, e

ndangered a

nd threatene

d species, an

d birds, particularly raptors, by reducing ground transpor

area where most of the raptor nests occur. Raptors are most sensitive to disturbance w

hen nesting. The lower t

wo thirds of the 

the highest concentration of raptor nests on the North Slope. Both protective measures are identical in prohibiting motorized growithin 1⁄2 mile of the nests during the defined nesting period. It is thought that vehicle transport more than 1⁄2 mile from raptor nnesting raptors. ROP K-7 actually applies to a larger area (Colville River Special Area) and includes all of the area covered unde

areas include the high raptor concentration area along t

he Colville. 

R

OP K-7 also mandates (Stipulation 24 does not) that perma

facilities be located as far as possible from raptor sites and prohibits sig

nificant alteration of high value wetlands a

nd foraging ha

of nests, which s

hould be moderately effective in reducing impacts to birds (specifically raptors), endangered a

nd t

hreatened spec

ROP would have low effectiveness in reducing impacts to 

vegetation as i

mpacts would be shifted to other areas. 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-87 Chapter II: Alternatives LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 

45. No surface str

uctures, except essential 

transportation crossings, are allowed within the Pik Dunes LUEA. 

K-8 Lease Stipulation - Pik DunesObjective: Retain unique qualities of the Pik Dunes, inclu

ding geologic and scen

relief habitat for caribou, and habitat for several uncommon pla

nt species. 

Requirement/Standard: S

urface structures, except approximately perp

crossings and ice pads, are prohibited within the Pik Dunes. 

Alternative A Stipulation 45 and Alternatives B, C, and D Lease Stipulation K-8 would be equally effective in protecting soil, vege

m

ammals, and the visual characteristics by prohibiting surface str

uctures on the Pik Du

nes, except for essential transportati

prohibition sho

uld protect the unique vegetation found on the Pik Dunes. The prohibition should also reduce disturbance of or loss 

terrestrial 

mammals, partic

ularly caribou that use the Pik Du

nes as i

mportant insect-relief habitat. The visual c

haracteristics of 

maintained by prohibiting the construction of surface structures on the dunes, except for essential transportation crossings. 

31. Per

manent oil and gas surface occupancy,

including but not limite

d to permanent oil and 

gas facilities, pads, rigs, platforms, gravel

roads, airstrips, pipelines, gravel or other material extraction sites, a

nd exploration and 

delineation drilling facilities are prohibited in the Teshekpuk Lake Surface Protection Area (specifically, T. 13 N., Rs. 3-7 W., U.M.; Secs. 1­6, 8-16, 21-25, 36, T. 13 N., R. 8 W., U.M.; T. 14 N., Rs. 1-2 E. and Rs. 1-8 W., U.M.; Secs. 1-2, 11-14, T. 14 N., R. 9 W., U.M.; T. 15 N., Rs. 2-8 W., U.M.; Secs. 1-3, 7-30, 35-36, T. 15 N., R. 9 W., U.M.; T. 16 N., Rs. 2-8 W., U.M.; Secs. 1-6, 8-17, 21-27, 34-36, T. 16 N., R. 9 W., U.M.; T. 17 N., Rs. 1-9 W., U.M.; and T. 18 N., Rs. 2-8 W., U.M.). No exceptions will be granted to thisstipulation. 

K-9 Lease Stipulation – 

Corridor Objective: Minimize distur

caribou, or alteration of carare essential for all season and rearing, insect-relief, aarea extending from the eaTeshekpuk Lake to approxeastward towards the Kogradjacent to t

he northwest c

Lake. Requirement/

Stan

dard: W

Movement Corridors, no pefacilities, except for pipelinthe approximately 54,700 (acres east of Teshekpuk La9,700 acres north

west of 

T

illustrated on Map 1-1. Pripipeline in t

he Caribou Mo

workshop will be convened corridor for pipeline constrminimize impacts to 

wildli

resources. The works

hop p

but 

will not be limited to 

F

representatives. Note: In alease stipulations and ROPstipulations, i.e. K-3, K-4, Kapply. 

Alternative A – Stipulation 31 and Alternative D – Lease Stipulation K-9 provide similar b

ut not equal benefits for resources i

n t

w
1998 Northeast IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alternative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required Operating Procedures for 

Alternative B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required Operatin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-88 LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS caribou movement. Alternative A Stipulation 31 would be minimally more effective than Lease Stipulation K-9 in protecting soi

and endangered and threatened species and potentially somewhat more effective in protecting terrestrial mammals, specisubsistence because pipelines would not be allowed in the area under Stipulation 31, but pipelines would be allowed in these ar

Stipulation K-9. The absence of a comparable stipulation or ROP for Alternatives B and C would result in less protection, particu

the other alternatives. However, other elements of each alternative, i.e. Restricted Surface Occupancy restrictions, and/or manamake lands available or unavailable to oil and gas leasing, provide a different means for resource protection. A comparison betwStipulation K-9 for Alternative D and Stipulation 31 for Alternative A is misleading without considering the mitigative effects of 

ROPs in Alternative D. Please see Table 2.3 for a discussion regarding the comparison of impacts among alternatives. 31. Permanent oil and gas surface occupancy, including but not limited to permanent oil and gas facilities, pads, rigs, platforms, gravel roads, airstrips, pipelines, gravel or other material extraction sites, and exploration and delineation drilling facilities are prohibited in the Teshekpuk Lake Surface Protection Area (specifically, T. 13 N., Rs. 3-7 W., U.M.; Secs. 1­ 6, 8-16, 21-25, 36, T. 13 N., R. 8 W., U.M.; T. 14 N., Rs. 1-2 E. and Rs. 1-8 W., U.M.; Secs. 1-2, 

11-14, T. 14 N., R. 9 W., U.M.; T. 15 N., Rs. 2-8 W., U.M.; Secs. 1-3, 7-30, 35-36, T. 15 N., R. 9 W., U.M.; T. 16 N., Rs. 2-8 W., U.M.; Secs. 1-6, 8-17, 21-27, 34-36, T. 16 N., R. 9 W., U.M.; T. 17 N., Rs. 1-9 W., U.M.; and T. 18 N., Rs. 2-8 W., U.M.). No exceptions will be granted to thisstipulation. 

K-10 Lease Stipulation – 

Calving AreaObjective: Minimize distur

caribou, or alteration of carare essential for all season and post calving, and insecsouth/southeast of TeshekpRequirement/Standard: W

Caribou Calving Area, no pfacilities, except pipelines, approximately 233,000 acr4. Note: In addition to the ROPs, site specific StipulaK-11 would also apply. 

Alternative A – Stipulation 31 and Alternative D – Lease Stipulation K-10 provide similar but not equal benefits for resources in aTeshekpuk Lake. Alternative A Stipulation 31 would be minimally more effective than Lease Stipulation K-10 in protecting soiland endangered and threatened species and potentially somewhat more effective in protecting terrestrial mammals, specisubsistence because pipelines would not be allowed in the area under Stipulation 31, but pipelines would be allowed in these ar

Stipulation K-10. The absence of a comparable stipulation or ROP for Alternatives B and C would result in less protection, partithe other alternatives. However, other elements of each alternative, i.e. Restricted Surface Occupancy restrictions, and/or manamake lands available or unavailable to oil and gas leasing, provide a different means for resource protection. A comparison betwStipulation K-10 for Alternative D and Stipulation 31 for Alternative A is misleading without considering the mitigative effects oROPs in Alternative D. Please see Table 2.3 for a discussion regarding the comparison of impacts among alternatives. 

K-11 Lease Stipulation: 

Objective: To protect key susubsistence resources/activpermanent oil and gas dev
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-89 Chapter II: Alternatives LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 

activities. Requirement Stan

dard: Pe

disturbance resulting from limited to 300 acres within lease tracts (Map 2-4); this disturbance activities from Existing gravel pads withicou

nt against the 300-acre 

considered after a workshidentify t

he best corridor f

in efforts to minimize impsubsistence resources. The will include but will not be State, and NSB representprocedures will be approve(Acreages are based on GIapproximate) A. Total Acreage: approxima

• 39,400 acres = RSO 

Gas facilities excl23,350 acres incluoverlap with the Crestrictions). 

• 9,600 acres = Area o

subject to general stipulations a

nd r

procedures.

The total new developexceed 300 acres (0.6 % within the approximaavailable for surface o

B. Total Acreage: approxim

• 40,700 acres = RSO 

Gas facilities, exc33,478 acres incluoverlap with the Crestrictions). 

• 5,200 acres = Area o

subject to general 
1998 Northeast IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alternative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required Operating Procedures for 

Alternative B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required Operatin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-90 LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS stipulations and r

procedures. The total new develop

exceed 300 acres (0.6 % within the 5,200 acres occupancy. C. Total Acreage: approxim• 48,800 acres = RSO 

Gas facilities, exc

• 4,700 acres = Area o

subject to general stipulations and rprocedures. The total new develop

exceed 300 acres (0.7 % within the 18,399 acreoccupancy. D. Total Acreage: approxim• 29,100 acres = RSO 

Gas facilities excl

• 22,600 acres = Area 

subject to general stipulations and rprocedures.

The total new developexceed 300 acres (0.5% within the 22,600 acreoccupancy. 

E. Total Acreage: approxim

• 47,000 acres = RSO 

Gas facilities, exc

• 9,800 acres = Area o

subject to general stipulations and rprocedures.

The total new developexceed 300 acres (0.6% within the 9,800 acres occupancy.

F. Total Acreage: approxim
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

 2-91 Chapter II: Alternatives LEASE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLY IN BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS • 46,400 acres = RSO 

Gas facilities, exc

• 4,900 acres = Restri

development s

ubj

year study requirappropriate placefacility(s) (Map 2-

• 6,700 acres = Area o

subject to general stipulations a

nd r

procedures.

The total new developexceed 300 acres (0.5 % 

G. Total Acreage: approxim

• 46,400 acres = RSO 

Gas facilities excl

• 300 acres = Restrict

development s

ubj

year study requirappropriate placefacility(s) (Map 2-

• 11,300 acres = Area 

subject to general stipulations a

nd r

procedures. 

The total new developexceed 300 acres (0.5 

ALTERNATIVE A STIP

U

LATIONS THAT HAVE NO EQUIVALENTS IN ALTERNA

TIVES B, C, O

R 

51. Chasing wildlife with ground vehicles isprohibited. 

Alaska State Stat

ute (5 AA

C 92.080)** 

Alaska State Stat

ute (5 AA

Alternative A Stipulation 51 and 

Alaska State Statute (5 

AA

C 92.080) would be equally effective in protecting birds and terrestr

chasing of wildlife using vehicles is prohibited under Alaska State Statute, which also applies to the Planning Area a

nd would be 

alter

natives. 

57. Hazing of wildlife b

y aircraft is prohibited. 

Alaska State Stat

ute (5 AA

C 92.080)** 

Alaska State Stat

ute (5 A

Alternative A Stipulation 57 and Alternatives B, C, and D Alaska State Statute (5 AAC 92.080) would be equally effective in protectinterrestrial mammals as chasing of wildlife using vehicles is prohibited under Alaska State Statute, which also applies to the Planapplicable to all alternatives. 
1998 Northeast IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alternative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required Operating Procedures for 

Alternative B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required Operatin

Alterna

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-92 ALTERNATIVE A STIPULATIONS THAT HAVE NO EQUIVALENTS IN ALTERNATIVES B, C, OR 

66. The authorized user shall protect all survey monuments and be responsible for survey costs if remuneration is required as a result of the user's actions. Federal Law (18 USC 1858)** Federal Law (18 USC 185Stipulation 66 and Federal Law 18 USC 1858 would be equally effective in ensuring that survey monuments and bench marks are p18 USC 1858, “Whoever willfully destroys, defaces, changes, or removes to another place any section corner, quarter-section corner, 

Government line of survey, or willfully cuts down any witness tree or any tree blazed to mark the line of a Government survey, or wor removes any monument or bench mark of any Government survey, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six 

68. The BLM, through the AO, reserves the right to impose closure of any area to operators in periods when fire danger or other dangers to natural resources are severe. Federal Law (40 CFR 9212.2)** Federal Law (40 CFR 921Alternative A Stipulation 68 and Federal Law 40 CFR 9212.2 would be equally effective, as 40 CFR 212.2 provides policy for BLM fi

activities and specifically states: “To prevent wildfire or facilitate its suppression, an authorized officer may issue fire prevention ord

or restrict uses of, designated public lands.” 69. The authorized user shall be financially responsible for any damage done by a wildfire

caused by its operations. 

Federal Law (4 CFR 103-104; 43 CFR 2920.1-2; 43CFR 9212.1; 43 CFR 9212.4; 43 CFR 9239; BLM Fire Trespass Handbook H-9238)** 

Federal Law (4 CFR 103-CFR 9212.1; 43 CFR 9212Fire Trespass Handbook H

Alternative A Stipulation 69 and Federal Law (4 CFR 103-104; 43 CFR 2920.1-2; 43 CFR 9212.1; 43 CFR 9212.4; 43 CFR 9239; BLM Handbook H-9238) would be equally effective in ensuring that the responsible party is financially responsible for any damage done bLaws and BLM Handbook H-9238 identified above would complement Stipulation 69 and would provide procedures for identifying aresponsible party. 71. Use of pesticides without the specific authority of the AO is prohibited. 

Federal Law** (unlikely that BLM would use pesticides in Planning Area) 

Federal Law** (unlikely tpesticides in Planning Ar

Alternative A Stipulation 71 and Federal Law should provide the same benefit in reducing potential effects on fish and fish habita

of pesticides. 

78. Permanent structures, other than oil and gas facilities, are prohibited within 100 feet of the highest high water mark of the nearest body of water. 

Not within scope of Supplemental IAP/EIS. Not within scope of Suppl

79. Lessees shall use smokeless flares for handling routine conditions and use auxiliary smokeless flares for planned events that exceed the capacity of routine flares. Lessees shall use flares that meet the Federal New Source Performance design standards listed in 40 CFR 60.18. 

Federal (Clean Air Act) and Alaska State Statute** 

Federal (Clean Air Act) anStatute** 
1998 North

east IAP/EIS Stipulations 

for the No Action Alt

ernative 

Comparable/Applicable Supplemental 

IAP/EIS Lease Stipulations and 

Required O

perating Procedures for 

Alternativ

e B and Alternative C 

Comparable/Applica

IAP/EIS Lease St

Required O

peratin

Alterna

ALTERNATIVE A STIP

U

LATIONS THAT HAVE NO EQUIVALENTS IN ALTERNA

TIVES B, C, O

R 

Alternative A Stipulation 79 and Federal (40 CFR 60.18) and State(18 AA

C 50) regulations should provide equal benefit in minimizi

air quality by requiring the use of flares that meet the stated New Source Perfor

mance Standar

ds for 

visible emissio

ns from flares. 

SUMMER VEHICLE TUN

DRA TRAVEL 

(Summer t

undra travel would not be permitte

d;

see Stipulation 24i.) 

L-1 Required Operating Procedure Objective: Protect stream ban

ks and 

water q

uality; minimize compaction and d

minimize the breakage, abrasion, compaction, or displacement of vegetation; prpaleontological resources; maintain populations of, and adequate habitat for biand other terrestrial mammals; and minimize i

mpacts to subsistence activities

Requirement/

Stan

dard: On a case-by-case basis, B

LM may permit low-ground

travel off of gravel pads and roads during times other than those identified in Rfor such 

use would only be granted after an applicant has: 

a. Submitted stu

dies satisfactor

y to the AO of the impacts on soils and 

vegeta

ground-press

ure vehicles to be use

d. These stu

dies should reflect use of such 

conditions similar to those of the route proposed for 

use and should demonstr

use would have no more than minimal i

mpacts to soils an

d vegetation. 

b. Submitted s

urveys satisfactor

y to the AO of subsistence uses of the area as 

vegetation, hydrology, wildlife a

nd fis

h (a

n

d t

heir habitats), paleontological a

resources, and other resources as required by the AO. c. Designed and/or modified the use proposal to mini

mize i

mpacts to the AO’s 

steps to ac

hieve the objectives and based 

upon the stu

dies and surveys may i

limited to, ti

ming restrictions (generally it is considered ina

d

visable to con

du

August 1 to protect ground-nesting birds), shifting of work to winter, reroutin

when certain wildlife are present or subsistence acti

vities are occurring. At t

the plan for summer tun

dra vehicle travel may be inclu

ded as part of the spil

response contingency plan required by 40 C

FR 112 (Oil Pollution Act) and RO

Alternative A provides more protection fro

m the impacts of su

m

mer vehicle tu

n

dra travel to soils, vegetation, water, wildlife, and fis

B,C, and D Lease ROP L-1. However, su

m

mer vehicle tu

n

dra travel 

may be essential to oil and gas 

development, a

nd consequently 

likely file for a permit and obtain an exception to relevant 

Alternative A stipulations. 

**Existing laws and regulations that extend across all lan

ds in 

Alaska and fall under the jurisdiction of the State of Alaska and othe

However, if BLM personnel observe that any of these statutes, la

ws, or regulations are being violated, the violations will be reported 

be taken to arrest the situatio

n. 

 2-93 Chapter II: Alternatives 
T

able 2-

3. Summa

r

y a

n

d C

ompa

rison of Effects on Resou

r

c

es by Alternativ

e. 

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

EFFECTS ON AIR Q

UALITY 

General Effects: Exploration, develop

ment, and production

activities would cause small, local, temporar

y increases in the 

concentrations of criteria poll

utants. 

Concentrations would comply with applicable air quality stan

dards. 

Therefore, no significant impacts would occur. 

General Effects: Air pollutant emissions would be 17 to 19 percentgreater than Alternative A (No Action). However, Concentrations would comply with applicable air quality stan

dards. Therefore, no 

sig

nificant i

mpacts would occur. 

General Effects: Air pollutant emissions would be 38 to 40 percentgreater than Alternative A (No Action). However, Concentrations would comply with applicable air quality stan

dards. Therefore, no 

sig

nificant i

mpacts would occur. 

General Efemissions wgreater than Action). Howwould complquality stansig

nificant i

m

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects of all projects affecting the North Slope of Alaska in the past have caused minor deteriwell within legal li

mits. Improvements in air pollution control technology would help to reduce e

missions fro

m historic levels, which 

by increasing production. Regional air polluta

nt emissions generated would remain near current levels; approximately 30 percent le

in t

he late 1980s. Arctic haze will continue to be of concern on t

he North Slope, due primarily to air polluta

nt emissions originating 

Asia (and to a lesser extent, northern Alaska). In the future, each propose

d individual facility will be required to disclose its potenti

thorough site-specific NEPA a

nalyses, and demonstrate its contin

ued compliance with applicable local, state, tribal and federal air q

facilities are shut down, they would no longer contribute to North 

Slope air emissions. Particulate matter emissions would also be re

re-vegetated. 

EFFECTS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

General Effects: I

mpacts from 

non-oil a

nd gas activities would be

minimal, however, surface disturbance could impactpaleontological resources. There is avery low risk t

hat paleontological 

resources wo

uld be encountered a

nd 

impacted during extraction of materials, surface disturbance, or oil spills associated with oil and gas development. Potential i

mpacts 

would be minor in part due to surveys conducted prior to s

urface 

disturbing activities. 

General Effects: S

urface 

disturbance could impactpaleontological resources. The ris

k

that paleontological resources would be encountered and i

mpacted 

would be slightly higher tha

n under

the No Action Alter

native, but 

potential i

mpacts would still be 

minor in part due to s

urve

ys

conducted prior to s

urface 

disturbing activities. Gra

vel mining 

near rivers and lakes poses the greatest threat to paleontological resources. 

General Effects: Surface disturbance could impact paleontological resources. The risk that paleontological resources would be encountered and impacted could be as much as 20% greater than under Alternative B, and about 30% greater than the level under the No Action Alternative. Potential i

mpacts 

would still be minor in part due to surveys conducted prior to surface disturbing activities. Gravel mining near rivers and lakes poses the greatest threat to paleontological resources. 

General Effeccould impact The risk that pwould be encowould be sligAlternative Cunder the No potential impapart due to susurface disturmining near rgreatest threat resources. 

Cumulative Effects: Ground-disturbing activities, including non-oil and gas development and oil and gas exploration and developmpaleontological resources to some degree. However, because of t

heir u

npre

dictable location, isolated and rare occurrence, a

nd varyin

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-94 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

EFFECTS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

level of past an

d future impacts is difficult to assess. If lease stipulations were to continue to apply to survey and inventory prior to e

develop

ment activities, the cumulative i

mpact to paleontological resources would be expected to be minor in the Planning Area; si

mi

regulations would help to li

mit i

mpact to these resources elsewhere on the North Slope. Paleontological resources are nonrenewable

or contamination i

mpacts the

m, their value may be greatly and irreversibly compromised. Cumulative impacts to paleontological re

Slope and in the Planning Area in the future are expected to be minor, given the small amount of area impacted and implementation 

river drainages and other areas with known or likely paleontological reso

urces. In the case being considered here, Alternative A wo

toward c

umulative i

mpacts with the potential to directly a

nd indirectly generate adverse affects on on-shore paleontological resourc

Alternatives B, C a

nd D have a greater potential for creating cum

ulative impacts because all of those Alternatives allow more area o

probability to be leased (s

ubmerged off-s

hore paleontological resources, if present, would generally not be threatened by off-s

hore oil 

exploration/development acti

vities). 

EFFECTS ON SOIL R

ESOURCES 

General Effects: During exploration and development, seis

mic activities and 

construction of ice pads, ice roads, ice runways, and pipelines would cause localized areas of soil compaction and loss of surrounding vegetation; Shortterm impacts could occur on approximately 8,100 acres of soil from 2-D seismic surveys and 100,000 acres of soil from 3-D surveys during a 25-year period; A total of 5,200 miles of ice roads could be constructed during the life of the plan creating short-term impacts to approximately 16,000 acres; Approximately 900 acres could be impacted short-term by ice pads for exploration and delineation wells and 20 miles of ice run

way could be constructed 

creating short-term impacts to approximately 220 acres; In addition, approximately 1,200 acres could be impacted short-term by pipeline construction. Oil and gas development and operation would have long-term impacts by compacting and damaging soils under gravel pads, gravel roads, and gravel airstrips; excavating material sites; and constructing well cellars and VSMs. Long-term direct and indirect impacts would occur on an estimated 5,400 acres of soils from field development, and 550 acres from gravel extraction activities. Therefore, these activities could result in 

General Effects: A larger acreage of soil would likely be disturbed than under the Alternative A, and the risk of oil spills would be higher. Agreater proportion of impacts could be to soils near Teshekpuk Lake. During exploration and development, seismic activities a

nd 

construction of ice pads, ice roads, ice runways, and pipelines would cause localize

d areas of soil 

compaction and loss of surrou

n

ding

vegetation; Short-ter

m i

mpacts could 

occur on approximately 8,100 acresof soil from 2-D seis

mic surveys and 

100,000 acres of soil from 3-D surveys during a 25-year period; A total of 6,200 miles of ice roads could be constructed during the life of the plan creating short-ter

m i

mpacts to 

approximately 19,000 acres;Approximately 1,020 acres could be impacted s

hort-term by ice pa

ds for

exploration and delineation wells and 30 miles of ice r

u

n

way could be 

constructed creating short-termimpacts to approxi

mately 330 acres;

In ad

dition, approximately 1,250 

acres could be impacted short-ter

m

by pipeline construction. Oil and gas develop

ment and operation would 

General Effects: A larger acreage of soil would likely be disturbed than under the other alternatives, and the risk of oil spills would be higher. The acreage of soil impacted would be slightly greater than under Alternative B. During exploration and development, seismic activities and construction of ice pads, ice roads, ice runways, and pipelines would cause localized areas of soil compaction and loss of surrounding vegetation; Shortterm impacts could occur on approximately 8,100 acres of soil from 2-D seismic surveys and 100,000 acres of soil from 3-D surveys during a 25-year period; A total of 7,200 miles of ice roads could be constructed during the life of the plan creating short-term impacts to approximately 22,000 acres; Approximately 1,260 acres could be impacted short-term by ice pads for exploration and delineation wells and 40 miles of ice run

way could be constructed 

creating short-term impacts to approximately 440 acres; In addition, approximately 1,500 acres could be impacted short-term by pipeline construction. Oil and gas development and operation would have long-term impacts by compacting and damaging soils under gravel pads, gravel roads, and gravel airstrips; excavating material sites; and constructing well cellars and VSMs. 

General Effecresources and potentially exA and B but wAlternative Cdevelopment, construction orunways, and localized arealoss of surrouterm impacts approximately D seismic sursoil from 3-D period; A totroads could bof the plan creapproximately Approximatelimpacted shorexploration anmiles of ice rucreating shortapproximately approximately impacted shorconstruction. and operation impacts by cosoils under grgravel airstripand constructiLong-term dir

 2-95 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-96 EFFECTS ON SOIL R

ESOURCES 

long-term impacts to approximately 6,000 (5,400 + 550) acres or 0.13 % of the Planning Area. In terms of scale, the long-term impact to soils in the Planning Area would be minor. 

have long-term impacts b

y

compacting and damaging soils u

n

der gravel pads, gravel roads, and 

gravel airstrips; excavating material sites; and constr

ucting well cellars 

and VSMs. Long-term direct a

nd 

indirect impacts would occur on a

n

esti

mated 6,100 acres of soils from 

field development, and 650 acres from gravel extraction activities. Therefore, these activities could result in long-term impacts toapproximately 6,800 (6,100 + 650)acres or 0.15 % of the Plan

ning Area. 

In ter

ms of scale, the long-term 

impact to soils in the Planning Areawould be minor. 

Long-term direct and indirect impacts would occur on an estimated 7,700 acres of soils from field development, and 800 acres from gravel extraction activities. Therefore, these activities could result in long-term impacts to approximately 8,500 (7,700 + 800) acres or 0.18 percent of the Planning Area. Since the portion of the Planning Area affected would be very small, overall impacts to soils would still be minor. 

would occur oof soils from facres from graTherefore, thelong-term imp8,100 (7,400 + of the Planninthe Planning Asmall, overall be minor. 

Cumulative Effects: Past and Present: Approximately 2,500 acres of direct i

mpacts to soil from non-oil and gas activities persist 

Slope. Oil and gas activities have caused approximately 17,500 acres of direct i

mpacts to soil that persist today; another 17,500 acre

have also occurred, some of which persist today. Therefore, a total of approximately 37,500 acres of soil resources on the North Slope all past activities. These i

mpacts to soil are additive to future impacts and are likely to persist for several decades or more. Howeve

is disturbed by develop

ment has slowe

d substantially in recent years due to advances in tec

h

nolog

y and a slowing of oil field 

develop

Slope. Future: Assuming com

munity infrastructure and footprint grow at roughly the same pace as population, there would be approxima

communit

y footprint by the time population 

may level off in t

he 2040s. In a

ddition, approxi

mately 700 acres of soil impacted by D

EW 

to persist. Therefore the total long term cu

m

ulative i

mpact to soil resources on the North Slope fro

m non oil and gas activities (past

foreseeable future) would be approximately 4,300 (3,600 villages + 700 D

EW sites) acres. Impacts to soil resources from future oil an

the North Slope inclu

de exploration activities and constr

uction of gravel pads, gravel roads, gravel airstrips, gravel staging areas, ex

sites, oil pipelines, and possible gas pipelines (both to mar

ket outside the North Slope and within the North Slope). The duration of t

from short term (< 1 to 5 

years) if the soil was lightly 

disturbed (i.e. most seis

mic activity, ice roads, and ice pa

ds) up to several deca

was covered by gravel, removed, or per

mafrost was thawe

d creating thermokarst. Impacts associated with exploration and developm

Planning Area would be additive with impacts from activities in other portions of the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska and acro

total area of lo

ng term impacts to soils from future development would be approximately 26,000 (22,400 gravel footprint + 2,200 mat

pipelines) acres. Under Alter

natives B, C, and D, the northwest portion of Northeast N

PR-A is more likely to be developed. Infrastr

and CPFs developed in this portion of the Planning Area would also make marginal discoveries in the adjacent northeast portion of offshore areas to the north of Teshekpuk Lake, more likely to be developed in the foreseeable future. T

his would create a greater are

than 

u

nder Alternative A. 

O

verall, the area of soils i

mpacted long ter

m by past, present, and foreseeable future oil and gas developm

approximately 61,000 (35,000 past a

nd present + 26,000 future) acres. The North 

Slope region is approxi

mately 57 million acres. T

the area of the North Slope, this 

would be a relatively small area of soils i

mpacted (about 0.1 percent), even with the entire Planning 

development (Alternative 

C). If global climate c

hange persists, the c

umulative effects to soil from oil and gas development, and non 

on the North Slope could be greater than predicted. Some soil 

would be restored as sites are aban

doned and reclaimed. However, d

u

climate, it could take several hundred years for soil productivity to reach pre-disturbance levels on abandoned pads and roads. 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

 2-97 Chapter II: Alternatives EFF

ECTS ON WATER RE

S

O

U

R

C

ES 

General Effects: Exploration and develop

ment will have the following 

impacts: water withdrawals from lakes; erosion, scour and sedimentation; temporar

y

impoundments and diversions; and removal of gravel from areas nearstreams and lakes. Impacts to waterresources would be the lowest u

n

der 

Alternative A. Non-oil and gas activities would have minimal (minor and short-ter

m) i

mpacts on

water resources for all alternatives. A total of 5,162 miles of ice roads, 151 exploration and delineation ice pads, and 20 ice airstrips could be constructed during the life of the plan, creating short-ter

m i

mpacts to

approximately 16,800 acres. In addition, approximately 1,200 acres could be i

mpacted short-ter

m by

pipeline construction. Construction of gravel roads, pads, airstrips, CPFs, gravel pits, and pipelines willres

ult in long-term direct impacts to

3,250 (2,700 + 550) acres. Lo

ng-term 

in

direct impacts to 2,700 acres will

result from this infrastructure due to altered drainage patterns and upslope water impoundments. Therefore, these activities could result in long-term impacts to 5,950 (3,250 + 2,700) acres or 0.13 % of the Plan

ning Area. In ter

ms of scale, the 

long-ter

m impact to water resources

in the Planning Area would be minor. 

General Effects: Alternative B will impact more water resources than Alternative A due to more lakes being affected by water withdra

wals, 

impoundments, altered drainages, and oil spills. This alternative would allow drilling on and near Teshekpuk Lake, increasing the likelihood that water resources in this lake would be negatively impacted by an oil spill. 

Non-oil and gas activities would 

have minimal (

minor and short-term) 

impacts on water resources for all alternatives. A total of 6,162 miles of ice roads, 170 exploration and delineation ice pads, and 30 ice airstrips could be constructed during the life of the plan, creating short-term impacts to approximately 20,000 acres. In addition, approximately 1,250 acres could be impacted short-term by pipeline construction. Construction of gravel roads, pads, airstrips, CP

Fs, gravel pits, 

and pipelines will result in long-term direct impacts to 3,700 (3,050+650) acres. Long-ter

m indirect impacts to 

3,050 acres will result from this infrastructure due to altered drainage patterns and upslope water impoundments. Therefore, these activities could result in long-term impacts to 6,750 (3,700 + 3,050) acres or 0.15 % of the Planning Area. In terms of scale, the long-term impact to water resources in the Planning Area would be minor. 

General Effects: Impacts to water resources would be greater than all other Alternatives with more lakes potentially impacted by water withdrawals, impoundments, altered drainages, and oil spills. This alternative would allow drilling on and near Teshekpuk Lake, increasing the likelihood that water resources in Teshekpuk Lake and deepwater lakes in this area would be impacted by an oil spill. Non-oil and gas activities would have minimal (

minor and 

short-term) impacts on water resources for all alternatives. A total of 7,182 miles of ice roads, 210 exploration and delineation ice pads, and 40 ice airstrips could be constructed during the life of the plan, creating short-term impacts to approximately 23,500 acres. In addition, approximately 1,500 acres could be impacted short-term by pipeline construction. Construction of gravel roads, pads, airstrips, CP

Fs, gravel pits, 

and pipelines will result in long-term direct impacts to 4,650 (3,850 + 800) acres. Long-ter

m indirect impacts to 

3,850 acres will result from this infrastructure due to altered drainage patterns and upslope water impoundments. Therefore, these activities could result in long-term impacts to 8,500 (4,650 + 3,850) acres or 0.18 % of the Planning Area. In terms of scale, the long-term impact to water resources in the Planning Area would be minor. 

General Effecresources wouAlternative C Alternatives A would defer leand would resLease Tracts aMolting Areaimportant to mreduce the likproduction facregion. Howeallowed in thipipeline could oil and gas ac(minor and shresources for 6,162 miles oand delineatioairstrips could life of the planimpacts to appIn addition, apcould be impaconstruction. roads, pads, aand pipelines direct impacts acres. Long-te3,700 acres winfrastructure patterns and uimpoundmentactivities coulimpacts to 8,10.18 % of the scale, the longresources in thminor. 

Cumulative Effects: See c

u

m

ulative effects under water q

uality. 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-98 EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY General Effects: Exploration and develop

ment will have the following 

impacts: water quality c

hanges due 

to withdrawals from lakes, 

melting

ice roads, pads and airstrips and dust depositio

n from roads; erosion, 

scour and sedimentation; and oil spills. I

mpacts to water quality

would be the lowest under Alternative A. Non-oil and gas activities would have minimal (minor and short-ter

m) i

mpacts on

water resources for all alternatives. There could be short-ter

m impacts to 

108,000 acres and long-term impacts to approximately 11 acres as a resultof seismic acti

vities during a 25-year

period. Construction of gravel roads, pads, airstrips, CPFs, gravel pits and pipelines will result in long-term direct i

mpacts to 3,250 (2,700 + 550)

acres. Long-term indirect impacts to2,700 acres will result from this infrastructure due to increased sedimentation due to ther

mokarst 

erosion and 

water quality changes 

due to dust deposition adjacent to roads. Oil spills could have shortter

m effects on water quality in 

lakes a

nd other large water bodies, 

but co

uld have lasting toxicity effects

in smaller pon

ds. Therefore, these 

activities could res

ult in long-ter

m

impacts to 5,950 (3,250 + 2,700) acres or 0.13 % of the Plan

ning Area. 

In ter

ms of scale, the long-term 

impact to water quality in thePlanning Area would be minor. 

General Effects: More water quality impacts are likely to occur under Alternative B than under Alternative A, and the risk of oil spills would be higher. This alternative would allow drilling on and near Teshekpuk Lake, increasing the likelihood that water resources in this lake would be negatively impacted by an oil spill. 

Non-oil and gas activities would 

have minimal (

minor and short-term) 

impacts on water quality for all alternatives. There would be long-term impacts to water quality on approximately 11 acres as a result of seismic activities due to thermokarst erosion. Construction of gravel roads, pads, airstrips, CPFs, gravel pits, and pipelines will result in long-term direct impacts to 3,700 (3,050 + 650) acres. Long-term indirect impacts to 3,050 acres will result from this infrastructure due to increased sedimentation due to thermokarst erosion and water quality changes due to dust deposition adjacent to roads. Because drilling would be allowed on and near Teshekpuk Lake, the potential for contamination of the lake by an oil spill would also be greater than under the Alternative A. Therefore, these activities could result in long-term impacts to 6,750 (3,700 + 3,050) acres or 0.15 % of the Planning Area. In terms of scale, the long-term impact to water quality in the Planning Area would be minor. 

General Effects: More water quality impacts are likely to occur under Alternative C than under the other alternatives, and the risk of oil spills would be highest. Non-oil and gas activities would 

have minimal 

(minor and short-ter

m) i

mpacts on

water q

uality for all alternatives. 

There would be long-term impacts to water quality on approximately 11 acres as a result of seis

mic activities. 

Constr

uction of gravel roads, pads, 

airstrips, CP

Fs, gravel pits and 

pipelines will res

ult in long-term

direct i

mpacts to 4,650 (3,850 + 800)

acres. Long-term indirect impacts to3,850 acres will result from this infrastructure due to increased sedimentation due to ther

mokarst 

erosion and 

water quality changes 

due to dust deposition adjacent to roads. Because drilling would be allowed on an

d near Teshekp

uk 

Lake, the potential for contamination of the lake by an oil spill would also be greater than all other Alternatives. Therefore, these activities could res

ult in long-ter

m

impacts to 8,500 (4,650 +3,850) acresor 0.18 % of the Planning Area. In ter

ms of scale, the long-term impact

to water quality in the PlanningArea 

woul

d be minor. 

General Effeimpacts are likAlternative D and B, and the higher. Non-ohave minimal impacts on waalternatives. Timpacts to waapproximately seismic activiroads, pads, aand pipelines direct impacts acres. Long-te3,700 acres winfrastructure sedimentation and water quadeposition adjdrilling would Teshekpuk Lacontamination would also be Alternative Acould result in 8,100 (4,400 + the Planning Along-term impPlanning Area 

Cumulative Effects: 

Assuming com

munity infrastructure and footprint grow at roughly the same pace as population, there would 

additional acres of community footpri

nt by the time population may level off in the 2040s. In addition, approximately 700 acres of so

line sites are expected to persist. Therefore the total long term cumulative impact to 

water resources a

nd water quality on the North 

gas activities (past, present, and foreseeable future) would be approximately 4,300 (2,500 past + 1,800 future) acres. Impacts to wa
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY 

quality from future oil and gas develop

ment on the North Slope include exploration activities and construction of gravel pads, grave

gravel staging areas, excavation of material sites, water use from lakes, oil pipelines, and possible gas pipelines (both to market outswithin the North Slope). The duration of the impacts would range from short ter

m (< 1 to 5 years) if the soil was lig

htly disturbed (i.

ice roads, and ice pa

ds) up to several decades or longer if the soil was covered by gravel, removed, or permafrost was thawed creating 

associated with exploration and development activities i

n the Planning Area would be additive with impacts from activities in other 

Petroleum Reserve – Alaska and across the North Slope. The total area of long term impacts to soils from future de

velopment 

would 

26,000 (22,400 gra

vel footprint + 2,200 material sites + 1,000 pipelines) acres. U

nder Alternatives B, 

C, and D, t

he northwest portio

more likely to be developed. Infrastructure such as pipelines and CPFs 

developed in this portion of the Planning Area would also m

in the adjacent northeast portion of Northwest NPR-A, a

nd offshore areas to the north of Teshekpuk Lake, more likely to be develop

future. This would create a greater area of soil and 

water disturbance than 

u

n

der Alternative A. Overall, the areas of soil and water 

past, present, and foreseeable future oil and gas development would be approximately 61,000 (35,000 past and present + 26,000 futucompared to the area of the North Slope, this would be a relatively s

mall area of soils i

mpacted (about 0.1 percent), e

ven with the e

n

for development (Alter

native C). If global climate change persists, the cu

m

ulative effects to water resources and water q

uality from 

develop

ment, and non oil and gas 

development, on the North Slope could be greater than pre

dicted. Because of the abundance of wa

North Slope, the overall cumulative impact to water resources on the North Slope and in the Planning Area would probably be smalimpacts would be local in nature. 

EFFECTS ON VEGETATION 

General Effects: Non-oil and gas activities would have negligible effects on vegetation. Oil exploration would disturb vegetation on 8,126 acres from 2-D seis

mic work and 

approximately 99,870 acres from 3-D surveys, for a total of 107,996 acres disturbed. Abo

ut 25 percent of the 

disturbance from 2-D or 3-D seis

mic 

trails would be mediu

m to hig

h, 

short-ter

m i

mpacts, with a greater

percentage at that level for campmove trails; there would be longter

m i

mpacts o

n about 150 acres. 

Construction of ice pads would occur on 906 acres d

uring the life of the 

plan. Another 15,642 acres would be impacted by construction of ice roads. The construction of exploration well cellars would result in per

manent, minor vegetation 

destr

uction and alteration. 

Development activities would cause the loss of vegetation on 3,270 acres and the alteration of plant species 

General Effects: Non-oil and gas activities would have negligible effects on vegetation. I

mpacts fro

m

seis

mic surveys would be the same

as under Alter

native A. Construction 

of ice pads would occur on 1,020 acres during t

he life of the plan. 

Another 18,672 acres 

would be 

impacted by construction of ice roads. Development activities would cause the loss of vegetation on 3,716acres and the alteration of plant species composition on 10,178 acres, affecti

ng a total of 13,894 acres.

These impacts would be per

manent 

if gravel pa

ds remained after 

production ended, although some plant species would be able to grow on the pads. Development impacts would affect about 0.3% of the Planning Area a

nd would not likely 

adversely affect an

y plant species or

plant com

m

u

nities. Overall, a 

greater amount of vegetation would be impacted than 

u

n

der Alternative 

General Effects: Non-oil and gas activities would have negligible effects on vegetation. I

mpacts fro

m

seis

mic surveys would be the same

as under other alternatives. Construction of ice pads would impact vegetation on 1,260 acres during the life of the plan. Another 21,763 acres would be i

mpacted by

construction of ice roa

ds. 

Development activities would cause the loss of vegetation on 4,649 acres and the alteration of plant species composition on 13,001 acres,affecting a total of 17,650 acres. These impacts would be per

manent 

if gravel pa

ds remained after 

production ended, although some plant species would be able to grow on the pads. Development impacts would affect less than 0.4

% of the 

total Planning Area a

nd would not 

likely adversely affect any plant species or plant communities.Overall, a greater amou

nt of 

General Efactivities woeffects on veseis

mic surv

as under othConstruction on 1,158 acrplan. Constrimpact vegeover the life Developmenthe loss of veand t

he alte

composition affecti

ng a t

These impacif gravel pa

d

production eplant specieon the pads. would affect total Planninlikely adversspecies or plOverall, a gr

 2-99 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-100 EFFECTS ON VEGETATION 

composition on 9,343 acres, affectinga total of 12,613 acres. These impacts would be permanent if gra

vel pads remained after 

production ended, although some plant species would be able to grow on the pads. Development impacts would affect less than 0. 3% of the total Planning Area a

nd would not 

likely adversely affect any plant species or plant communities.Overall, impacts would be mi

nor,

provi

ded rare plant populations were

avoided through careful siting at the facilities-approval stage. 

A, b

ut impacts would still be 

minor, 

provi

ded rare plant populations were

avoided through careful siting at the facilities-approval stage. 

vegetation would be impacted thanunder the other alter

natives, but 

impacts would still be minor,provi

ded rare plant populations were

avoided through careful siting at the facilities-approval stage. Increased develop

ment in the area around 

Teshekpuk Lake could disproportionately affect wet vegetation classes. 

vegetation wunder Alternslig

htly less 

C. Impacts wrare pla

nt p

through carefacilities-appdevelop

men

Teshekpuk Ldisproportiovegetation c

Cumulative Effects: 

Approximately 2,500 acres of direct impacts and 15,000 acres of indirect i

mpacts to vegetation from non-oil an

across the North Slope today and will contin

ue into the future. By 2010, oil and gas activities will have caused approximately 18342 

and 60,000 acres of indirect i

mpacts to 

vegetation that will persist long-term. For the most part, these i

mpacts would be additive. Ho

developments t

hat occur in the northern part of t

he Pla

n

ning Area may 

make a

dditional oil fields eco

nomically viable in the nearb

y 

North

west NPR-A or the Beaufort Sea offshore. In this case, impacts would be sy

nergistic in the sense that some develop

ments wo

u

develop

ments that mig

ht otherwise not have occurred. Althoug

h the increase in the amount of area disturbed by oil and gas develop

dramatically i

n recent years, it is estimate

d that an additional 1,050 acres could be covered by gravel a

nd 210 acres impacted by gra

NPR-A in the next 25 

years. Approximately 6,300acres wo

uld be in

directly affected by d

ust, changes in 

h

ydrolog

y, and thermokarst. 

be impacted by oil and gas activities in the following 25 

years between 2035 and 2060. Additionally, oil/gas development in the North

cause direct i

mpacts on 4,151 acres and indirect i

mpacts on 21,000 acres. All these i

mpacts to vegetation are a

d

diti

ve to the impacts 

accumulated in the past and persist today, but in the context of the ACP and North Slope, these cumulative impacts would be smallacres) a

nd indirect (132,401 acres) impacts that could still persist in 2060, combined direct and indirect impacts to vegetation from a

Slope would affect approximately 1.3 percent of the ACP and 0.29 percent of the North Slope. These estimates do not take into accouvegetation that would be impacted on the North 

Slope. If facilities were constructed in an area containing a population of a rare plan

that species could be high. Fi

ve rare North Slope plant species are know

n to occur in the Plan

ning Area, and other rare species are k

North Slope but ha

ve not been documented in the Planning Area. Because of the limited number of pla

nts comprising rare pla

nt po

Slope, loss of o

ne or more plant populations could be a sig

nificant cumulative impact to the species. Impacts from ice road constructi

another 15,642 to 21,763 acres, while impacts from ice pads a

nd ice airstrips would occur on 1,126 to 1,700 acres during t

he life of th

to vegetation would be short-term and would not accum

ulate. Long-term i

mpacts to vegetation from seismic s

urveys in t

he Planni

ng 

approximately 150 acres. Development in the Plan

ning Area could 

directly impact approximately 3,270, 3,716, 4,649, and 4,378 acre

9,343, 10,178, 13,001, and 12,961 acres of vegetation for Alternatives A t

hrough D, respectively. These impacts would be long-term a

Total, long-ter

m, direct a

nd indirect impacts to vegetation from exploration and development co

mbined would occur on 0.3 (Alter

nat

C) percent of the Planning Area. Global climate change could alter the species composition, increasing deciduous s

hrubs ,an

d sedges 

expense of lichens and mosses. 

EFFECTS ON WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS 

Non-oil and gas activities would have negligible effects on wetlands and 

Non-oil and gas activities would have negligible effects on wetlands and 

Non-oil and gas activities would have negligible effects on wetlands and 

Non-oil and gnegligible effe
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

EFFECTS ON WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS 

floodplains. During exploration and development, seis

mic activities and 

construction of pads, roads and airstrips, and pipelines would cause short and long-term impacts by damaging wetlands under pads, roads, and airstrips, excavating material sites, and constructing well cellars and VSMs. Oil exploration would disturb approximately 108,000 acres of wetlands and floodplains from 2-D and 3-D seismic work on a short-term basis during a 25-year period. Long-term seis

mic impacts 

would amount to approximately 150 acres. Pipeline construction will impact approximately 1,200 acres on a shortterm basis. Ice road, pad, and airstrips will have short-term impacts on approximately 16,800 acres. Construction of gravel roads, pads, airstrips, staging bases, CPFs, and gravel pits, will have direct long-term impacts on approximately 3,300 acres. Indirect longterm alteration of wetlands adjacent to roads and airstrips will amount to approximately 9,300 acres, with a total long-term impact of 12,600 acres or 0.27 % of the Planning Area. These impacts would be permanent if gravel pads remained after production ended, although some plant species would be able to grow on the pads. Overall, impacts would be minor. 

floodplains. During exploration and development, seis

mic activities and 

construction of pads, roads and airstrips, and pipelines would cause short and long-term impacts by damaging wetlands under pads, roads, and airstrips, excavating material sites, and constructing well cellars and VSMs. Oil exploration would disturb approximately 108,000 acres of wetlands and floodplains from 2-D and 3-D seismic work on a short-term basis during a 25-year period. Long-term seis

mic impacts 

would amount to approximately 150 acres. Pipeline construction will impact approximately 1,250 acres on a shortterm basis. Ice road, pad, and airstrips will have short-term impacts on approximately 20,000 acres. Construction of gravel roads, pads, airstrips, staging bases, CPFs, and gravel pits, will have direct long-term impacts on approximately 3,700 acres. Indirect longterm alteration of wetlands adjacent to roads and airstrips will amount to approximately 10,200 acres, with a total long-term impact of 13,900 acres or 0.30 % of the Planning Area. These impacts would be permanent if gravel pads remained after production ended, although some plant species would be able to grow on the pads. Overall, Alternative B would impact more wetlands and floodplains than under Alternative A, but impacts would still be minor. 

floodplains. During exploration and development, seis

mic activities and 

construction of pads, roads and airstrips, and pipelines would cause short and long-term impacts by damaging wetlands under pads, roads, airstrips, excavating material sites, and constructing well cellars and VSMs. Oil exploration would disturb approximately 108,000 acres of wetlands and floodplains from 2-D and 3-D seismic work on a short-term basis during a 25-year period. Long-term seismic impacts would amount to approximately 150 acres. Pipeline construction will impact approximately 1,500 acres on a short-term basis. Ice road, pad, and airstrips will have shortterm impacts on approximately 23,500 acres. Construction of gravel roads, pads, airstrips, staging bases, CPFs, and gravel pits, will have direct long-term impacts on approximately 4,650 acres. Indirect long-term alteration of wetlands adjacent to roads and airstrips will amount to approximately 13,000 acres, with a total long-term impact of 17,650 acres or 0.38 % of the Planning Area. These impacts would be permanent if gravel pads remained after production ended, although some plant species would be able to grow on the pads. Overall, Alternative C would impact more wetlands and floodplains than all other Alternatives, but impacts would still be minor. 

floodplains. Ddevelopment, construction oand pipelines long-term impunder pads, roexcavating maconstructing wexploration w108,000 acres floodplains frwork on a shoyear period. Lwould amounacres. Pipelinapproximately term basis. Ice will have shorapproximately of gravel roadbases, CPFs, adirect long-terapproximately term alteration roads and airsapproximately long-term imp% of the Planwould be permremained aftealthough somable to grow oAlternative D wetlands and Alternatives A than Alternatistill be minor

Cumulative Effects: Past and Present: Approximately 2,500 acres of direct i

mpacts to wetlan

ds and floodplains from non-oil an

d 

acres community footprint + 700 acres D

EW line sites) persist today on the North Slope. Oil and gas activities have caused approxim

direct i

mpacts and another 17,500 acres of indirect i

mpacts , some of which persist to

day. Therefore, a total of approximately 37,500 

North Slope still show i

mpacts from all past activities. 

T

hese impacts are additive to future i

mpacts and are likely to persist for sev

Future: Assuming com

munity infrastructure and footprint grow at roughly the same pace as population, there would be approxima

acres of community footprint b

y t

he time population may level off in the 2040s. Therefore the total long term cum

ulative impact to w

on the North Slope from non oil and gas activities (past, present, a

nd foreseeable future) would be approxi

mately 4,300 (2,500 past + 

 2-101 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-102 EFFECTS ON WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS Impacts to wetlands from future oil a

nd gas develop

ment o

n the North Slope inclu

de exploration activities and construction of grave

gravel airstrips, gravel staging areas, excavation of material sites, oil pipelines, and possible gas pipelines (both to mar

ket outside th

within the North Slope). The duration of the impacts would range from short ter

m (< 1 to 5 years) if the soil was lig

htly disturbed or 

longer if the soil 

was covered by gravel, impou

n

d

ments, removed, or permafrost 

was thawed creating thermokarst. I

mpacts associat

develop

ment activities in the Planning Area would be a

d

ditive with impacts from activities in other portions of the 

National Petroleu

and across the North Slope. The total area of long term impacts to soils from future development 

would be approxi

mately 26,000 (22

2,200 material sites + 1,000 pipelines) acres. Under Alter

natives B, C, and D, the north

west portion of Northeast NPR-A is more li

k

Infrastr

ucture such as pipelines and CPFs developed in this portion of the Plan

ning Area would also make marginal discoveries in t

portion of Northwest NPR-A, and offshore areas to the north of Teshe

kpuk Lake, more likely to be developed in the foreseeable futur

greater area of soil disturbance than under Alternative A. Overall, the area of soils impacte

d long term by past, present, a

n

d foresee

develop

ment would be approximately 61,000 (35,000 past a

nd present + 26,000 future) acres. Compared to the area of the North Slo

relatively small area of soils i

mpacted (about 0.1 percent), even with the entire Planning Area open for develop

ment (Alternati

ve C). 

change persists, the c

umulative effects to soil from oil and gas development, and non oil a

nd gas development, on the North Slope co

predicted. Some wetlan

ds would be restored as sites are aban

doned and reclaimed. However, due to the harsh Arctic climate, it cou

years for wetland prod

uctivity to reac

h pre-disturbance le

vels on abando

ned pads and roads. 

EFFECTS ON FISH 

General Effects: A small 

n

umber of 

individual fish could be injured or kille

d, but it is unlikely that there 

would be a measurable effect on Arctic fish pop

ulations. The 

activities most likely to impact fis

h

are water withdrawals and seis

mic 

operations, particularly if airgun arrays are utilized. Stipulationswould li

mit water withdrawals, 

protect overwintering habitats, and offer other protections to fish. In the absence of numerous large oil spills or a very large oil spill, overall effects should be minor. 

General Effects: Fish in Teshekpuk Lake and other deepwater lakes and streams in the area woul

d ha

ve a greater potential

to be impacted by spills and 

habitat 

degradation than under the No Action Alternative. However, stipulations and ROPs would limit winter activities, protect overwintering habitats, and offer other protectio

ns to fish. In the 

absence of numerous large oil spills or a very large oil spill, overall effects should be minor. 

General Effects: Fish in Teshekpuk Lake and other deepwater lakes and streams in the area woul

d ha

ve a greater potential

to be impacted by spills and 

habitat 

degradation than under the other alternatives. T

he potential use of 

explosives for seismic exploration (not allowed u

nder the No Action 

Alternative a

nd Alternative B), 

although unlikely due to ad

vancements in technology, 

significantly increases the risk that fis

h may be injured or killed. 

Stipulations and R

OPs would limit

winter activities, protect overwintering habitats, and offer other protections to fish. In the absence of numerous large oil spills or a very large oil spill, overall effects should be minor. 

General Eflakes and sthave a greatimpacted by degradation Action AlterB, but less pAlter

natives 

explosives fo(not allowed Alternative although unad

vancemen

significantly fish may be However, adwould be proleasing in Terestricting poccupancy adisturbance Molting Areareas to the east of the laROPs would protect over 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

EFFECTS ON FISH 

offer other pOverall, effe

Cumulative Effects: Non-oil and gas activities, including scientific and recreational camps, village development, and subsistence have impacted fish effects have been minor and likely do not persist today. The energy produced by vibration equipment used to acquire seismic data is below the threshResults of a recent study that exposed fish to Vibroseis noise observed no mortalities and found no indication of physiological damage. Acute mortalmay be a proble

m primarily associated with explosive-based sources, a method that has not been used in recent years in the Alaskan Arctic. Approxi

impacts to uplands and wetlands from non-oil and gas activities persist today. Oil and gas activities have caused approximately 12,000 acres of direc

wetlands that persist today; another 18,000 acres of indirect impacts may have also occurred, some of which persist today and affect water bodies. Ahabitat that has been lost is not known, fish-bearing waters often exist in the complex of interconnected streams and lakes associated with wetlands oDuring the early years of develop

ment, gravel mining for roads and pads often interrupted both ice sheet flow and stream flows, and hence fish move

process and the regulatory environment for protecting fish have improved over time and are generally effective. Proper construction and placement ogreatly reduced effects, but have not eliminated them; these remaining effects have accumulated. While historical water withdrawal practices harmed regulations and practices have significantly improved. Studies over the last few years have documented water level recharge and no detectable chang

current water withdrawal limitations. Synergistic impacts to fish from disturbance related to oil and gas production under any of the alternatives in thanticipated. Beneficial effects related to material extraction at gravel sites would be possible in certain situations. Past reclamation of deep pits that hbeneficial when new habitat for Arctic fish species has been established. If oil and gas activities occurred in areas with high fish populations, or popu

important subsistence species, impacts to fish could be greater than impacts predicted based on the amount of area impacted. If global climate change could be much greater than predicted; although, some species are expected to benefit from global climate change. 

EFFECTS ON BIRDS 

General Effects: Effects from non-oil and gas activities are likely to be minor for most bird populations. Elevated activity and air traffic near large seasonal camps could result in minor impacts on local populations. Population level effects should be minor, except in the case of species that are uncom

mon, 

decreasing, or recently declined, where impacts could be greater. Effects from oil and gas leasing and development activities are likely to be minor for most bird populations. Routine summer air traffic, especially over higher bird density areas, would likely result in minor impacts. Development activities would cause the loss of 3,270 acres of habitat and the alternation of 9,343 acres of habitat, impacting a total of 12,613 acres of bird habitat, along with associated disturbance (by personnel, vehicles, air craft, etc), nesting, brood-rearing, staging and molting birds may be displaced but would likely not result in population effects due to the closure to oil and gas 

General Effects: Effects from nonoil and gas activities are likely to be minor for most bir

d populations. 

Elevated activity and air traffic nearlarge seasonal camps could res

ult in 

minor impacts on local populations.Population level effects shoul

d be

minor, except in the case of species that are uncommon, decreasing, or recently declined, where impacts could increase. Effects from oil a

nd 

gas leasing and developmentactivities to birds would be greater in extent a

nd magnitude than under 

Alternative A because an area of high bird use in the Teshekp

uk Lake 

Special Area would be available forleasing. Development activities would cause the loss of habitat on 3,716 acres and the alteration of habitat on 10,178 acres of habitat, impacting a total of 13,894 acres ofbird habitat, co

mbined with 

General Effects: Effects from nonoil and gas activities are likely to be minor for 

most bird populations.

Elevated activity and air traffic nearlarge seasonal camps could res

ult in 

minor impacts on local populations.Population level effects shoul

d be

minor, except in the case of species that are uncommon, decreasing, or recently declined, where impacts could increase. Effects from oil a

nd 

gas leasing and developmentactivities would be greatest u

nder 

this alternative because the amount of area of high bir

d use in the 

Teshekpuk Lake Special Areaavailable for leasing would begreatest, and because the projected level of development is 

highest 

under this alternative. Development activities would cause the loss of vegetation on 4,649 acres and the alteration of plant species composition on 13,001 acres, 

General Effeand gas activifor most bird activity and acamps could rlocal populatieffects should case of speciedecreasing, or impacts could and gas leasinactivities wouAlternative Atwo alternativTeshekpuk Laleasing, proviuse this lake. habitat associMolting Area and restrictionthat can be ditracts associatArea, and Resrestrictions ashabitat areas t

 2-103 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-104 EFFECTS ON BIRDS leasing areas with very high densities of birds. Raptors nesting along major rivers would experience minor effects from disturbance associated with human activities. Effects from crude oil spills, when confined to terrestrial and freshwater aquatic habitats, would be minor for most species, but could be greater for rare species or those with declining populations. If a spill were to enter a river delta offshore or near shore marine habitats occupied by substantial numbers of birds, minor to moderate effects would be likely for stable/increasing and declining populations, respectively. Stipulations and ROPs are designed to help mitigate effects to birds; overall, impacts would be to individual birds and except in the cases like that stated above, be unlikely to have population level effects. associated disturbance (by personnel, vehicles, air craft, etc), 

nesting, brood-rearing, staging and molting birds may be displaced and, in the case of a large spill in 

habitats

supporting large numbers of individuals, have t

he potential to 

cause population level effects to some species, s

uch as brant, t

hat 

depend on the Planning Area for molting. Stipulations and ROPs are designed to help mitigate effects tobir

ds; overall, impacts would be to 

in

dividual bir

ds and except in the 

cases like t

hat stated above, be 

unlikely to have population level effects. 

impacting a total of 17,650 acres ofbird habitat, co

mbined with 

associated disturbance (by personnel, vehicles, air craft, etc), nesting, brood-rearing, staging and molting birds may be displaced and, in the case of a large spill in 

habitats

supporting large numbers of individuals, have t

he potential to 

cause population level effects to some species, s

uch as brant, t

hat 

depend on the Planning Area for molting. Stipulations and ROPs are designed to help mitigate effects tobir

ds; overall, impacts would be to 

in

dividual bir

ds and except in the 

cases like t

hat stated above, be 

unlikely to have population level effects. 

the lake, wouladditional 324of this area wunder Alternaactivities wouvegetation on alteration of p12,961 acres, acres of bird hassociated disvehicles, air crearing, stagindisplaced andin habitats supindividuals, hpopulation levsuch as brant, Planning Area and ROPs are effects to birdbe to individucases like that to have popul

Cumulative Effects: Impacts to habitat a

nd disturbance related impacts to birds on the North Slope from future oil and gas explor

are expected to be additive with respect to impacts from other past, present, and future non-oil and gas activities, from past and preactivities, and from impacts sustained along migrator

y routes, and in wintering areas. T

he effects of global climate c

hange are diffic

cha

nges in habitat structure associated with climate change would likel

y have a cum

ulative impact on bird populations. T

he impact

would increase the total a

mou

nt of bird 

habitat and 

disturbance related impacts by all oil and gas develop

ment, and would be a

d

diti

part. However, depending on oil prices and where and how much oil is ultimately developed in the Planning Area, there could be synacreage of bird habitat and associated disturbance t

hat would take place in the Northwest NPR-A. This would occur if a large disco

v

part of the Planning Area would make economic the development of an oil field in the northeast part of Northwest NPR-A which wobeen econo

mically developable. This potential scenario is least likely under Alternative A because less acreage in the northwest port

would be 

made available to leasing under this than the other three alternatives. S

ynergism could similarly res

ult if development no

resulted in offshore development being more econo

mically feasible. Such offshore development would likely result in a

dditional impa

develop

ments built onshore in support of the activities offshore and from interactions of bir

ds with off shore developments including 

T

his woul

d most likely affect t

he northern portion of the Planning Area or the Beaufort Sea coastal portions of the North

west N

P

R-A

unlikely under Alternative A, because very little coastal area in the Plan

ning Area would be available for lease and even less for s

ur

would be most likely u

nder Alter

native C, somewhat less u

nder Alter

native D because of development constraints, and less yet u

nde

of lan

ds u

navailable for lease. 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

EFFECTS ON TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS 

Gen

eral Effects: Non-oil and 

gas activities, seis

mic wor

k, drilling

of exploration wells, and spills would have minor effects on terrestrial mammal populations. Most effectson mammals of oil and gasdevelop

ment activities would be 

localized and short ter

m, and would 

not occur at the population le

vel. 

Some T

LH caribou 

would likely be

disturbed and their movements delayed along an elevated pipeline to the Kuparuk oil field during periods of air traffic and construction. Near the oil fields, surface, air, and foot traffic is expected to 

displace some 

terrestrial mam

mals. If field 

development occurred in critical TLH insect-relief areas, 

movements 

of caribou from coastal insect-relief areas to foraging areas could be adversely affected which could res

ult

in reduced productivity and ultimately a population level effect. Extensive develop

ment could result 

in the loss of some insect-relief habitat for TLH caribou. Cru

de oil 

and fuel spills are expected toresult in the loss of small numbers of some terrestrial mam

mal species. 

Overall, impacts to terrestrial mammals from oil and gas activitieswould be expected to be mostl

y

minor a

nd local. This may not be the 

case for TLH caribou, however, which could experience somepopulation level effects. 

General Effects Non-oil and gas activities, seismic work, drilling of exploration wells, and spills would have minor effects on terrestrial mammal populations. Effects of oil and gas development activities would occur over more of the Planning Area than under Alternative A, and a greater number of animals would potentially be disturbed. Impacts to terrestrial mammals in the vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake would be greater than under Alternative A, particularly with respect to caribou calving and insect-relief habitat. Approxi

mately 

213,000 acres would be closed to leasing north/northeast of Teshekpuk Lake, but this represents only a portion of the area important to caribou for calving and insect-relief. Also, an important caribou migration corridor to the east of Teshekpuk Lake would not be given protection. Lease stipulations and ROPs would help minimize i

mpacts to terrestrial 

mammals. Overall, a greater amount of mammal habitat would be affected and more ani

mals would be disturbed than 

under Alternative A. These increases would still be unlikely to reach a population level effect for species other than caribou. TLH caribou would be at greater risk of a population level effect under Alternative B than under Alternative A. 

General Effects: Non-oil and gas activities, seismic work, drilling of exploration wells, and spills would have minor effects on terrestrial mammal populations. Effects of oil and gas development activities would occur over all of the Planning Area, more than under any other alternative, and a greater number of ani

mals and a greater area of habitat 

would potentially be disturbed. I

mpacts to 

terrestrial 

mammals in the vicinity of 

Teshekpuk Lake would be greater than under the other alternatives, particularly with respect to caribou calving and insectrelief habitat. Lease stipulations and ROPs would help minimize i

mpacts to terrestrial 

mammals. Overall, a greater amount of mammal habitat would be affected and more ani

mals would be disturbed than 

under any of the other alternatives. These increases would still be unlikely to reach a population level effect for species other than caribou. Compared to the other three alternatives, TLH caribou would be at greatest risk of a population level effect under Alternative C. 

General Effecactivities, seisexploration wminor effects populations. Edevelopment amore of the PlAlternative A habitat would C due to additoccupancy. Lidisturbance thlease tracts assMolting Area, restrictions in Corridor and SArea, would pand other 

mam

mammals in thLake, particulcalving and ingreater than ungreater than Awhere oil is uldeveloped) anLease stipulatimini

mize i

mp

Overall, a greahabitat would animals would Alternative A but less than Aimpacts would population levthan caribou. Calternatives, Tgreater risk of than under Altbut less than u

Cumulative Effects: Approximately 2,500 acres of habitat have been directly i

mpacted by non-oil and gas development, and these 

persist. Oil and gas activities have caused an additional habitat loss or alteration of over 18,000 acres, and these impacts persist todimpacts to habitat are associated with ongoing residential and non-oil and gas com

mercial development, or oil and gas activities, the

are additive to future impacts and 

would be likely to persist for several decades or more in the absence of an active reclamation prog

develop

ment has altered the distribution of female caribou during the calving season and interfered with caribou movements betwee

 2-105 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

EFFECTS ON TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS 

and coastal insect-relief areas. Female caribou may also experience lower parturition rates when in close proximity to oil field develosuggested that declines in C

AH caribou prod

uctivity in the early 1990s may ha

ve been the res

ult of additive effects of oil field develo

activity, although populations of TLH, 

C

A

H, and 

WAH caribou have steadil

y i

ncreased from t

he mid-1970s to the early 2000s. Thus

due to oil field development may adversely affect caribou, but these effects may 

not be readily apparent based on pop

ulation trends. 

populations (e.g., fox and grizzly bear) have been little affected, or may even have benefited fro

m development on the North Slope. S

hunting pressures have likely increased from historic levels due to increases in human populations and better access to the North Sl

subsistence harvest s

urveys, subsistence harvest of mammals was relatively stable during t

he 1980s and early 1990s. Based on popu

mammals on the North 

Slope, hunting does not appear to be adversely affecting mammal populations. Development in the Planning 

impact approximately 3,270, 3,716, 4,649, a

nd 4,378 acres, and indirectly impact 9,343, 10,178, 13,001, and 12,961 acres of mam

mal 

A through D, respectively. These habitat losses would account for 3 to 14 percent of the habitat projected to be lost due to developme

during the next 50 years. Given that the area most likely to be developed 

u

n

der the action alternatives is located north and northeas

area t

hat provides critical habitat for TLH caribou, impacts to caribou, and perhaps ot

her mammals, and t

heir habitats could be m

u

predicted based solely on the amou

nt of area disturbed. As shown on 

maps 3-23 to 3-25, the areas to t

he north, northeast, and east o

along the coastline provide important caribo

u calving and i

nsect-relief habitat. Because of the importance of these areas, Lease Stip

were developed for Alternative D to provide special RSO protection to caribou habitat. Lease Stipulation K-11 would limit developmArea (which includes important caribou habitat) to the north of the lake. Still, caribou and ot

her wildlife would be exposed to oil and 

calving, summer, and potentially winter, ranges. Depending on the types and locations of facilities, impacts to caribou a

n

d other ma

accumulate, especially where species are concentrated, and could affect the long-term health of local populations (at least in the case 

develop

ment associated with leases in the Beaufort Sea could impact s

mall areas along the coast as a result of staging and storage o

develop

ment is unlikely to impact large areas of habitat. Development in the northwestern portion of the Planning Area could stimu

northeastern portion of North

west NPR-A above and beyond what might otherwise occ

ur. This could represent a synergistic effect, i

insect-relief 

habitat, of development in the Planning Area. Cumulative effects on caribou distrib

ution and abunda

nce are likely to be 

long as the life of the oil fields. Any reduction in calving and su

m

mer habitat use by cows and calves as a result of future onshore lea

functional loss of habitat t

hat accum

ulates and could res

ult in long-term effects on the caribou herds’ productivity a

nd abundance. If 

over t

he next several decades were to res

ult in widespread c

hanges in 

vegetation and insect abu

n

dance, other effects to terrestrial m

exacerbated (additively) and exten

d beyond the life of the oil fields. If these cumulative effects were to result in reductions in caribou 

could also be a reduction in the abu

n

dance of predators such as wolves, bears, and wolverines. 

EFFECTS ON MARI

N

E MAMMALS 

General Effects: Effects from nonoil and gas activities would be shortterm a

n

d localized. Offshore oil 

exploration and subsequentdevelopment in Harrison Bay could occur within a small area south of Atigaru Point. This could have effects on seals Seis

mic surveys near

the coast could disturb denning polar bears, but relatively few would beaffected. Noise associated with support aircraft could disturb marine mam

mals and temporarily

displace t

hem from preferred resting 

General Effects: Because there would likely be more development under this alternative, there would be a greater potential fordisturbance to marine mammals from aircraft, overla

n

d traffic, and 

barge traffic. Effects would belocalized and short ter

m, and would 

not s

ubstantially affect marine 

mammal populations. The potentialeffects of an oil spill would be si

milar

to those under the No Action Alternative, although the likelihood of a spill would be greater. 

General Effects: It is expected that there would be greater disturbance potential to marine mam

mals under 

Alternative C than under the other alternatives. T

he larger area opene

d

for development is expected to translate into greater aircraft and vessel traffic than u

n

der other 

alter

natives. Effects should be 

localized and short ter

m, and would 

not cause significant impacts to marine mammal populations.Stipulation K-6 would minimize the potential for oil development near 

General Eflikely be momammals unthan under Awould occur and generallB. No alternphysically i

m

potential imcome primardisturbancedifference in 20% more unA; 20% less 

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-106 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

EFFECTS ON MARI

N

E MAMMALS 

and feeding locations. Summer airtraffic could disturb ringed, bearded, and spotted seals hauled out on ice or beac

hes. A s

mall n

u

mber of 

ringed seals, spotted seals, or belugawhales could be adversely affected by oil spills reaching Fish Creek, Judy Creek, the Kogru River, the Colville River, or drainages that empty into the Colville 

River. Losses 

would be small and would not substantially impact marine mammal populations. 

Stipulation K-6 would minimize the potential for oil development near the coast to i

mpact ringed seals, 

spotted seals, and beluga whales. Ph

ysical habitat c

hanges are not 

expected. Increased barge traffic would increase the potential to affectgrey whales and other animals generally restricted to marine waters. 

Largely due to the expected 

increase in aircraft a

nd barge traffic, 

as well as traffic patter

ns, 

Alter

native B has a greater

likelihood of i

mpacting marine 

ma

m

mals than Alter

native A, but 

less than Alter

native C. The 

potential for impacts is relativel

y

si

milar between Alter

native B and 

D. 

the coast to i

mpact ringed seals, 

spotted seals, and beluga whales. 

generally eqD a

nd B. Ai

waters is moAlternatives Alternative of the area nis open. Alteres

ult in mo

waters than D may 

have 

than Alternaarea is accesEffects shouter

m, and w

impacts to mpopulations. minimize thdevelop

men

impact ringeand beluga w

Cumulative Effects Industrial activity in marine waters of the Beaufort Sea has been limited and sporadic and has likely not causcumulative effects on marine ma

m

mal populations. However, noise and other disturbances may 

have displaced whales from preferr

although, these effects are diffic

ult to quantify and to 

determine if they accumulate. In addition to noise a

nd disturbance from existi

seals, 

walr

uses, and beluga a

nd gray whales could be affected by future offshore development in the Beaufort and Ch

u

kchi Seas. In 

ma

m

mals wintering in the northern Bering Sea could be affected by disturbance from commercial fishing activities. S

ubsistence hun

mammals by Alaska Natives is not likel

y to affect marine mammals at the population level. Disturbance could result in temporary d

preferred feeding habitats, and some animals could be shot by fishermen. An oil spill could affect marine mam

mals in offshore or coa

impacts to marine ma

m

mals depending on the location and amount of oil spilled and the time of year. The effects of future habitat a

gra

vel island construction, platfor

ms, or other structures related to oil development 

would likely be minor. The presence of small am

materials, inclu

ding h

ydrocarbons and insecticides, would likely have mi

nor effects on marine mam

mals. The effects of global climat

ma

m

mals are u

nclear and will affect species differently. W

hile a reduction in the extent of Arctic ice coverage would likely ha

ve a dr

on ice-dependent seal populations, an increase in the amount of sea ice e

dge resulting from global warming 

may be beneficial to wha

fisheries are small and likely have only a 

minor i

mpact on marine mammal populations. Impacts to marine mammals from developm

Area would generally be similar under the four proposed alternatives. The increased de

velopment scenarios of alter

natives B, C and 

additional barge a

nd aircraft traffic impacts a

nd would require a greater number of coastal staging areas t

han the development scen

Alter

native A. Alter

native C may result in 40% 

more barge traffic than Alter

native A and is expected to require the greatest amoun

traffic; however the relative incremental addition of Alter

native C is not s

ubstantially 

different than the other alternatives when vie

additional staging areas along the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska coast led to increased offshore exploration and dthe potential for cum

ulative impacts to marine mammals by noise or other activities would increase. 

 2-107 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-108 EFFECTS ON ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES General Effects: Most oil and gas activities would be unlikely to disturb bowhead whales, except vessel traffic under exceptional circumstances. No bowhead habitat alteration is expected. 

Spectacled and Steller’s eiders could be directly impacted by activities occurring during the summer breeding season, which would primarily be associated with development and production. Vehicle, aircraft, pedestrian, and boat traffic; maintenance activities; heavy equipment use; and spill cleanup activities could all result in temporary displacement of eiders from preferred habitats, decreased nest attendance or nest abandonment; and increased energy expenditures. Gravel mining and placement associated with development could result in per

manent 

habitat loss on up to 3,270 acres. Eider mortality could result from collisions with vehicles and structures associated with oil and gas development. Effects from oil spills would be minor when confined to terrestrial and freshwater aquatic habitats, where eider 

mortality 

should be relatively low. Minor to moderate effects would be likely for eider populations if a spill were to enter a river delta or nearshore marine habitat when substantial numbers of brood-rearing, staging, or migrating individuals were present. Stipulations would decrease disturbance and help prevent fuel and oil pollution and degradation of important bird habitats. Seismic surveys and other exploration activities may result in disturbance and abandonment of polar bear dens. Some polar bears could be attracted to oil field camps and development and killed in defense of life or property, but such occurrences would be very rare. Lease stipulations (#75 

General Effects: Oil and gas activities would affect a largerportion of the Planning Area, and therefore more animals, than u

n

der 

the Alter

native A although types of 

impacts would be the same. Bowhead whales would still be unlikely to be impacted although an increase in s

hipping a

nd aircraft

traffic would be expected. Gravel mining and placement associated with development could result in perma

nent eider habitat loss on 

3,716 acres, approximately 14%more t

han Alternative A. Portions of 

high eider use in the Teshe

kpuk 

Lake Special Area would be available for leasing under t

his

alternative, so the likelihood for disturbance to eiders and the number of eiders affected would be greater. Lease Stipulations and Require

d Operating Procedures 

(ROP E-11 particularly) would decrease disturbance from 

most 

factors for threatene

d eiders and 

help prevent fuel and oil pollution and degradatio

n of i

mportant bir

d

habitats. Seismic surveys and otherexploration activities may result in disturbance and abandonment of polar bear dens. Some polar bears could be attracted to oil field camps and developme

nt and killed i

n

defense of life or property, but such occurrences would be very rare. Although the level o f seismicexploration is expected to be similar under all alter

natives, the greater 

level of exploration and development anticipated under t

his alternative 

General Effects: Oil and gas activities could affect a larger portion of the Planning Area than under the other alternatives. Although Alternative C is expected to result in more aircraft and shipping traffic than Alternative A or B, the difference bet

ween i

mpacts to 

Bowhead whales would likely not be measurable although short-term displace

ments may occur, Gravel mining 

and placement associated with development could result in permanent eider habitat loss on 4,649 acres, approxi

mately 42% more than Alternative 

A and 25% more than Alternative B. In addition, a larger amount of the areas of high eider use in the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area would be available for leasing under this alternative, so the likelihood for disturbance to eiders and the number of eiders affected would be greatest under this alternative. Lease Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures (RO

P E-11 particularly) 

would decrease disturbance from most factors for threatened eiders and help prevent fuel and oil pollution and degradation of important bird habitats. Similar types of impacts may occur under this Alternative as under the others; however the relatively greater amount of area open for development increases the potential for impacts to occur. 

General Effecwould affect a Planning Area may result in dpotential i

mpa

would generalexpected undeAlternative C Alternative A, any alternative impacts. Shorand displacemAlternative D equal to Alternexpected for Aand placemendevelop

ment 

approxi

mately 

A; 18% more less than Alter(Goose MoltinTracts Area) wpermanent surpipelines in sonorth and northigh density a32 and 3-33). would decreasfactors for threprevent fuel andegradation of The potential be si

milar as u

although the pwould be highand lower than differences in amounts. Impsi

milar to Alte

higher becausarea available 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

EFFECTS ON ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES 

particularly) would reduce the potential for disturbance effects and food attractants. 

the potential for these i

mpacts to

occur is somew

hat higher under t

his

Alter

native than Alter

native B but 

still expected to be minimal because of MMPA provisions and the Lease stipulations and ROPs (C-1particularly) w

hich should reduce 

the potential for disturbance effectsand food attractants. 

Cumulative Effects: Hunting and 

disturbance are the two primary factors that have impacted bowhead whales in the past and ha

although these effects have apparently not sig

nificantly altered population growth potential. Noise and disturbance associated with 

drilling activities, and boat and barge traffic have effected whales, although their long-term effects, and likelihood of having c

umula

are unknown. A few whales could experience sublethal or lethal effects from entanglement in fishing gear or collisions with ships. M

oil and gas development onshore on the North Slope and in the Planning Area would not impact bowhead whales. There would be an traffic that would contribute to c

umulative impacts to bow

head whales from underwater noise and the presence of boat traffic. Bowh

display a cu

m

ulative response to activities that produce u

nder

water 

noise by increasing their distance from such sources by tempora

route of travel or by temporarily changing their behavior. In general, these impacts 

would be minor and s

hort term. 

S

hould developm

Area stimulate greater interest in oil and gas activity offshore, these i

mpacts could increase proportionally. Bowhead whales that co

freshly-spilled oil could suffer temporar

y, non-lethal effects, and a few whales could suffer lethal effects. Bowhead whales could also 

clean-up activities. Cumulati

ve effects are likely to 

have only a minor impact on the bow

head whale population. Impacts to bowhead 

development in the Planning Area would generally be similar to t

hat discussed for marine mammals. The increased development sc

C and D would contribute additional barge and aircraft traffic i

mpacts a

nd would require a greater n

umber of coastal staging areas 

scenario u

n

der Alter

native A. If a

d

ditional staging areas along the Northeast National Petroleum 

Reserve – Alaska coast led to incr

exploration and development activities, the potential for cumulative i

mpacts to bowhead whales by 

noise or other activities 

would in

the expected level analyzed in the 

O

CS leasing documents. Should boat and barge traffic along the Bea

ufort Sea coast increase as a 

and development in the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska, 

deflection of the bowhead whale migration could occur. It is unlikely 

would have high impacts on individual bow

head whales or the whale population. 

Approximately 2,500 acres have been disturbed from non-oil and gas develop

ment on the North Slope. Although not all of this area w

eiders, m

uch of it has occurred along the coastline and near Barrow, areas where spectacled a

n

d Steller’s ei

ders are often seen (see 

m

and gas activities have directly i

mpacted approximately 13,000 acres of bird habitat, an

d in

directly i

mpacted additional acres of tun

disturbance can add incrementally to the impacts of develop

ment on ei

ders. The cumulative effects from typical activities associated 

develop

ment of oil and gas prospects in the Plan

ning Area, lan

ds to the west, and adjacent marine areas, could inclu

de small decline

of s

mall n

umbers of spectacled eiders, and potentially 

Steller’s eiders, through effects on survival and productivity, predation pressu

activities, and collisions with str

uctures. Development in t

he Planning Area would directly and indirectly impact 3,270, 3,716, 4,649

potential eider habitat for Alternatives A through D, respectively. The total current and expected acres of tundra conversion to gravel relative to the total amount of area covered by the ACP Eider survey is minimal; Alternative A through D to the total expected cumulative tundra impacts ranges from 9.8% to 13.3%, but the total acres of tundra impacted remain le

within the northern range of the eiders. Direct habitat impact estimates without location information of development and eiders suggest that cumulatbe very minor and that there is little or no real difference in the incremental contribution of each alternative. Because they each open areas north of Timpact under Alternatives B, D, and C would increase in that order. Facilitation of development in Northwest NPR-A could increase the total impacacres impacted above and for each alternative includes the Northwest NPR-A development at its full potential. 

 2-109 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

EFFECTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 

General Effects: Impacts from nonoil and gas activities would beminimal. There is a very low risk that c

ultural resources would be 

encountered and damaged d

uring 

seis

mic surveys, grou

n

d-disturbing

activities, excavation of materials, or oil spills associated 

with oil and gas 

develop

ment. Potential i

mpacts 

would be minor, as surveys would be conducted prior to all grounddisturbing activities. 

General Effects: The likelihood that c

ultural resources would be 

encountered d

uring surface 

disturbing acti

vities could be slig

htly

more than 10 % greater than underAlternative A because there would be more development and a greater portion of the Planning Area would be open to leasing. Overall, potential impacts to cultural resources would likely still be minor because surveys would be conducted prior to all ground-disturbing activities. Inaddition, stipulations that provide setbac

ks from lakes, streams, and 

rivers would help prevent i

mpacts because 

there concentrations of cultural resources are common in these areas. 

General Effects: The likelihood that cultural resources would be encountered during surface disturbing activities would be greater than under the other alternatives (A-30%; B-20%; D-5%) because there would be more develop

ment and a greater 

portion of the Planning Area would be open to leasing. Overall, it is likely that potential i

mpacts to cultural resources 

would still be 

minor because surveys 

would be conducted prior to all grounddisturbing activities. In addition, stipulations that provide setbacks from lakes, streams, and rivers would help prevent i

mpacts because concentrations of 

cultural resources are common in these areas. 

General Effeccultural resourduring surface be about 25% Alternative A, Alternative B, Alternative C portions of the open to leasinpotential i

mpa

would re

main 

would be conddisturbing actistipulations thlakes, streamsprevent i

mpac

cultural resourareas. 

Cumulative Effects: Cultural resources are nonrenewable, and displacement or contamination of cultural resources could affect th

values of the resource. The c

umulative effects of oil and gas exploration and developme

nt within the Planning Area and across the N

to esti

mate given the scattered nature of c

ultural resource deposits, their surface or near-surface contexts, and difficulty in predictin

as surveys an

d in

ventories were completed prior to exploration and develop

ment, the effects on c

ultural resources would be 

minimiz

discovery or 

damage to sites, presently kno

wn or unknow

n, would to some extent damage those sites, but would also require measur

the remaining material, a

d

ding that infor

mation to the archaeological record of the North Slope. In t

his case, Alternative A would c

toward c

umulative i

mpacts with the potential to directly a

nd indirectly generate ad

verse affects on terrestrial c

ultural resources on 

Alternatives B, C a

nd D have a greater potential for creating cum

ulative impacts because all of those Alternatives allow more area o

probability to be leased (s

ubmerged off-s

hore cultural resources, if present, would generally not be t

hreatened by off-shore oil and ga

exploration/development acti

vities). Federal and state regulation and 

management policies require agencies, or their per

mittees, to 

resources survey before any undertaking occurs (i.e., a ground-disturbing activity, such as well drilling, construction of infrastructurburied pipelines) not only on state and federal lan

ds but on lan

ds that may be affected by the issuance of a federal permit. The B

LM

require that all effects to an

y c

ultural resources identified d

uring surveys must be mitigated to the satisfaction of the land manager 

stipulations and ROPs developed for the action alternatives would minimize or prohibit exploration an

d develop

ment activities near 

the likelihood of impacts to cultural resources. 

EFFECTS ON SUBSISTENCE-HARVEST PATTERNS 

General Effects: Non-oil and gas activities would have limited effects on subsistence resources, thoughshort-ter

m, localized disturbances to 

subsistence species and 

harvest 

patterns could occur. S

ubsistence 

species, such as caribou, muskox, and moose, wo

uld avoid areas of oil 

General Effects: Effects 

would be 

greater in mag

nitu

de, extent, and 

duration t

han those occurring under 

the No Action Alternative, as an additional 387,000 acres would be open to oil an

d gas development. 

Stipulations would help to minimize the effects on subsistence species 

General Effects: Effects would be greater in mag

nitu

de, extent, and 

duration t

han those occurring under 

the other alternatives. Additional areas available for leasing u

nder this

alternative, w

hich would be closed 

under the other alternatives, are important caribou harvest areas and 

General Effecin magnitude, those occurrinAlternative, sioccurring undless than those Alternative C. disturbance th

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-110 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

EFFECTS ON SUBSISTENCE-HARVEST PATTERNS 

and gas activity, resulting in longter

m localized effects. Fish could also 

be killed, potentially affecting harvests in localized areas for one to several years. With the movement of subsistence species away from areas of develop

ment, they could become 

more difficult to locate and harvest by hunters. Nuiqs

ut hunters, in 

partic

ular, wo

uld be affected by the 

movement of caribou, as develop

ment would proceed west 

from the Nuiqsut 

vicinity. Waterfowl 

mig

ht also avoid traditional har

vest 

locations. Oil spills that entered water could contaminate, or cause concerns about conta

mination of, 

marine mammals a

nd fis

h. 

and 

harvest patter

ns. fishing areas for Barrow, 

Atqasu

k, 

and Nuiqsut. Development in thisarea could exclude subsistence users from important traditional harvest areas. Stipulations would help to minimize the effects on subsistence species and harvest patter

ns. 

lease tracts assMolting Area, Occupancy adCaribou MoveSouthern Cariprovide protecimportant calvrelief habitat f3-20). Develoarea, and in otprotection zonsubsistence ustraditional harwould help to subsistence sp

Cumulative Effects: Prior to sustained contact between the Iñupiat of the North 

Slope and Euroamericans, the Iñ

upiat were a hig

geographically widespread, and technologically capable people who live

d in 

dispersed, small communities based on family and social 

harvested local resources as 

needed a

nd as available. Begin

ning wit

h commercial whali

ng i

n t

he 1850s, a

nd followed by establis

hme

Petroleum Reserve and subsequent exploration activity that marked the beginning of resource extraction activity in lands occupied 

North Slope, the Iñupiat have had adapt to the “external pressures impacting their environment and regulatory actions t

hat restrict 

purs

uits.” S

ubsistence is currently, and has been since the mid-19th century, part of a rural econo

mic system, called a “

mixed, s

ubsis

wherein families invest money into s

mall-scale, efficient technologies to harvest wild foods. Over time, the Iñupiat experienced a gro

exter

nal market system to p

urchase introd

uced tech

nological in

novations to support subsistence activities (e.g., traps, boat motors, s

of for

merly utilize

d harvest areas due to in

d

ustrial activity was made possible by motorized transportation. During this 150-year pe

had to contin

ually adapt to t

he constraints placed 

upon their subsistence activities and lifestyle by cultures other than their own. T

h

constraints on the Iñupiat persist today and will accumulate with future effects on their subsistence resources a

nd lifestyle. Develop

side of Tes

hekpuk Lake, outside the area closed to leasing, could deflect or divert caribou hunted in and near the area by Nuiqsut, B

residents in the summer and winter. Numbers of animals available for harvest could be reduced through t

he slow destruction of spe

predation, climate c

hange, and disease. Diverting animals from their usual a

nd accustomed locations, or building facilities in proxim

could compel resource harvesters to travel further to avoi

d develop

ment areas. Harvest of subsistence resources in areas further from 

would require increased effort, risk, and cost on the part of subsistence users. Increasing the areas open for leasing and exploration 

develop

ment in previously close

d areas, leading to concentrating subsistence harvest efforts in the un

developed areas and increasin

conflict over 

harvest areas 

within a comm

u

nity. Climate change and the associated effects of anticipated warming of the climate reg

sig

nificantly affect subsistence harvests an

d uses if war

ming tren

ds contin

ues as predicted. Ever

y com

m

u

nity in the Arctic is potent

anticipated climactic shift and there is no plan in place for communities to adapt to or mitigate t

hese potential effects. The reduction

of subsistence resources would have severe effects on the subsistence way of life for residents of Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, 

Barrow, Wainwri

Pass. If the loss of per

mafrost, a

nd con

ditions beneficial to the maintenance of permafrost, arise as pre

dicted, there could be synergi

infrastr

ucture, travel, lan

dforms, sea ice, river navigability, habitat, availability of fresh water, and availability of terrestrial mam

m

waterfowl and fish, all of which could necessitate relocating com

munities or their population, shifting the population to places with b

hunting and causing a loss or dispersal of community. Allowing leasing a

nd development of all or portions of the area west and north 

 2-111 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-112 EFFECTS ON SUBSISTENCE-HARVEST PATTERNS under t

he action alternati

ves would dramatically reduce the amou

nt of u

ndisturbed habitat to caribou, waterfowl, fish, and other s

u

effects to subsistence species would be greatest u

n

der Alternative C. 

Effects to subsiste

nce species would be si

milar u

n

der 

Alter

nativ

Teshekpuk Lake would be deferred from leasing under the Alternative D, protecting waterfowl and other subsistence species that 

u

RSO restrictions on perma

nent facilities in caribou habitat protection areas and the Goose 

Molting Area would limit the amount of s

could occur north a

nd east of Tes

hekpuk Lake; t

hese restrictions would reduce the likelihood of cumulative effects to subsistence res

EFFECTS ON SOCIOCULTURAL SYSTEMS 

General Effects: Oil and gas development in the Planning Area would further the perception that local residents are being surrounded by develop

ment, 

and would increase the difficulty, expense, and risk of traveling to subsistence harvest areas. As a result, the continued use of and access to traditionally used lands could decrease, potentially threatening the subsistence way of life. As Nuiqsut is the co

m

munity 

closest to the oil and gas develop

ment, 

effects would likely be greatest for Nuiqsut residents. Atqasuk, Barrow, Wainwright, and Anaktuvuk Pass could also be affected. Oil spills could disrupt subsistence harvests by contaminating resources, or causing the perception that resources were conta

minated. Stipulations 

would provide protections for subsistence resources, cabins, camps, and river corridors, as well as a system of negotiating conflicts between permittees, leaseholders, and subsistence users, and would help to allow cultural values to coexist with development. 

General Effects: Effects 

would be 

greater in mag

nitu

de and extent 

than those occ

urring under the No 

Action Alternative. Develop

ment in 

areas north of Teshekpuk Lake could cause societal stress in Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Atqasu

k by

discouraging families from using tra

ditional sites and increasing 

concerns about encroach

ment and 

conta

mination of subsistence 

resources. This alternative adopts anew approach to protective measures, relying on performancebased stipulations a

nd R

OPs rather 

than prescriptive-based stipulations. Local residents are less familiar with this new approach and have concerns about whether it would be as effective as the previousset of stipulations. Some localresidents and organizations perceive the c

hanges to the stipulation

package as reversing commitmentspreviously made. This could affect the sense of trust between local com

munities a

nd the federal 

agencies managing the Natio

nal 

Petroleum Reserve – Alaska. 

General Effects: Effects would be greater in mag

nitu

de and extent 

than under the other alternatives, as the amount of oil exploration and develop

ment activity and area of 

disturbance would be greatest under this alter

native than the No Action 

Alternative, affecting more traditional use sites and increasingthe likelihood of conflicts between industr

y and t

he subsistence way of 

life. 

General Efgreater in mthan those oAction Altereffects t

hat w

Alternative effects t

hat w

Alternative areas north cause societaNuiqsut, andiscouraging tra

ditional s

concerns abocontaminatiresources. TdevelopmenLake would under this aAlter

native 

amount of s

u

allowed in eRestricted Srestrictio

ns 

habitats to tthe lake s

ho

caribou a

nd 

resources. Tdevelopmenproximity to si

milar u

n

de

Cumulative Effects: Impacts to the sociocultural systems of the Iñupiat of the North 

Slope have occurred since the first direct inte

Natives in the first quarter of the 19th century. Since that time, the Iñupiat have adapted to 

new tech

nologies, new exter

nal pressur

actions. By the mid-20th centur

y, Iñupiat settlement patterns had c

hanged sig

nificantl

y. The population became centralized into a fe

they previously had been spread in s

mall family-based units across the North Slope. The cumulative effects of oil and gas developme
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

EFFECTS ON SOCIOCULTURAL SYSTEMS 

patterns over the last 50 years are hard to establish with qua

ntitative precision given t

he lack of baseline data. Nonetheless, there i

Slope sociocultural systems have been subject to ongoing, additive, and sy

nergistic c

umulative i

mpacts. Stresses on North Slope soci

inclu

de reside

nts’ inability to access traditional use areas, threats to reso

urces/life ways and to spiritual con

nection with the land, ha

multiple en

viron

mental i

mpact assess

ments and other de

velopment processes, and being ig

nored or 

discou

nted by agency represent

stresses would result in greater i

mpacts to socioc

ultural systems. The possibility of a major oil spill, and its effects on bowhead whal

mammals, fis

h, a

n

d wildlife, is of great concern to residents, although no such spill has occurred recently on t

he North Slope. These 

because they interact and are repeate

d with each new lease sale, EIS, development proposal, and facility expansion. These effects w

Alternative C, not only because it would result in a greater amount of surface disturbance than the other alternatives, but also becaArea would be available for oil and gas leasing and develop

ment. However, the amount of wealth, including income from royalties, t

by oil and gas activity and available to residents of the North Slope would be anticipated to be greater 

u

n

der this alternative than th

The effects on wealth and subsistence reso

urces would be least u

n

der Alternative A, 

w

hile the effects on wealth and subsistence reso

B and Alternative D would fall between the No Action Alternative and Alternative C. 

EFFECTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

General Effects: Impacts tosubsistence species and 

harvest 

patter

ns (as disc

ussed above) would 

also have disproportional i

mpacts on

the minority Iñupiat population, which is depen

dent on subsistence 

resources. As effects to subsistence species would likely be localized, short term, and minor, environ

mental justice effects would 

be minor as well. In the unlikely event t

hat a major oil spill occurred 

in a key harvest area or near a community, environmental justice effects would be much greater. 

General Effects: Effects 

would be 

greater in mag

nitu

de and extent 

than those occ

urring under the No 

Action Alternative. This alternative adopts a new approach to protective measures, relying on performancebased stipulations a

nd R

OPs rather 

than prescripti

ve-based stipulations. 

Local residents are less familiar with this new approach and haveconcerns about whether it 

would be 

as effective as the previous set of stipulations. Some local residents and organizations perceive the changes to the stipulation package as reversing com

mitments

previously made. This could affect the sense of trust between local com

munities a

nd the federal 

agencies managing the Natio

nal 

Petroleum Reserve – Alaska. 

General Effects: Effects would be greater in mag

nitu

de and extent 

than under the other alternatives, as the amount of oil exploration and develop

ment activity and area of 

disturbance would be greatest under this alter

native than all other 

alter

natives. 

General Efgreater in mthan those oAlter

native 

that would oB and C becdevelop

men

caribou a

nd 

species woulprotection in Molting AreMovement CSouthern CaThis alternaapproach to relying on pstipulations prescriptivewith alternalocal residenperceive the stipulation pcom

mitment

could affect between locafederal agenNational PeAlaska. 

Cumulative Effects: 

E

uro-A

merica

n presence, com

mercial w

haling, a

n

d non-oil an

d gas development and oil and gas exploration a

 2-113 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-114 EFFECTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE had cum

ulative impacts to I

ñupiat culture and to fis

h a

n

d wildlife used for subsistence. EuroAmerican presence has impacted the I

and other ills. Commercial 

w

haling nearly decimated whale stoc

ks in the Ch

u

kchi and Beaufort seas; bowhead whale populations, th

remain nearly 80 percent below their levels in the 1800s. Non-oil and gas development associated with military, residential, and comhave directly i

mpacted several thousan

d acres of fish and wil

dlife 

habitat and 

has also in

directly affected 

habitat and animal behavi

accumulated and persist today. Oil and gas exploration and development conducted by the federal government a

nd industry ha

ve di

habitat use and behavior of s

ubsistence species, and these impacts persist today. These effects have disr

upted subsistence livelihood

account for some of the social problems seen in the villages today. Under the c

umulative case, c

urrently planned development in the 

winter exploration throughout the entire area would continue. Seismic exploration would occur in 

winter a

nd would include the 

dril

delineation wells in areas not excluded by buffers. Exploration and development could originate fro

m I

ndigo, Point Lonely, and the U

encompass important subsistence harvest areas for moose, fish, caribou, and furbearers, affecting subsistence users in Nuiqsut and Atqasuk, Barrow, Wainwright and Anaktuvuk Pass. If permanent development is pursued in areas newly opened to exploration an

d 

alter

natives B, C, and D, Iñ

upiat users would be less likely to utilize an area from 5 miles to 25 miles arou

nd those facilities for subs

that would be potentially off-limits could represent a majority of the portion of the subsistence range that is presently undeveloped, great traditional and 

historic sig

nificance and key 

habitat areas for several crucial subsistence species. Allowing leasing an

d develop

of the area north and west of Teshekpuk Lake under the action alternatives would dramaticall

y reduce t

he amount of undisturbed h

waterfowl, fish, and other subsistence species. These effects to subsistence species would be greatest u

nder Alter

native C. Effects to 

would be similar u

n

der Alternatives B and D. Effects to s

ubsistence comprise direct effects to t

he I

ñupiat, a recognized minority pop

subsistence harvesters on the North Slope. I

mpacts to h

u

man health and well-being, social systems, and c

ultural values of the Iñupi

disproportionate effects on this 

minority population. 

EFFECTS ON COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 

General Effects: Conflicts could occur wit

h specific statewide 

standar

ds and NSB Coastal 

Management Program policiesrelated to potential user conflictsbetween development activities and access to subsistence resources. These conflicts would relate to effects resulting from periodicdisturbance and oil spills; however,no resource would become unavailable, 

u

ndesirable for use, or 

experience substantial overall population re

d

uctions. The 

stipulations in place would red

uce

conflicts, making this alter

native 

consistent with Alaska Coastal Management Program standards. For all other resources, there are no inherent conflicts bet

ween 

exploration and development activities and the statewide standards and enforceable 

General Effects: Impacts tosubsistence resources would be greater than u

nder the No Action 

Alternative, as a

dditional caribou, 

waterfowl, and fishing areas would be open to leasing and the expected level of development would be greater. 

General Effects: Impacts tosubsistence resources would be greater than u

nder the other

alternatives, as a

dditional caribou, 

waterfowl, and fishing areas would be open to leasing and the expected level of development would be greater. 

General Efsubsistence than 

u

nder a

less oil and glikely occur and caribou, subsistence additional pTract/Goose Movement CCaribou Cal
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

EFFECTS ON COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT 

policies of the NSB Coastal Management Progra

m. With mitigating measures and 

regulatory oversight, it would be possible to comply with all of the standards and policies relevant to oil and gas activities that would be likely to have effects on the coastal resources or uses of the coastal zone. Applicable policies would be more precisely addressed when specific proposals were brought for

ward by 

lessees. Cum

ulative Effects: As most non-oil and gas development, and oil and gas development on the North Slope has occurred near the 

the NSB and State of Alaska coastal zone management policies have occurred in the past. Specific issues inclu

de limits on access to 

Natives, disturbance to a

nd deflection of caribou moving to i

nsect-relief areas along the coast, loss of habitat, and loss of historical, c

archaeological resources res

ulting from exploration and development alo

ng the coastline. Through consultation, conflicts between co

policies a

nd proposed development t

hat could occur in coastal areas have been reduced since implementation of coastal managemen

coastal area, from Atigaru Point to the boundary 

with the Northwest National Petroleum 

Reserve – 

Alaska, would be closed to leasi

Alter

native. 

Lease Stipulation K-6, Coastal Areas, requires that permanent oil and gas facilities, inclu

ding gravel pads, roads, airstr

established to support exploration and development activities shall be located at least 3⁄4 

mile inlan

d from the coastline to the extent 

result of technological limitations, econo

mics, logistics, or other factors, a facility must be located withi

n 3⁄4 mile inlan

d of the coastlin

locating the facility at previo

usly occupied sites such as Camp Lonely, various Husky/U

SGS drill sites, and 

Distant Early War

ning (

be considered. Use of existing sites within 3⁄4 mile of the coastline shall also be acceptable where it is demonstrated that use of such sto shorelines or otherwise be environ

mentally preferable. All lessees/permittees involved in activities in the i

m

mediate area m

ust co

new or existing sites with all other prospective users. Before conducting open 

water activities, the lessee shall consult with the Alask

Commission, the Nuiqsut W

haling Captains’ Association, and the N

SB to minimize impacts to the fall and spring subsistence whali

communities of the North Slope. Adherence to this stipulation should ensure that coastal resources are adequately protected. All fe

d

federally-permitted activities m

ust be reviewed for consistenc

y with coastal management programs. 

T

herefore, onshore activities wi

and some offshore activities i

dentified 

u

n

der the alternatives should be assesse

d against the Alaska CMP, including the 

N

SB CM

P. 

EFFECTS ON RECREATIONAL RESOURC

ES 

General Effects: Non-oil and gas activities would cause temporary impacts to recreation values on 2,000to 3,000 acres. Oil and gas exploration activities would cause short-ter

m i

mpacts on 

approximately 107,996 acres. The greening of vegetation from ice pads, roads, airstrips, and compacted snow would occur on up to 16,768 acres.Seis

mic operations would result in 

many hundreds of miles of trials. Short-ter

m i

mpacts would not 

General Effects: The area s

ubject 

to recreation effects would be approximately the same as that affected under Alternative A. Non-oil and gas activities would cause temporar

y impacts to recreation 

values on 2,000 to 3,000 acres. Oil and gas exploration activities would cause short-ter

m impacts on 

approximately 107,996 acres. The greening of vegetation from ice pads, roads, airstrips, and compacted snow would occur on up to 20,022 acres. 

General Effects: The area subject to recreation effects would be approximately 4% greater than thatunder Alternative A or B, an

d 2% 

greater than t

hat under Alternative 

D. Non-oil an

d gas activities would 

cause temporary i

mpacts to 

recreation values on 2,000 to 3,000 acres. Oil and gas exploratio

n

activities would cause short-term impacts on approximately 107,996 acres. The greening of vegetation from ice pads, roads, airstrips, and 

General Efto recreation approximateunder Alternless than u

n

oil and gas atemporar

y im

values on 2,and gas explcause short-approximategreening of vroads, airstr

 2-115 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-116 EFFECTS ON RECREATIONAL RESOURC

ES 

accumulate. T

here would be a loss of 

solitude, naturalness, or pri

mitive 

and unconfined recreation opportu

nities o

ver an area of 

533,980 acres (approximately 11.6% of the Planning Area) for the life of production fields and pipelines. Long-term i

mpacts would 

accum

ulate over time. 

Seis

mic operations would result in 

many hundreds of miles of trials. There would be a loss of solitude, naturalness, or primitive and unconfined recreation opportunitiesover an area of 549,780 acres (approximately 11.9% of the Planning Area) for the life of production fields and pipelines. 

compacted s

now would occur on up 

to 23,463 acres. 

Seismic operations

would result in many hundreds of miles of trials. There would be a loss of solitude, naturalness, or primitive and unconfined recreation opportu

nities o

ver an area of 

754,380 acres (16.4

% of the Plan

ning

Area) for the life of productio

n fields

and pipelines. 

would occur Seis

mic oper

many hundrThere would natural

ness

unconfined rover an area of the Plannproduction f

Opportunities for primitive recreation ha

ve a

nd 

will contin

ue to be reduced by oil and gas activities on the North Slope. Facilities at 

recreational opportunities along t

he Dalton Highway and at Prudhoe Bay. There would tech

nically be no cu

m

ulative i

mpacts to Wil

Scenic Rivers because there are c

urrently no such areas 

designated in the Plan

ning Area. However, the area eligible for future desig

to the degree that 

major disturbance occurred. Projected c

umulative activities could have local impacts on the free-flowing, unpollut

affect t

he outstandi

ngly remarkable val

ues of portions of the eligible Col

ville River. In such a case, the amount of area potentially su

would be reduced. Cumulative effects would be si

milar u

n

der all four alternatives. 

EFFECTS ON VISUA

L RESOURCES 

General Effects: Impacts on visual resources from activities other than oil and gas would be minimal and short term. During exploration, seismic surveys could result in over 11,650 miles of visible trails. It is estimated that the long-term disturbance associated with 151 new wells with associated ice pads, airstrips, and roads would cause greening and ring effects on up to 16,768 acres. During development, long-term visual effects would occur from support facilities such as staging bases, C

PF and pump stations, on 

up to 650 acres, while i

mpacts from 

production facilities such as infield pads, roads, gravel pits, and pipelines would affect up to 2,818 acres. Sale oil and main pipelines would i

mpact up to 491 acres. 

Impacts from spills would occur up to 1,792 ti

mes over the life of the facility. 

General Effects: Impacts on visual resources from activities other than oil and gas would be minimal and short term. During exploration, seismic surveys could result in over 11,650 miles of visible trails. It is estimated that the long-term disturbance associated with 170 new wells with associated ice pads, airstrips, and roads would cause greening and ring effects on up to 20,022 acres. During development, long-term visual effects would occur from support facilities such as staging bases, C

PF and pump stations, on 

up to 810 acres, while i

mpacts from 

production facilities such as infield pads, roads, gravel pits, and pipelines would affect up to 3,664 acres. Sale oil and main pipelines would i

mpact up to 491 acres. 

Impacts from spills would occur up to 2,070 ti

mes over the life of the facility. 

General Effects: Impacts on visual resources from activities other than oil and gas would be minimal and short term. During exploration, seismic surveys could result in over 11,650 miles of visible trails. It is estimated that the long-term disturbance associated with 210 new wells with associated ice pads, airstrips, and roads would cause greening and ring effects on up to 23,463 acres. During development, long-term visual effects would occur from support facilities such as staging bases, C

PF and pump stations, on 

up to 970 acres, while i

mpacts from 

production facilities such as infield pads, roads, gravel pits, and pipelines would affect up to 4,649 acres. Sale oil and main pipelines would i

mpact up to 551 acres. 

Impacts from spills would occur up to 2,503 ti

mes over the life of the facility. 

General Effecresources from gas would be mDuring explorresult in over It is estimated disturbance aswells with assand roads woueffects on up development, would occur fstaging bases, up to 810 acreproduction facroads, gravel paffect up to 4,pipelines wouImpacts from 2,287 ti

mes ov
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

There would be a small increase in the short-ter

m i

mpacts to visual reso

urces from non-oil and gas activities. Short-term impacts, su

ongoing activities would not accumulate. I

mpacts from long-term or per

manent facilities such as roads, pipelines, and gravel pads a

accumulate and would result in the long-term loss of scenic quality. Long-term i

mpacts from production sites, staging areas, and pu

possible life span of over 30 years would affect visual resources in the North Slope. It is expected, however, that these impacts would Foreground-Middleground Zone, b

ut may be visible in the Bac

kgrou

nd 

Zone and attract the attention of the viewer. Pipelines could 

ground level and would be visible within t

he Foregroun

d-Middleground Zone and possibly the Background Zone. Except during cons

and repair of pipelines, there would be no associated on-the-ground activity. Therefore, long-term i

mpacts to visual resources from p

expected to 

not attract the attention of the viewer if located beyon

d the Foreground-Middleground Zone. 

EFFECTS ON THE ECONOMY 

General Effects: Oil and gas exploration and development would benefit the economy by creating increased revenues and employment. By 2045, approximately $225 

million would be generated annually 

in property taxes. There would be an annual royalty of $596 

million for the 

federal government, and the same amount for the State of Alaska and the NSB. The number of jobs created by exploration, development, and production would reach 3390 to 7230 during 2045. The number of NSB resident jobs generated would be 175 to 385 at that time. Disruptions to the harvest of subsistence resources could affect the economic well being of NSB residents, pri

marily through the direct loss 

of subsistence resources. 

General Effects: Employment and some of the revenues generated byoils and gas exploration and develop

ment would be greater than 

under the No Action Alternative. By 2045, approximately $192 million would be generated annually in property taxes. The annual royalty would be about the same as in Alternative A The number of jobs created by exploration, development, and production would peak at 3600 to 7400 during 2045. The nu

mber of 

resident jobs generated would be 180to 395 in the same year. The likelihood for disruptions to the harvest of subsistence resources and associated eco

nomic impacts would 

be greater tha

n under the No Action 

Alternative. 

General Effects: The reven

ues and 

employment generated by oil and gas exploration and development would be greater than under the No Action Alternative and slighter greater than u

nder Alter

native B 

and the Alter

native D. 

Approximately $241 million would be generated i

n 2045 in property 

taxes. The an

n

ual royalty 

would be 

about t

he same as in Alternative A. 

The number of jobs created by exploration, development, and production wo

uld be 3,800 to 7,600 

during 2045. The number of resident jobs generated would be higher than the number generated under Alternati

ve B, 195 to 440 in 

the same year. The likelihoo

d for 

disruptions to the 

harvest of 

subsistence resources and associated econo

mic impacts would be greater 

than under the other alternatives. 

General Efand employmand gas expldevelop

men

under the NAlternative than Alterna$245 million annually in T

he royalty 

billion to be governmentAlaska. The by exploratioproduction wAlternative disruptions subsistence econo

mic im

than under tAlternative. 

 2-117 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

Chapter II: Alternatives 2-118 EFFECTS ON THE ECONOMY Cumulative: The Department of Energy estimated that the contribution of North Slope crude to domestically produced oil supplies w

percent in 2004 to 14 percent i

n 2020. This decli

ne could be mitigated, but not offset, by production from Northeast NPR-A, the Bea

Northwest NPR-A. Any increase in domestic oil pro

duction is expected to reduce U.S. depen

dency on foreign oil supplies, and, in tur

energy security and the overall balance of trade. 

Alaska general fu

n

d petroleum reven

ue in esti

mated at $4.3 billion, 88% of the tot

is expected to decrease to just over $2 billion in 2016, providing 77% of general fund revenues to the state. A parallel decline in revenexpected. The declining trend in revenues, jobs, and per capita incomes are expected to continue into the future (in the absence of a such as the natural gas pipeline project that would create a natural gas i

ndustry). It seems reasonable to en

vision a future trend wit

residents participating in oil and gas activities as Borough-related employment opportu

nities become 

very limited. T

his could mean 

activities as jobs in the oil and gas industry would not be able to provide the same level of flexibility as the Borough a

nd constructio

n 

reasonably foreseeable future, such as exploration and development in other areas of the NPR-A could mitigate these declining trento offset these declines. The development associated with the Northeast N

P

R-A could also ha

ve implications at t

he national level. 

EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH 

General Effects: Displacement of subsistence resources could lead to an increased consumption of store bought food relative to subsistence foods, resulting in increases in diabetes and related metabolic disorders. Food insecurity and hunger could become more prevalent because of impacts to subsistence. Stress resulting from impacts to subsistence, acculturative pressures brought by increasing influx of nonNative workers to Inupiat com

munities, 

and the potential for increases in drug and alcohol trafficking could combine to increase problems of social pathology (including substance abuse, domestic violence, child abuse, and suicide). Injury rates could increase in parallel with longer travel to locate subsistence resources, and increases in social pathology. Infectious disease prevalence could increase as a result of increasing contact between Inupiat residents and transient non-Native workers from other regions. Airborne pollutants could cause sporadic decreases in air quality and exacerbate respiratory illnesses. Contamination of the environment by emissions in the planning area could contact the human population through air, 

General Effects: Effects 

would be 

greater in mag

nitu

de and extent 

than under Alternative A, owing tothe larger area a

vailable for leasing, 

leasing of areas within critically important subsistence areas, and the greater overall level of activity, emissions, an

d surface occupancy

predicted. Another potential concern is the increased flexibility of the new performance-based stipulations a

n

d

ROPs. Since BLM has not used this approach in Alaska previously, and since year-to-year fun

ding for the 

monitoring and performance-based decisionmaking process required for this approach to achieve its management goals are uncertain, the efficacy of this approach is not certain. Resi

dents have expressed 

concerns that the increased flexibility offered by this approach will be interpreted in favor of the econo

mic interests of developers as 

opposed to the subsistence and socioc

ultural needs of local residents. 

General Effects: Because the entire Planning Area would be open for development, the risk ofdisr

uptions to subsistence wo

uld be 

substantially higher, i

ncreasing t

he 

risk of diabetes, metabolic disor

ders, 

food insecurity a

nd hunger, social

pat

hology, and inj

uries. The greater 

predicted influx of workers and larger magnitude of socioeconomic cha

nge would contrib

ute to

acculturation stress, social pat

hology, and physical health 

problems through the social determi

nants of health. At the same 

time, benefits such as emplo

yment

opportunity and increased revenuesmig

ht help to offset some of t

he 

adverse impacts to public health. Total e

missions would increase in 

rough proportion to the increased production possible under this alter

native, and emissions would 

contact subsistence resources and the human population over a wider range, leading to an increased potential for cancer, neurodevelopmental delay, and endocrine disruption than under the 

General Efsimilar in mAlter

native 

differences athe potentiaTeshekpuk Lalter

native. 
Alternative A 

(No A

ction Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Al

EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH 

water, or the food chain and contribute to problems of cancer, neurodevelopmental delay, and endocrine disease. Beneficial impacts on the socioeconomic determinants of health could include increased employ

ment opportunity and 

income; adverse change could include increased econo

mic disparity and 

decreased social capital. Stipulations and leasing restrictions would protect some of the most traditionally and practically important subsistence areas, reduce emissions of contaminants, and orient employees to minimizing sociocultural conflicts with Inupiat communities, all of which would help prevent impacts to public health. 

other alternatives. 

Cumulative:. In

upiat health status is evolving rapidly. C

hronic diseases, metabolic disor

ders, and cancer are becoming more com

m

appears to have increased fairly sharply over the last 50 years; social pathology is now considered epidemic, and is a matter of great the public health community. On the other han

d, life expectancy has increased, and mortality rates have declined owing in large 

sanitation, infection control, and infrastructure leading to lower rates of infectious diseases. Injury rates, though still markedly hig

h

U.S. population, have declined somewhat (Day et al. 2006, Goldsmith et. Al 2004). Overall, despite s

ubstantial improvements i

n hea

disparities in overall mortalit

y rates, as well as rates of specific problems such as cancer, injury, and social patholog

y. Infectious dis

prevalence will evolve under the combined influences of globalization, climate change, and local influx of workers for oil and gas projprevalence in t

his fairly isolated region is currently low, efforts to prevent transmission may be partic

ularly beneficial. 

As one of the primary drivers of socio-economic con

ditions, oil and gas activities are important “deter

minants of health.” In the fores

develop

ment o

n and offshore will contin

ue to be a major driver of the local econo

my for decades to come, and the decline in oil reven

u

force shaping socio-economic conditions. Under the cumulative scenario of climate change a

nd expa

n

ding oil and gas activit

y, it is v

subsistence resources and 

h

u

nters will be displaced from currently productive areas. As disc

ussed in section 4.8.13, t

his could resul

the social str

ucture in In

upiat com

m

u

nities; if the c

umulative development scenario results in a shift a

way from subsistence as a wa

disorders inclu

ding diabetes, hunger a

nd food insecurity, social pathology, a

nd inj

ury 

would likely increase. 

Social pathology might 

employment and econo

mic opportunity, but these benefits coul

d be offset by problems of increasing eco

nomic disparity, acculturation

Health problems related to contaminants, including cancer and respirator

y, neuro-developmental, e

ndocrine, an

d cardiovascular dis

contaminants from oil development enter the atmosphere, water, or food chain. The health care and social ser

vices a

vailable throug

and federal programs would mitigate some of these i

mpacts through intervention and treatment, but would 

not prevent these proble

 2-119 Chapter II: Alternatives 
Chapter II: Alternatives 2-120